Description du poste
If federal action in the US isn't forthcoming on AI, state Attorneys General (AGs) may end up being a central force on regulation of AI. I tasked Opus 5.5 with helping me collect some data on the actions that the various state AGs have taken on AI, to try to understand how much appetite there is among the states to take on AI companies.
Summary• Every state office has sent some kind of signal that they are willing to take on AI companies (e.g. signing a letter to an AI company)• A smaller group of states (15) have taken at least 1 step that indicates willingness to take initiative or lead actions against AI companies (e.g. opening its own investigation)• Several states in the second group (4) may now be in flux with a new Attorney General coming into office after the 2026 midterms• Only two states have an AG who has led or acted alone on AI and has a 1 GW or more data center within the stateThe state of state AGsWith the help of Opus 5.5, I collected data from the websites of state AGs on the various actions that each state has been involved in. I have Opus classify the actions each state is involved in and use these assignments to place the states into tiers 1-4, with higher tiers indicating that a state has taken more aggressive action to regulate AI. I think the move from 2 to 3 is particularly interesting, since this reflects the difference between a state passively joining actions by other AGs and an office initiating or leading actions itself. You can see the results of coding the states in this way below:
as of Nov 10, 2026
Most states have at least joined a brief, investigation or suit, although for many states the only action putting them in this category is the Character.AI bankruptcy. Some state-specific observations:
• NY is only at a 2 despite having a dedicated tech unit in the office and having some state-level appetite to regulate AI with the RAISE Act.• NM is at a 1 despite the AG there having just won a large jury verdict against Meta over data pri