Why a Single National AI Standard Would Benefit Providers and Users
A single federal framework for artificial intelligence would reduce friction for providers and create clarity for users. The current patchwork of state rules drives cost, risk, and delay-especially for startups and in-house teams trying to ship products without tripping legal wires.
An executive order issued on Dec. 11, titled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence," pushes in that direction. Its core idea: avoid overlapping, conflicting state mandates that could force providers to encode ideological preferences or sector-specific policies into models for each jurisdiction.
The Patchwork Problem
State AI laws vary widely. Some, like Colorado's ban on "algorithmic discrimination," reach differential treatment or impact and could prompt providers to tune models for each state's policy preferences.
That's not just a legal problem-it's a technical and operational burden. Teams must determine governing law per user, maintain different disclosures, and build controls that map to 50 definitions of risk, bias, and acceptable use.
The result: higher compliance cost, slower release cycles, and more surface area for litigation. For early-stage companies, that cost alone can stall product-market fit.
Why a National Standard Makes Sense
Think of how the GDPR became the reference point for privacy in the EU. Once businesses adjusted, it delivered consistent definitions, documentation practices, and consumer expectations. That uniformity built trust and made cross-border operations manageable.
A federal AI standard could do the same in the U.S.-common terms, consistent transparency, streamlined disclosures, and guardrails that providers and users can live with. That consistency would reduce regulatory uncertainty and support continued investment.
A useful U.S. analog: the Federal Trade Commission's 2007 amendments to the Franchise Rule, which modernized and standardized disclosures across states. Uniform rules do not remove risk, but they make it predictable.
Preemption, Federalism, and the Courts
Under the Supremacy Clause and Congress' commerce power, federal law controls where it expressly preempts state law, where compliance with both is impossible, or where state rules unduly burden interstate commerce. AI touches nearly every sector of interstate commerce, so these questions matter.
Expect edge cases. For example, state rules on AI use in education, employment, health, health care, or credit could be challenged as injecting ideological bias into tools. Courts will end up drawing the lines between valid state police powers and federal preemption.
Policy vs. Law: Congress Still Has the Ball
An executive order signals direction but has limited bite without legislation. Given strong industry lobbying, active interest groups, and the scale of capital flowing into AI, a federal statute is likely. The political timing is the open question.
What Legal Teams Should Do Now
- Leverage trade associations for policy updates, draft comments, and model frameworks.
- Monitor the National Institute of Standards and Technology for AI risk, testing, and documentation guidance. See the AI Risk Management Framework from NIST: NIST AI RMF.
- Benchmark disclosures and recordkeeping against GDPR-style practices to ease future harmonization. Source text: GDPR (EU).
Contract Terms to Lock In Now
Update terms of use, MSAs, or subscription agreements with clear AI-specific protections. Keep it plain, testable, and enforceable.
- Compliance warranty: tool complies with applicable laws (federal, state, and international).
- Bias controls: provider warrants the tool is regularly tested for bias with documented methods and remediation timelines.
- Indemnity: provider indemnifies for claims and damages arising from model design, training data, and algorithms; exclude losses tied to user inputs or misuse of outputs.
- Transparency: describe model updates, data sources, and evaluation practices at a reasonable level; notify of material changes.
- Audit/support: reasonable cooperation for regulatory inquiries; access to testing summaries or SOC-style reports where feasible.
- Geofencing/controls: if state-level constraints apply, provider maintains mechanisms to apply them without degrading service for other users.
Why This Matters
Uniform rules cut ambiguity. Providers can ship with confidence. Users can buy with clearer risk profiles. And legal teams can focus on substance-bias testing, documentation, and accountability-instead of reconciling 50 sets of definitions.
Bottom line: A national AI standard would raise trust, lower cost, and keep innovation moving. Until Congress acts, build contracts and compliance programs that anticipate federal preemption while remaining workable across states.
If your team needs structured learning paths to stay current on AI use and risk across roles, see our curated options: AI courses by job.
Your membership also unlocks:
