Colorado AI Act Delayed: A Fractured Tech Lobby and the Evolving US AI Regulatory Landscape

Compliance Hub

28 Aug 2025 — 10 min read

Bottom Line: Colorado's failure to amend its groundbreaking AI Act during a contentious special session reveals the deep challenges facing state-level AI regulation, while the broader US regulatory landscape remains fragmented between aggressive state initiatives and federal preemption efforts.

The Special Session Breakdown

Unable to reach an agreement on amending the Colorado AI Act during the special session, the Colorado legislature voted to delay the law's effective date from February 1, 2026, to June 30, 2026. The bill will next head to Governor Jared Polis, who is expected to sign it into law.

What appeared to be a promising compromise fell apart in dramatic fashion. Top Democrats in the Colorado legislature told their colleagues Sunday night that they had a framework of a deal on how to tweak the state's first-in-the-nation law regulating artificial intelligence after four days of intraparty disagreements and negotiations with the tech industry, schools, unions and consumer advocacy groups. However, the deal fell apart by Monday morning, and Rodriguez amended the bill to delay the implementation date.

The breakdown exposed the intense political pressure surrounding AI regulation. "Business, consumer protection advocates, labor and educators came together, but big tech didn't like the bill because they don't like the liability," Rodriguez said on the Senate floor Monday. "Overnight, the tech industry decided that they were so unhappy with the compromise that had been achieved by consumer protection organizations, educators, labor, and business that they would rather return to (the 2024 law)," he said on the Senate floor.

What Was at Stake

The original Colorado AI Act, passed in 2024, represents the nation's most comprehensive state-level AI regulation. The law, unless it is changed next year by the legislature, will require companies to assess and disclose, to regulators and consumers, when AI is being used for consequential decisions, like employment, loans and housing. It will also require companies to provide an explanation of how their technology works to consumers who don't like how AI made a determination.

Four competing bills were introduced during the special session, each proposing significantly different approaches:

SB 17: Sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez and Representative Brianna Titone — two of the three sponsors of the Colorado AI Act — SB 17 repeals the Colorado AI Act and replaces it with the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act.
HB 13: A minimal approach that repeals and replaces the Colorado AI Act with a bill that is perhaps most closely aligned with Utah's AI disclosure law.
Additional bills that would narrow the definition of "consequential decision" and create various exemptions for smaller businesses.

The Fractured Opposition

The failure reveals a "fractured technology and business lobby" that couldn't present a unified front. "Big tech companies do not want to come to the table — they do not want compromise, they do not want any liability," she said. "It was a nonstarter. They don't want to be responsible."

"When the bill passed two Marches ago, the big criticism was that it was an incredibly business-friendly bill," Troutman Pepper Locke Partner David Stauss told IAPP News. "After it passed, almost immediately, the startup tech community, the venture capital community, took the position that the bill was going to hurt innovation."

Some 200 business leaders, including some of Colorado's most prominent executives, have written the governor about their "collective concern" regarding the new law.

California's Parallel AI Push

While Colorado struggles with its pioneering law, California continues its aggressive AI legislative agenda. The state has become a testing ground for AI regulation, with dozens of bills moving through the legislature simultaneously.

Current California Developments

Twenty-three privacy and AI-related bills are set for appropriations committee hearings on August 29 — the deadline for bills to advance out of fiscal committees — while three other bills have already been processed.

California's approach has been more targeted and successful, with several significant measures already enacted:

Training Data Transparency: Assembly Bill 2013 centers on training data transparency, mandating that developers of generative AI models publicly post on their websites certain required information about the data used to train their models.
Content Detection: SB 942 requires large developers of generative AI systems to offer AI detection tools and watermarking capabilities to end users in connection with audiovisual content.
Employment AI Protection: Three bills before the California Legislature would govern how companies use AI in employment decisions, but they may be in jeopardy because of costs.

However, California also faced setbacks. California's governor vetoed SB 1047 – a bill intended to prevent catastrophic harms caused by AI and that had garnered significant media attention – because he disagreed with the law's threshold for compliance (targeting the largest AI models), which he determined was not backed by adequate data.

The California Model

Unlike SB 942, there are no quantitative thresholds that must be met before the law applies. This broad applicability approach contrasts sharply with Colorado's struggles to find workable compromise.

Given the broad applicability of AB 2013, the absence of any quantitative thresholds and the importance of California in the tech industry, this law is significant in terms of the number of developers that will be required to publish reports on their training datasets.

The Federal Preemption Threat

Adding complexity to the state regulatory landscape, the Trump administration has signaled strong interest in federal preemption of state AI laws.

The Federal Approach

On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," a budget reconciliation package setting forth President Trump's domestic agenda, including a sweeping 10-year federal moratorium on state regulation of AI systems, AI models, and automated decision systems.

If enacted, the moratorium would preempt existing state AI laws in California, Colorado, New York, Illinois, and Utah, as well as more than 1,000 pending AI bills across state legislatures.

The Trump administration's AI Action Plan emphasizes deregulation and federal coordination. "We need one common-sense federal standard that supersedes all states, supersedes everybody, so you don't end up in litigation with 43 states at one time." Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, had tried to champion an amendment in the recent megabill that would have put a moratorium on all state AI laws for ten years, but Republicans killed the measure before the final vote.

Industry Reactions

Even tech companies appear divided on federal preemption. Anthropic, for example, released a lengthy post responding to Trump's AI plan. "We share the Administration's concern about overly-prescriptive regulatory approaches creating an inconsistent and burdensome patchwork of laws," the company said, but added, "We continue to oppose proposals aimed at preventing states from enacting measures to protect their citizens from potential harms caused by powerful AI systems, if the federal government fails to act."

"The AI preemption provision is a dangerous giveaway to Big Tech CEOs who have bet everything on a society where unfinished, unaccountable AI is prematurely forced into every aspect of our lives," said Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at non-profit Demand Progress.

State Innovation vs. Federal Coordination

The tension between state innovation and federal coordination is becoming increasingly apparent across multiple states:

Unlike the European Union's comprehensive approach with the EU AI Act, the United States has not enacted a national AI law. Instead, the regulatory framework is emerging at the state level, much like privacy regulations, with an increasing number of states introducing their own AI laws and legislative proposals.

The Growing Patchwork

This growing wave of state-level legislation is creating an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape, posing operational and compliance challenges for businesses as they work to navigate differing obligations around the use of consumer data, AI systems, and automated decision-making.

Recent state developments include:

Utah: Enacted disclosure requirements for AI interactions
Kentucky: Created AI policy standards for government use
Maryland: Established working groups on private sector AI use
Montana: Enacted computational rights protections

Looking Ahead: What Changes When Colorado Returns?

The Colorado legislature will reconvene on January 14, 2026, for a regular session running through early May. Several factors will influence the outcome:

Political Dynamics

"I'm worried that we are rushing through something in this extraordinary session that will cause us to potentially pass some legislation that has a lot of unintended consequences," she said. The regular session will provide more time for deliberation and compromise.

Federal Uncertainty

The threat of federal preemption adds urgency to state action. If federal legislation passes, Colorado's window for AI regulation could close entirely.

Stakeholder Positioning

Negotiations over changes to the law will now take place during the regular lawmaking term that starts in January and ends in May, giving interest groups more time than a handful of days during the special session to iron out the details of what could be a nation-leading policy.

Implications for the National Landscape

Colorado's struggles illustrate broader challenges facing AI regulation in the United States:

The Compromise Challenge

The intensity of lobbying and the complexity of AI regulation make compromise extremely difficult. "All 35 of us in this building know that we too have witnessed the stunning brunt of AI leverage," she said.

State vs. Federal Authority

"In an ideal world, Congress would be driving the conversation forward on artificial intelligence, and their failure to lead on AI and other critical technology policy issues—like data privacy and oversight of social media—is forcing states to act," said Colorado Attorney General Paul Weiser.

Innovation vs. Safety

The debate reflects fundamental tensions between promoting innovation and protecting consumers. The United States lacks comprehensive federal legislation enacted specifically to regulate AI. Instead, its governance model is grounded in executive orders, the most important of which is former President Joe Biden's 2023 AI safety order.

Conclusion: A Critical Juncture

Colorado's AI Act delay represents more than a procedural setback—it reveals the fundamental challenges facing AI regulation in the United States. The failure to reach compromise despite extensive negotiations demonstrates the difficulty of balancing innovation with consumer protection in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

The broader implications are significant:

State leadership under threat: Federal preemption efforts could eliminate state AI regulation entirely
Industry fragmentation: The tech lobby's inability to present unified positions complicates legislative efforts
Regulatory uncertainty: Companies face a patchwork of conflicting requirements with potential federal override

When the Colorado legislature returns in January, it will face not only the challenge of crafting workable AI legislation but also the pressure of a ticking clock as federal preemption efforts advance. The outcome will significantly influence whether the US AI regulatory landscape develops through state innovation or federal standardization.

For businesses and advocates alike, the coming months represent a critical juncture that will shape AI governance in America for years to come. The question isn't just what Colorado will do with its pioneering AI Act, but whether states will retain the authority to regulate AI at all.

This analysis will continue to be updated as developments unfold in both state and federal AI regulation efforts.