Liability

" ... THERE SHALL BE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION BY PLENARY PROCEEDING FOR ANY PERSON HARMED BY ANY VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE BY ANY NATURAL PERSON OR ENTITY. THE COURT SHALL AWARD COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND LEGAL FEES TO THE PREVAILING PARTY."

" ... A DEFENDANT CAN REBUT PRESUMPTIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION THROUGH CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE SPECIFIED AI SYSTEM DID NOT CAUSE THE HARM OR HARMS ALLEGED AND/OR DID NOT VIOLATE THE ALLEGED LAW OR LAWS. AN ALGORITHMIC AUDIT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE IN REBUTTING SUCH PRESUMPTIONS, BUT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN AUDIT, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE."

" ... THE DEPLOYER OR DEVELOPER OF A HIGH-RISK AI SYSTEM IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR QUALITY AND ACCURACY OF ALL CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS MADE, INCLUDING ANY BIAS, ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION, AND/OR MISINFORMATION RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF THE AI SYSTEM."

" ... ‘claimant’ means a person bringing a claim for damages that: (a) has been injured by an output of an AI system or by the failure of such a system to produce an output where such an output should have been produced; (b) has succeeded to or has been subrogated to the right of an injured person by virtue of law or contract; or (c) is acting on behalf of one or more injured persons, in accordance with Union or national law."

" ... ‘potential claimant’ means a natural or legal person who is considering but has not yet brought a claim for damages; ... "

" ... ‘defendant’ means the person against whom a claim for damages is brought; ... "

" ... ‘claim for damages’ means a non-contractual fault-based civil law claim for compensation of the damage caused by an output of an AI system or the failure of such a system to produce an output where such an output should have been produced; ... "

" ... ‘duty of care’ means a required standard of conduct, set by national or Union law, in order to avoid damage to legal interests recognised at national or Union law level, including life, physical integrity, property and the protection of fundamental rights."

" ... Sec. 44.99.750. Civil liability for harm. (a) An individual who suffers harm as a result of a violation of AS 44.99.700 - 44.99.730, a violation of a regulation adopted under AS 44.99.740, or gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct relating to the use of artificial intelligence by a state agency or state employee may bring a civil action in the superior court against the state or state employee. (b) An individual who suffers harm under (a) of this section may recover damages for the harm to the individual, punitive damages under AS 09.17.020, and full reasonable attorney fees and costs in a civil action brought under this section."

" ... In determining whether a developer's act or omission breached its common law duty to take reasonable care with respect to critical risks, the following considerations are relevant but not conclusive: (1) the quality of the developer's safety and security protocol and the extent of the developer's adherence to it; (2) whether, in quality and implementation, the developer's investigation, documentation, evaluation, and management of critical risks was inferior, comparable, or superior to other developers of foundation models that may pose comparable critical risk; (3) the extent to which the developer responsibly informed the public of critical risks posed by its foundation models; and (4) whether the societal benefit produced by the developer's act or omission outweighed the associated critical risk."

" ... SEC. 5. DUTY OF CARE. (a) In General.—A developer or deployer shall not offer, license, or use a covered algorithm in a manner that is not safe and effective. (b) Safe.—For purposes of subsection (a), a covered algorithm is safe if— (1) the developer or deployer has taken reasonable measures to prevent or mitigate harms identified by a pre-deployment evaluation or impact assessment; (2) use of the covered algorithm as intended is not likely to result in a violation of this Act; and (3) the developer or deployer evaluates the possibility of not offering, licensing, or using the covered algorithm, or removing a covered algorithm from use, and reasonably concludes that— (A) use of the covered algorithm is not likely to result in substantial harm to individuals; (B) the benefits to individuals affected by the covered algorithm likely outweigh the costs to such individuals; (C) individuals can reasonably avoid being affected by the covered algorithm; and (D) use of the covered algorithm is not likely to result in deceptive practices. (c) Effective.—For purposes of subsection (a), a covered algorithm is effective if the developer or deployer has taken reasonable steps to ensure that— (1) the covered algorithm functions at a level that would be considered reasonable performance by a person with ordinary skill in the art; (2) the covered algorithm functions in a manner that is consistent with the expected performance and publicly advertised performance of the covered algorithm; (3) the covered algorithm functions in a manner that is consistent with any publicly advertised purpose or use; and (4) any data used in the design, development, deployment, or use of the covered algorithm is relevant and appropriate to the deployment context and the publicly advertised purpose."

" ... (b) In determining whether the developer exercised reasonable care as required in Section 22603, all of the following considerations are relevant but not conclusive: (1) The quality of a developer’s safety and security protocol. (2) The extent to which the developer faithfully implemented and followed its safety and security protocol. (3) Whether, in quality and implementation, the developer’s safety and security protocol was inferior, comparable, or superior to those of developers of comparably powerful models. (4) The quality and rigor of the developer’s investigation, documentation, evaluation, and management of risks of critical harm posed by its model."

" ... (c)(2) A court shall disregard corporate formalities and impose joint and several liability on affiliated entities for purposes of effectuating the intent of this section to the maximum extent allowed by law if the court concludes that both of the following are true: (A) The affiliated entities, in the development of the corporate structure among the affiliated entities, took steps to purposely and unreasonably limit or avoid liability. (B) As the result of the steps described in subparagraph (A), the corporate structure of the developer or affiliated entities would frustrate recovery of penalties, damages, or injunctive relief under this section."

" ... (c)(1) A provision within a contract or agreement that seeks to waive, preclude, or burden the enforcement of a liability arising from a violation of this chapter, or to shift that liability to any person or entity in exchange for their use or access of, or right to use or access, a developer’s products or services, including by means of a contract of adhesion, is void as a matter of public policy."

" ... A PERSON IS GUILTY OF UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OR PUBLICATION OF A FABRICATED PHOTOGRAPHIC, VIDEOGRAPHIC, OR AUDIO RECORD WHEN, WITH INTENT TO CAUSE HARM TO THE LIBERTY OR EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL, FINANCIAL OR PHYSICAL WELFARE OF AN IDENTIFIABLE PERSON OR PERSONS, THE ACTOR INTENTIONALLY CREATES OR CAUSES TO BE CREATED A FABRICATED RECORD OF SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS AND DISSEMINATES OR PUBLISHES SUCH RECORD OF SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS WITHOUT SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS' CONSENT."

" ... Any person depicted in a still or video image, INCLUDING AN IMAGE CREATED OR ALTERED BY DIGITIZATION, regardless of whether or not the original still or video image was consensually obtained, shall have a cause of action against an individual who, for the purpose of harassing, annoying or alarming such person, disseminated or published, or threatened to disseminate or publish, such still or video image, where such image: ... "

" ... A PERSON IS NOT RELIEVED OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR CONDUCT BECAUSE IT INVOLVES THE USE OF DIGITIZATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE MATERIAL CREATED OR ALTERED BY DIGITIZATION INDICATES THROUGH A LABEL OR SOME OTHER FORM OF INFORMATION PUBLISHED THAT DIGITIZATION WAS USED. EVIDENCE OF USE OF DIGITIZATION MAY BE OFFERED WHENEVER IT IS RELEVANT TO ESTABLISH OR NEGATIVE THE CRIME CHARGED."

" ... A DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL SHALL HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AN ACTOR WHO DISCLOSES, DISSEMINATES, OR PUBLISHES DIGITALLY-ALTERED MATERIAL THAT CONTAINS A FALSE STATEMENT OR REPRESENTATION WHICH PLACES SUCH INDIVIDUAL IN A FALSE LIGHT, IF: I. THE FALSE LIGHT IN WHICH THE DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL WAS PLACED WOULD BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON; AND II. (A) WHERE THE DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL IS A PRIVATE PERSON, THE ACTOR KNEW OR IN THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE CARE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE FALSITY OF SUCH DIGITALLY-ALTERED MATERIAL; OR (B) WHERE THE DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL IS A PUBLIC FIGURE, THE ACTOR HAD KNOWLEDGE OF OR ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD AS TO THE FALSITY OF SUCH DIGITALLY-ALTERED MATERIAL."

" ... (b) On and after January 1, 2028, a person may bring a civil action against a deployer for violation of this Section. In an action brought under this subsection, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the deployer's use of the automated decision tool resulted in algorithmic discrimination that caused actual harm to the person bringing the civil action. (c) In addition to any other remedy at law, a deployer that violates this Section shall be liable to a prevailing plaintiff for any of the following: (1) compensatory damages; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Section 35. Impact assessment. (a) Within 60 days after completing an impact assessment required by this Act, a deployer shall provide the impact assessment to the Attorney General. (b) A deployer who knowingly violates this Section shall be liable for an administrative fine of not more than $10,000 per violation in an administrative enforcement action brought by the Attorney General. Each day on which an automated decision tool is used for which an impact assessment has not been submitted as required under this Section shall give rise to a distinct violation of this Section."

" ... VI – liability: unless otherwise provided for in Law, the rules on the liability of agents acting in the development and operation chain of artificial intelligence systems shall be based on subjective liability and consider the effective participation of these agents, the specific damages that are to be avoided or remedied, and how these agents can demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations through reasonable efforts consistent with international standards and best market practices."

" ... Paragraph 4. Legal entities governed by public law and those governed by private law that provide public services shall be liable for damages that their agents, in this capacity, cause to third parties, ensuring the right of recourse against the person responsible in cases of intent or fault."

" ... (b) (1) On and after January 1, 2026, a person may bring a civil action against a deployer for violation of this section. (2) In an action brought pursuant to paragraph (1), the plaintiff shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the deployer’s use of the automated decision tool resulted in algorithmic discrimination that caused actual harm to the person bringing the civil action. (c) In addition to any other remedy at law, a deployer that violates this section shall be liable to a prevailing plaintiff for any of the following: (1) Compensatory damages. (2) Declaratory relief. (3) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.22756.7. (a) Within 60 days of completing an impact assessment required by this chapter, a deployer or a developer shall provide the impact assessment to the Civil Rights Department. (b) (1) A deployer or developer who violates this section shall be liable for an administrative fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation in an administrative enforcement action brought by the Civil Rights Department. (2) Each day on which an automated decision tool is used for which an impact assessment has not been submitted pursuant to this section shall give rise to a distinct violation of this section."

" ... 3. That compliance with the provisions of Chapter 58 (§ 59.1-607 et seq.) of Title 59.1 of the Code of Virginia, as created by this act, shall not (i) relieve a person from liability for any causes of action that existed at common law or by statute prior to July 1, 2026, or (ii) be construed to modify or otherwise affect, preempt, limit, or displace any causes of action that existed at common law or by statute prior to July 1, 2026."

" ... A. Each deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence system shall use a reasonable duty of care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination."

" ... A. Each developer of a high-risk artificial intelligence system shall use a reasonable duty of care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended and contracted uses."

" ... I. Nothing in this chapter shall create a private cause of action in favor of any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter."

" ... A deployer shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination."

" ... A developer shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from intended and contracted uses of a high-risk artificial intelligence system."

" ... (a) Not later than 6 months after the effective date of this act, a deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. In any enforcement action brought not later than 6 months after the effective date of this act, by the attorney general pursuant to section 6, there is a rebuttable presumption that a deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence system used reasonable care as required under this section if the deployer complied with this section and any additional requirements or obligations as set forth in rules promulgated by the attorney general pursuant to section 7."

" ... (a) Not later than 6 months after the effective date of this act, a developer of a high-risk artificial intelligence system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended and contracted uses of the high-risk artificial intelligence system. In any enforcement action brought not later than 6 months after the effective date of this act, by the attorney general pursuant to section 6, there is a rebuttable presumption that a developer used reasonable care as required under this section if the developer complied with this section and any additional requirements or obligations as set forth in rules promulgated by the attorney general pursuant to section 7."

" ... (e) nothing in this chapter, including the enforcement authority granted to the attorney general under this section, preempts or otherwise affects any right, claim, remedy, presumption, or defense available at law or in equity. A rebuttable presumption or affirmative defense established under this chapter applies only to an enforcement action brought by the attorney general pursuant to this section and does not apply to any right, claim, remedy, presumption, or defense available at law or in equity."

" ... (f) this chapter does not provide the basis for, and is not subject to, a private right of action for violations of this chapter or any other law."

" ... Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, each developer of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended and contracted uses of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. In any enforcement action brought on or after such date by the attorney general pursuant to this article, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a developer used reasonable care as required pursuant to this subdivision if: (i) the developer complied with the provisions of this section; and (ii) an independent third party identified by the attorney general pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subdivision and retained by the developer completed bias and governance audits for the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system."

" ... Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, each deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. In any enforcement action brought on or after said date by the attorney general pursuant to this article, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system used reasonable care as required pursuant to this subdivision if: (i) the deployer complied with the provisions of this section; and (ii) an independent third party identified by the attorney general pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subdivision and retained by the deployer completed bias and governance audits for the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system."

" ... Nothing in this article shall be construed as providing the basis for a private right of action for violations of the provisions of this article."

" ... SEC. 403. Private right of action. (a) Enforcement by individuals.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Any individual or class of individuals alleging a violation of title I, II, or III, or a regulation promulgated thereunder, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. (2) RELIEF.—In a civil action brought under paragraph (1) in which the plaintiff prevails, the court may award—(A) treble damages or $15,000 per violation, whichever is greater; (B) nominal damages; (C) punitive damages; (D) reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs; and (E) any other relief, including equitable or declaratory relief, that the court determines appropriate."

" ... (1) RIGHT OF ACTION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—If an individual 18 years of age or older, or any person that is not an individual, (referred to in this subparagraph as the “sender”) knowingly sends an individual (referred to in this subparagraph as the “recipient”) a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or using any meansed to in this subparagraph as the “recipient”) a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce, without the consent of the recipient, knowing that, or recklessly disregarding whether, the recipient has not provided consent to receive the visual depiction, the recipient may bring a civil action against the sender in an appropriate district court of the United States for relief under paragraph (2)."

" ... Any person who has been exhibited as engaging in falsified material activity in an advanced technological false personation record may bring a civil action before the appropriate Federal district court for damages under paragraph (2) and injunctive relief under paragraph (3) against a person who violates subsection (a) or alters an advanced technological false personation record to remove or meaningfully obscure the disclosures required under subsection (a)."

" ... Any person who, directly or indirectly, deploys or causes to be deployed, an artificial intelligence model shall be deemed to satisfy the scienter, other state of mind, or negligence requirements of the Federal securities laws with regard to any and all acts, practices or conduct engaged in by such model, and any outcome resulting from the use of such model, and shall be liable to the same extent as if such person had committed such acts, practices or conduct directly, unless such person took reasonable steps to prevent such acts, practices, conduct and outcome, which may include but are not limited to establishing, maintaining and enforcing written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the Federal securities laws."

" ... Civil liability of a developer of an artificial intelligence model for design defects or breaches of implied warranties with respect to such a model out of which arise a violation of the Federal securities laws may not be waived."

" ... In a civil case in which the presumption under subsection (a) is applicable, any persons that distributed the pricing algorithm and knew, or could reasonably have known, that the pricing algorithm would use, incorporate, or be trained with nonpublic competitor data shall be jointly and severally liable for any violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) or section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a))."

" ... A covered entity may not design or employ services or algorithms, or process, collect, store, or transfer personal data, in a manner that causes or is likely to cause any of the following: (1) Physical, economic, relational, or reputational injury to a person. (2) Psychological injuries that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. (3) Discrimination on the basis of a person’s or class of persons’ actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics), religion, national origin, familial status, biometric information, or disability status. (4) Discrimination regarding a decision that produces a legal effect or similarly significant effect concerning a person."

" ... Notwithstanding any action by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(B), any covered individual adversely affected by an alleged violation of section 3, 4, or 7, may commence a civil action against any person that violates such section in any Federal court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any action by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(B), any labor organization adversely affected by an alleged violation of 4 or 7 may commence a civil action against any person that violates such section in any Federal court of competent jurisdiction."

" ... (f) Liability of an employer for a violation by a third party or service provider that the employer uses for workplace surveillance.—A violation of section 4 by a third party or service provider that the employer uses for workplace surveillance shall be considered a violation of such section by the employer if the employer knew or should have known about such violation."

" ... (3) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—(i) COVERED INDIVIDUAL.—Notwithstanding any action by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(B), any covered individual adversely affected by an alleged violation of section 3, 4, or 7, may commence a civil action against any person that violates such section in any Federal court of competent jurisdiction. (ii) LABOR ORGANIZATION.—Notwithstanding any action by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(B), any labor organization adversely affected by an alleged violation of 4 or 7 may commence a civil action against any person that violates such section in any Federal court of competent jurisdiction."

" ... A distributor of a high-risk artificial intelligence system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination."

" ... DEPLOYER DUTIES. A deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination."

" ... DEVELOPER DUTIES. (a) A developer of a high-risk artificial intelligence system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended and contracted uses of the high-risk artificial intelligence system."

" ... The civil liability for damages resulting from the usage of Artificial Intelligence systems will be attributed to its supervisor."

" ... In addition, to clarify any questions about liability for damages resulting from artificial intelligence systems, the project defines that the liability will always lie with the system’s human supervisor."

" ... (i) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) and subject to clause (ii), a person who produces, distributes, or makes available the digital replica of a deceased personality’s voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording without prior consent from a person specified in subdivision (c) shall be liable to any injured party in an amount equal to the greater of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or the actual damages suffered by a person controlling the rights to the deceased personality’s likeness."

" ... (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), a person who uses a deceased personality’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c), shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by the injured party or parties, as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing these profits, the injured party or parties shall be required to present proof only of the gross revenue attributable to the use, and the person who violated the section shall prove the person’s deductible expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing party or parties in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs."

" ... If the digital impersonation is or is part of a paid advertisement, a cause of action for digital impersonation may be brought only against the person or entity that originated, ordered, placed or paid for the advertisement."

" ... A provider of an interactive computer service may not be subject to an action for digital impersonation for publishing information that is provided by another information content provider."

" ... ON AND AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 2026, A DEVELOPER OF A HIGH-RISK ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM SHALL USE REASONABLE CARE TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM ANY KNOWN OR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE RISKS OF ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION ARISING FROM THE INTENDED AND CONTRACTED USES OF THE HIGH-RISK ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM. IN ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION BROUGHT ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 2026, BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 6-1-1706, THERE IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT A DEVELOPER USED REASONABLE CARE AS REQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION IF THE DEVELOPER COMPLIED WITH THIS SECTION AND ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN RULES PROMULGATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 6-1-1707."

" ... ON AND AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 2026, A DEPLOYER OF A HIGH-RISK ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM SHALL USE REASONABLE CARE TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM ANY KNOWN OR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE RISKS OF ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION."

" ... THIS PART 17 DOES NOT PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR, AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO, A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS PART 17 OR ANY OTHER LAW."

" ... NOTHING IN THIS PART 17, INCLUDING THE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER THIS SECTION, PREEMPTS OR OTHERWISE AFFECTS ANY RIGHT, CLAIM, REMEDY, PRESUMPTION, OR DEFENSE AVAILABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY. A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS PART 17 APPLIES ONLY TO AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION AND DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY RIGHT, CLAIM, REMEDY, PRESUMPTION, OR DEFENSE AVAILABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY."

" ... A vendor that develops, procures, uses, or otherwise implements an ADS or WIS on behalf of an employer shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. An employer shall be jointly and severally liable for a vendor’s failure to comply."

" ... A vendor that collects, stores, analyzes, interprets, disseminates, or otherwise uses worker data on behalf of an employer shall comply with the requirements of this chapter, and employers are jointly and severally liable if the vendor fails to do so."

" ... An employer or vendor that violates this section shall be subject to an injunction and liable for civil penalties provided in this chapter, which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action by the attorney general."

" ... Where AI products and services cause damages to others and the provider has failed to fulfill its obligations under this Law, the provider shall bear tort liability (侵权责任).

Where critical AI products and services cause damages to others and the provider cannot prove that it is not at fault, the provider shall bear tort liability. Where the law prescribes compensation limits, compensation shall be in accordance with its provisions, except where the developer or provider of the critical AI showed intent or gross negligence."

" ... If the use of AI products and services causes damages to others and the user is at fault, the user shall bear tort liability; if the developer or provider of the AI has failed to fulfill its obligations under this Law, it shall bear the corresponding tort liability. Where [other] laws dictate otherwise, liability shall be attributed in accordance with their provisions."

" ... The provider of AI services, after receiving the notification, shall promptly forward said notification to the relevant users and alert them of the infringement risk; if it fails to take the necessary measures in a timely manner, it shall bear joint and several liability with the user for the expanded portion of the damages.

Where a provider of AI services knows or should know that a user has utilized the AI service it provides to infringe upon the civil rights and interests of other people and fails to take the necessary measures, it shall bear joint and several liability with the user."

" ... Where the use of a foundation model to engage in AI development, provision, or use activities violates the provisions of this Law and relevant laws and administrative regulations, and infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the State, society, or other people, the developer, provider or user of the AI derived from the use of the foundation model shall bear legal liability. If the provider of the foundation model knows or should know that the developer, provider, or user of the derived AI engages in illegal activities using its foundation model, and fails to take the necessary measures, causing damages to others, it shall bear joint and several liability with the developer, provider, or user of the AI. However, this does not apply in cases where the foundation model is an open-source model.

The developer of the foundation model shall sign an agreement or a standard contract with the developer, provider, or user of the derived AI specifying the scope of authorization, usage restrictions, risk handling, and legal liability."

" ... (1) A depicted individual who is identifiable and who suffers harm from a person's intentional disclosure or threatened disclosure of a fabricated intimate image without the depicted individual's consent has a cause of action against the person if the person knew or acted with reckless disregard for whether: (a) The depicted individual did not consent to the disclosure; and (b) The depicted individual was identifiable."

" ... (1) A person is not liable under this chapter if the person proves that disclosure of, or a threat to disclose, an intimate image or fabricated intimate image was: (a) Made in good faith in: (i) Law enforcement activities; (ii) A legal proceeding; or (iii) Medical education or treatment; (b) Made in good faith in the reporting or investigation of: (i) Unlawful conduct; or (ii) Unsolicited and unwelcome conduct; (c) Related to a matter of public concern or public interest; or (d) Reasonably intended to assist the depicted individual. (2) In an action brought under RCW 7.110.020 and subject to subsection (3) of this section, a defendant who is a parent, legal guardian, or individual with legal custody of a child is not liable under this chapter for a disclosure or threatened disclosure of an intimate image, as defined in RCW 7.110.010 (11), of the child. (3) If a defendant asserts an exception to liability under subsection (2) of this section, the exception does not apply if the plaintiff proves the disclosure was: (a) Prohibited by law other than this chapter; or (b) Made for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, humiliation, degradation, or monetary or commercial gain. (5) A person is not liable in an action brought under section 12 of this act if the fabricated intimate image is commentary, criticism, or disclosure protected by the Washington state Constitution or the United States Constitution."

" ... A distribution platform, as described in subsection (4)(c), is not liable for the lack of disclosure content created in whole or substantially by artificial intelligence in a qualified political advertisement or prerecorded telephone message if the distribution platform can show that the distribution platform provided notice of its prohibitions related to a lack of disclosure of content created in whole or substantially by artificial intelligence in a qualified political advertisement or prerecorded telephone message."

" ... A cause of action against a person for the nonconsensual dissemination of a deep fake exists when: (1) a person disseminated a deep fake with knowledge that the depicted individual did not consent to its public dissemination; (2) the deep fake realistically depicts any of the following: (i) the intimate parts of another individual presented as the intimate parts of the depicted individual; (ii) artificially generated intimate parts presented as the intimate parts of the depicted individual; or (iii) the depicted individual engaging in a sexual act; and (3) the depicted individual is identifiable: (i) from the deep fake itself, by the depicted individual or by another individual; or (ii) from the personal information displayed in connection with the deep fake."

" ... No person shall be found liable under this section when: (1) the dissemination is made for the purpose of a criminal investigation or prosecution that is otherwise lawful; (2) the dissemination is for the purpose of, or in connection with, the reporting of unlawful conduct; (3) the dissemination is made in the course of seeking or receiving medical or mental health treatment, and the image is protected from further dissemination; (4) the deep fake was obtained in a commercial setting for the purpose of the legal sale of goods or services, including the creation of artistic products for sale or display, and the depicted individual knew that a deep fake would be created and disseminated in a commercial setting; (5) the deep fake relates to a matter of public interest; dissemination serves a lawful public purpose; the person disseminating the deep fake as a matter of public interest clearly identifies that the video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, photograph, or other item is a deep fake; and the person acts in good faith to prevent further dissemination of the deep fake; (6) the dissemination is for legitimate scientific research or educational purposes, the deep fake is clearly identified as such, and the person acts in good faith to minimize the risk that the deep fake will be further disseminated; or (7) the dissemination is made for legal proceedings and is consistent with common practice in civil proceedings necessary for the proper functioning of the criminal justice system, or protected by court order which prohibits any further dissemination."

" ... Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability upon the following entities solely as a result of content or information provided by another person: (1) an interactive computer service as defined in United States Code, title 47, section 230, paragraph (f), clause (2); (2) a provider of public mobile services or private radio services; or (3) a telecommunications network or broadband provider."

" ... A DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL SHALL HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A PERSON WHO DISCLOSES, DISSEMINATES OR PUBLISHES SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL RELATED TO THE DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL, AND THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL IN THAT MATERIAL DID NOT CONSENT TO ITS CREATION, DISCLOSURE, DISSEMINATION, OR PUBLICATION."

" ... A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE RIGHTS OF A DECEASED PERSONALITY UNDER THIS SECTION OR A LICENSEE THEREOF SHALL NOT HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A USE PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION THAT OCCURS BEFORE THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OR LICENSEE REGISTERS A CLAIM OF THE RIGHTS."

" ... A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE UNDER THIS SECTION IF: I. THE PERSON DISCLOSES, DISSEMINATES OR PUBLISHES THE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL IN THE COURSE OF REPORTING UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, EXERCISING THE PERSON'S LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES, OR HEARINGS, TRIALS OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS; OR II. THE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL IS A MATTER OF LEGITIMATE PUBLIC CONCERN, A WORK OF POLITICAL OR NEWSWORTHY VALUE OR SIMILAR WORK, OR COMMENTARY, CRITICISM OR DISCLOSURE THAT IS OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE OR THE UNITED STATES; PROVIDED THAT SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED OF NEWSWORTHY VALUE SOLELY BECAUSE THE DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL IS A PUBLIC FIGURE."

" ... The provider or prospective provider shall be liable under applicable Union and national liability law for any damage caused in the course of their testing in real world conditions."

" ... Nothing in this article shall be construed to establish a private right of action associated with violations of this article."

" ... (c) No Private Right of Action: This Chapter does not create a private right of action for consumers."

" ... (a) Duty of Care: Developers must use reasonable care to identify, mitigate, and disclose risks of algorithmic discrimination."

" ... Right Of Action.—Any parent of a teenager or parent of a child alleging a violation of section 1303 or a regulation promulgated under such section with respect to the covered information of such teenager or child may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction."

" ... An online service shall not be liable for violating the right described in subsection (b) by referring or linking a user to an unauthorized digital replica, or by carrying out an activity described in subsection (c)(2), if, upon receiving a notification described in paragraph (3), the online service removes or disables access to the material that is claimed to be an unauthorized digital replica as soon as is technically and practically feasible for that online service."

" ... No person shall be secondarily liable for a violation of this section for manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise distributing a product or service unless the product or service— (i) is primarily designed to produce 1 or more unauthorized digital replicas; (ii) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to produce an unauthorized digital replica; or (iii) is marketed, advertised, or otherwise promoted by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in producing an unauthorized digital replica."

" ... (a) (1) A covered provider that violates this chapter shall be liable for a civil penalty in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation to be collected in a civil action filed by the Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel. (2) A prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this subdivision shall be entitled to all reasonable attorney’s costs and fees. (b) Each day that a covered provider is in violation of this chapter shall be deemed a discrete violation."

" ... Any covered entity or service provider that violates any provision of this act shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation, which may be recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the District of Columbia by the Attorney General."

" ... Any person aggrieved by a violation of this act may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction, and the court may award an amount not less than $100 and not greater than $10,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater."

" ... No private right of action. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any private party against the State of Alabama, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."

" ... A person or entity who uses an individual’s voice or likeness in a manner that violates subsection (c) shall not be liable if the harm caused by such conduct is negligible."

" ... A cause of action for injunctive or other equitable relief may be maintained against any person who is reasonably believed to violate or who is in the course of violating section 11-A by: (1) The attorney general; (2) The campaign spending commission; (3) A county attorney or county prosecutor; (4) The depicted individual; (5) A candidate for nomination or election to a public office who is injured or is likely to be injured by dissemination of materially deceptive media; or (6) Any organization that represents the interest of voters likely to be deceived by the distribution of materially deceptive media."

" ... The hypotheses of civil liability arising from damages caused by artificial intelligence systems within the scope of consumer relations remain subject to the rules provided for in Law No. 8,078, of September 11, 1990 (Consumer Protection Code), without prejudice to the application of the other norms of this Law."