State AI Safety Laws: California, New York, and Illinois
Safety Protocols, Incident Reporting, Civil Penalties
KPMG Regulatory Insights
- Landmark Convergence: The new Illinois AI Safety Act is based on New York’s recent RAISE Act and California's TFAIA; California’s law was the first state law to address potentially catastrophic risks from AI; Illinois’ law is the first to require third-party audits.
- Large Developers/Models: Currently only a few companies and models may meet the revenue and compute thresholds, but recent trends suggest this number could rapidly increase between now and 2030; these thresholds will be subject to annual evaluation and may be revised based on technology and/or standards developments.
- Unclear Future: Some state AI laws may be challenged/preempted under EO 14365 or the White House National Policy Framework for AI; it is unclear whether the option to defer to federal laws/guidance may alleviate some or all of this risk.
- De Facto National Standard?: As states converge on similar legislative priorities for safe deployment of frontier AI models, the requirements could effectively establish a “de facto” national standard in lieu of federal legislation or regulations.
In mid-2026, Illinois enacted a law that imposes protections for the safe deployment of large "frontier AI models,” based on laws enacted by New York and California in late 2025. The laws are similar in that they aim to mitigate catastrophic risks from these powerful models (as defined in the laws) by requiring the developers to publish information about their safety protocols, including risk assessments, and to report critical safety incidents to the state. The Illinois law includes additional requirements, including annual independent third-party compliance audits for large frontier developers.
The laws become effective as follows:
- California's law, the “Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act” (TFAIA), was signed by the governor on September 29, 2025, and went into effect January 1, 2026.
- New York's law, the “Responsible AI Safety and Education Act” (RAISE Act), was signed on December 16, 2025, and will go into effect January 1, 2027.
- Illinois' law, the “Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act” (Illinois AI Safety Act), was signed on July 6, 2026, and will go into effect January 1, 2027.
This Regulatory Alert focuses on the key similarities and differences among the three laws.
Two additional points are especially notable:
- The White House issued Executive Order 14365, "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence", on December 11, 2025. The EO sets forth directives to establish a federal policy framework for AI laws and regulations while limiting regulatory fragmentation and “onerous and excessive” AI laws and regulations across the states that may inhibit innovation (see the related KPMG Regulatory Alert.) The White House followed the EO with its “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” legislative recommendations on March 20, 2026. (see the related KPMG Regulatory Alert.) It is not yet clear whether the California, New York, or Illinois AI safety laws will be challenged under the provisions of EO 14365 or the National Policy Framework for AI.
- The final version of the RAISE Act agreed to by the New York governor differs substantially from the version passed by the New York legislature. In New York, before signing, the governor has the option to negotiate with legislative leaders to make changes, referred to as “chapter amendments,” to a bill. The governor then signs the original bill and the “chapter amendments” are subsequently introduced as a separate piece of legislation that implements the changes. In this instance, the negotiated changes to the RAISE Act were designed to align with many of the provisions in California’s TFAIA. On January 6, 2026, the legislature introduced NY A 9449 and S 8828 to incorporate the negotiated chapter amendments, and they are currently moving through the voting process. The Regulatory Alert is based on the provisions in NY A 9449/S 8828.
Key Provisions & Comparison of CA, NY, and IL Laws
Provision | Text | CA | NY | IL | |
Core Requirement | Frontier AI Framework: A set of documented technical and organizational protocols that a large developer must write, implement, and publish regarding how it will manage, assess, and mitigate catastrophic risks (as defined in the law; see “Risk” below). | ● | ● | ● | |
Models | The law covers a:
| ● | ● | ● | |
Developers | The definition of a “developer” includes:
| ● | ● | ● | |
Developer explicitly excludes:
| × | ● | × | ||
Risk | “Catastrophic risk,” is defined as a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier developer’s development, storage, use or deployment of a frontier model will materially contribute to death of/injury to >50 people, OR >$1 billion in damage arising from a single incident involving a frontier model that is:
| ● | ● | ● | |
Lead State Agency or Agencies | California:
| ● | × | × | |
New York:
| × | ● | × | ||
Illinois:
| × | × | ● | ||
State Administration Fee | A large frontier developer must pay its pro rata share of the state's costs to administer the Act. | × | × | ● | |
Incident Definition | “Critical Safety Incident,” defined to include events such as the unauthorized access to a model's weights that results in death or bodily injury, the materialization of a catastrophic risk, or a model using deceptive techniques to subvert its developer's controls. | ● | ● | ● | |
Incident Reporting | California: Report "critical safety incidents" to:
| ● | × | × | |
New York: Report "critical safety incidents" to:
| × | ● | × | ||
Illinois: IEMA-OHS, in consultation with the Attorney General, must establish a mechanism that frontier developers and members of the public may use to report critical safety incidents to:
| × | × | ● | ||
Public Disclosure | Must publish the full "Frontier AI Framework" and a "Transparency Report" for each new model. | ● | ● | ● | |
A large frontier developer may not develop, deploy, or operate a frontier model without filing a current disclosure statement with IEMA-OHS, and IEMA-OHS must publish a list of large frontier developers that have filed disclosure statements. | × | × | ● | ||
Authorizes a $1,000-per-day civil penalty, plus recovery of unpaid assessments, for failure to file the required disclosure statement or correct false disclosure information. | × | × | ● | ||
Third-Party Review |
| ● | ● | ● | |
Primary Penalties | The state’s Attorney General’s office may bring a civil action to enforce the law against violations. | ● | ● | ● | |
| ● | × | × | ||
| × | ● | ● | ||
Whistleblower Protections |
| ● | × | ● | |
An employee may sue for injunctive relief and be awarded reasonable attorney's fees. | ● | × | × | ||
Requires a process that provides monthly status updates to the reporting covered employee and shares disclosures and responses with officers and directors at least quarterly, subject to an exception for implicated officers or directors. | × | × | ● | ||
Scope | Explicitly applies to any frontier model developed, deployed, or operating, in whole or in part, within the state. | ● | ● | ● | |
Severability Clause | If any part of the Act is held invalid, the remaining provisions will stay in effect. | ● | ● | ● | |
Deference/ Preemption | Permits frontier developers to comply with federal laws/guidance regarding critical incident reporting provided the federal laws/guidance are intended to assess, detect, or mitigate catastrophic risk and the requirements for reporting are the same or more stringent than the state law. | ● | ● | ● | |
Preempts local laws or ordinances passed after January 1, 2025, that regulate the same subject. | ● | × | × | ||
Makes regulation of frontier AI models an exclusive state power, prohibiting local governments from regulating frontier AI models as a “denial and limitation of home rule.” | × | × | ● | ||
Prohibition | Explicitly prohibits developers from making materially false or misleading statements about risk or compliance. | ● | ● | ● | |
Confidentiality | Reporting of critical safety incidents and risk assessments submitted to OES are exempt from the California Public Records Act to protect trade secrets and public safety. | ● | × | × | |
Exempts the following from disclosure under the state public records law:
| × | × | ● | ||
Annual State Report | The relevant state office will produce an annual public report containing anonymized and aggregated information from critical safety incident reports it has reviewed... | …beginning on January 1 of the year after the law goes into effect | ● | ● | × |
…beginning on January 1, 2029 | × | × | ● | ||
Independent Audit | Beginning January 1, 2028, or 90 days after first qualifying as a large frontier developer, whichever is later, a large frontier developer must annually retain an independent third party to audit compliance with the frontier AI framework requirements. | × | × | ● | |
Within 30 days after receiving the audit report, the large frontier developer must publish a high-level summary of the audit findings and a redacted copy of the report and transmit the redacted copy of the report to IEMA-OHS and the Illinois Attorney General. | × | × | ● | ||
The large frontier developer must retain an unredacted copy of the audit report for as long as the frontier model is deployed plus 5 years. | × | × | ● | ||
Internal Use Reporting | Requires large developers to transmit summaries of catastrophic risk assessments from the internal use of their models to the relevant state office every three months. | ● | ● | ● | |
| ●: provision appears in law ×: provision does NOT appear in law | |||||
Dive into our thinking:
State AI Safety Laws: California, New York, and Illinois
Safety Protocols, Incident Reporting, Civil Penalties
Download PDFExplore more
Subscribe to receive regulatory and compliance transformation insights
By registering you will periodically receive additional compliance-related communications from KPMG.
Meet our team