The current legislative session is tackling 21st-century issues. Legislation addressing the impacts of technology, especially artificial intelligence, social media and data use, is a major consideration for lawmakers this year. We touch upon some controversial topics.
HB286 Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments would require AI companies to publish reports on risk assessments, provide protections for whistleblowers and, most notably, force them to implement protocols for “child safety risks,” which the bill partially defines as severe emotional distress. This bill had momentum, but President Trump recently asked Utah leaders to abandon it, citing inconsistency with his recently signed executive order directing states not to pass AI legislation that stifles innovation. Will Utah follow the president’s lead or adopt a different approach?
Cowley: Trump’s executive order directs states not to create a patchwork of AI regulations. Utah lawmakers have a love/hate relationship with President Trump, but being called to the principal’s office by The Donald seems to have caught their attention. Our Legislature doesn’t often back away from its crusade against Big Tech, but with numerous other bills in the works, coupled with Trump’s admonishment, HB286 is not mission-critical this session.
Two years ago, Utah created the Office of AI Policy, which houses the AI Lab. The Lab allows businesses to apply for regulatory relief to implement AI technologies safely and in a studied manner. This balances consumer protections and encourages innovation. This is exactly what we need more of — coordination between tech and government, allowing AI to advance responsibly while placing Utah on the map as the hub for this world-altering technology.
Pignanelli: “Regulation should not restrict fundamental concepts like math, which is essential for AI development.” — Ben Horowitz
When regulating communications, the federal government moves fast. Within months of the first telegraph signal in 1844, the U.S. postmaster was given control of this technology. Congress began supervising the internet through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a year before I sent my first email. These and similar congressional actions were implemented to prevent a patchwork of state laws and foster innovation.
In 2025, President Trump issued the executive order “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The goals are to curb state AI laws, encourage innovation and eliminate “woke” applications. Because this administration mandate is not a statute, it may not survive a legal challenge. Therefore, Utah lawmakers are incentivized to take action that does not completely contradict the president but allows for some framework to exist should the Supreme Court reject the executive order.
SB287 Targeted Advertising Tax places a tax on online ads. This is a high priority for Gov. Cox and many lawmakers to regulate technology companies while funding various adolescent mental health initiatives. However, these fees would immediately be passed on to businesses that use such advertising, which is a hefty number. Could this be one of the major battles in the session?
Cowley: This is a tax on businesses, plain and simple. Proponents of the bill portray it as a tax on big, bad tech companies, but in reality, the financial burden will be passed along to businesses both large and small. Utah’s entrepreneurial spirit has spawned an impressive number of online startups. These companies range from a crafty mom’s Etsy shop to a multimillion-dollar enterprise. Both thrive because of their ability to reach customers through social media and online ads, which this bill would tax, increasing their costs.
Pignanelli: Supporters of the legislation compare this to the taxes on lifestyle vices that promote remedial activities. The most cited example is the surcharge on cigarettes, which funds tobacco cessation programs and cancer research. SB287 uses the tax on targeted advertising to assist child literacy, youth sports, children’s mental health and public park programs. The argument is that social media causes harm that the fees can remediate.
Despite the compelling messaging, online advertising is not tobacco. Almost all businesses and nonprofits that advertise through technology platforms benefit the economy and do not cause harm. Further, the proposed tax is likely preempted by federal law, a critical issue raised by several senators in a committee hearing.
There are numerous other bills dealing with image, data, and other aspects of technology. Where are they headed?
Cowley: HB276 Artificial Intelligence Modifications, sponsored by Rep. Defay, is aimed at addressing the dark and unseemly possibilities of AI. As online sexual abuse becomes more prolific, it’s imperative that we protect victims in the modern age with legal remedies and takedown rights.
Paris Hilton has been advocating for the DEFIANCE Act at the federal level, which allows victims of explicit AI-generated images to sue the deplorable creators. Legislation should punish the true culprits, the creators, not the technological tool being manipulated for perverse purposes. While GROK is the disgusting outlier, intentionally designed to produce filth, most AI tools strive to implement safeguards. The DUI driver is prosecuted, not the distillery or automaker. AI legislation should follow this framework. People, not computers, are the perpetrators.
Pignanelli: I am among the few remaining dinosaurs who review legislation on paper, not screens. Thankfully, Renae and her contemporaries are negotiating good resolutions to these complicated technology matters.
Note: We represent companies and organizations with interests in the issues described above.