March 17, 2026 · Technology and Innovation Committee · 6,631 words · 14 speakers · 85 segments
I will now call this meeting of the House Technology and Innovation Committee to order. Please stand if you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Clerk, you'll please take the roll.
Chair Claggett? Here.
Vice Chair Workman? Here.
Ranking Member Mohammed? Here.
Representative Bryant Bailey? Here.
Representative Cochley? Here.
Representative Demetrio?
Representative Ferguson? Representative Hall?
Here. Representative Holmes?
Here. Representative Ty Matthews?
Here. Representative McClain?
Here. Representative Miller?
Representative White? Present.
With quorum being present and one more rep coming in, this is good. We will proceed as a full committee today. The other two, perhaps committee members understand the other two are still in travel, and so they'll join us here in a moment. All right, on your iPad, you have the minutes from the previous meeting on Wednesday, March 11th. Remember, last week we were out of order as far as our days, but are there any objections to the minutes as presented? Without objection, the minutes are approved. All right, the chair will bring forward House Bill 426 for its second hearing, and I will
now recognize Vice Chair Workman for a motion. Thank you, Chair. I move to amend House Bill 426 with Substitute Bill L-136-1424-3.
All right, the motion is in order. The substitute bill is on your iPads for review. Would the vice chair please briefly explain the sub-bill?
Yes, this substitute bill primarily strengthens consumer protections and improves the operational framework for managing digital assets. The major changes include extending the dormancy period from two years to five years, adding a required notice period before assets are transferred, allowing flexibility for the state to manage smaller digital assets that may be volatile, CLARIFYING CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDING LIABILITY PROTECTIONS FOR THE STATE WHILE HOLDING THESE ASSETS.
VERY GOOD. REP DIMETRIO, IS YOUR BILL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT FURTHER?
YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT. MY OFFICE WORKED AND REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS WORKED PRETTY CLOSELY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO TRY TO BE AMENABLE TO SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL. the bill, I think in a perfect world, they probably wouldn't want to have to deal with this, but I think wherever this committee or individual members stand on digital assets, I think it's a reality that's going to become a bigger reality for citizens and our state government. So we're just trying to codify a clear framework on how to deal with these assets in the context of unclaimed funds. So just wanted to highlight our close work with the Department of Commerce, which I feel is reflected in this amendment. Thank you.
That's actually helpful. Committee, remember, we're trying to thread a needle on some of this stuff that's pretty real. So I appreciate that explanation. That's helpful. All right. Are there any objections to adopting the sub bill as presented? All right. Without objection, substitute Bill L-136-1424-3 is adopted into House Bill 426. Okay. All right, this concludes the second hearing on House Bill 426. All right. I will now bring forward House Bill 413 for its fifth hearing and recognize Vice Chair Workman for a motion on that bill.
Thank you, Chair. I move to amend House Bill 413 with Amendment AM 1361892.
All right, the motion is in order. The amendment is again on your iPads for review. The Vice Chair, please explain the amendment.
Yes, the amendment sets a timetable requiring state entities and political subdivisions to provide their expenditure and revenue information annually for five years, then every six months, six months and requiring the Treasurer of State to update the databases with such information annually for five years than every six months.
Very good. Are there any objections to adopting this amendment? Without objection, Amendment AM 1361892 is adopted into House Bill 413. I will now recognize Vice Chair Workman for a motion.
Thank you, Chair. I move to favorably report House Bill 413 as amended and recommend it be re-referred to the Committee on Rules in Reference.
Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Claggett? Yes.
Vice Chair Workman? Yes.
Ranking Member Muhammad? No.
Representative Bryant-Bailey? No.
Representative Cockley? No.
Representative Demetrio? Yes.
Representative Ferguson? Yes.
Representative Hall? Yes.
Representative Holmes. Yes.
Representative Ty Matthews. Yes.
Representative McLean. Yes.
Representative Miller. Representative White. No.
All right. With eight affirmative votes and four negative votes, the bill was favorably reported and recommended for re-referral to the Committee on Rules and Reference. Members, please sign the report as it is passed around. We will keep that roll open until 5 o'clock today at the clerk's office. All right, this concludes then the fifth hearing on House Bill 413. All right, do you want to do 628 next thing? The chair will now bring forward House Bill 628 for its third hearing. And I will now recognize Logan Colas with the American Consumer Institute for Interested Party testimony. Please proceed.
Chair Claggett, Vice Chair Workman, Ranking Member Mohamed, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on very important legislation. I have written testimony here. It's a bit long, so I'm not going to sit here and read the whole thing to you. But I do want to talk pretty candidly about my thought process on this bill that I've considered over the past two weeks. For a while, it vexed me because it's so novel. I tried to think about different ways and different private governance structures, but I've long been a believer in what's called soft law. And for the purposes of the committee, you can think of soft law as governance without government. That could be everything from private rating systems on the NASDAQ to technological standards in the video game industry or rating systems for movie theaters, all the way to something I've long been a proponent of, which is the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which is basically best practices. House Bill 628 takes a different approach. It basically tries to create a marketplace of different risk mitigation bodies. So it's trying to balance the tradeoffs between innovation and of risk, and of risk mitigation and artificial intelligence, which I think is particularly apt at this time because so many people are scared of where artificial intelligence is going to go. I think this bill personally, after long thought, balances those risks better than boast, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. I do think there are some imperfections in the bill that the committee should be aware of and try and guard against. But before I do any of this, I want to just take a little bit of time to talk about Ohio's experiences with soft law and how the line between soft law and hard law, so governance without government along with strict statutory requirements, are starting to blur. Some of this started in 2018 in Ohio where there was legislation that set out that if companies followed best practices on data breach, so consumer data security, that they would be given what's called an affirmative defense in court. Then in 2022, Ohio decided to, well, first I should say, when Ohio considered that bill in 2018, it was so successful that Utah and Connecticut both adopted the approach. So it was basically giving you a stronger defensive court, which is a little different than what this bill does with rebuttable presumption versus affirmative defense They slightly legal different concepts that are largely trying to get around similar things But that approach was so successful that Connecticut and Utah both considered the bill later and then Ohio put it in what's called the Ohio Personal Privacy Act, which did not pass, unfortunately, because I thought it was one of the best bills in the country. I thought it created a unique and novel framework that was iterative in the sense that it was flexible and allowed governance and private practices to evolve and change over time. Basically, the problem with hard law is when you set it into stone, the technology evolves so quickly that it becomes quickly outdated. The point of soft law is to try and encourage flexibility and evolution over time as the rules and technologies change. Unfortunately, Ohio didn't pass that specific law, but Tennessee did. So they got a lot of the credit for going down that specific path on affirmative defenses in court and creating evolving and iterative frameworks. Unfortunately, I would say the downside is these laws are only as good as the underlying governance structures that they protect. Colorado would later take what was designed as a defensive shield to try and shield businesses that are operating in good faith, and they put it in the Colorado AI Act, which I consider to be one of the most dangerous bills in the country. Well, it's now law. Many have considered it basically imports the European framework on what would be, in this case, called the EU AI Act with all sorts of nebulous definitions of what would be considered a high-risk use case. For artificial intelligence, the law has been an absolute nightmare. Colorado passed the law two years ago, and they spent the better part of two years now kicking the can down the road. Now they put the NIST framework in there to try and shield against many of the follies of the law. So that brings me back to the fact that your soft law framework, in this case the rebuttable presumption that you're putting in the law, is only as good as what it's protecting and trying to encourage. So I spent the better part of my last couple of weeks after reading the bill trying to figure out what exactly this bill was trying to encourage and how it compares to the different types of legislation in other states that I personally consider to be pretty problematic. In doing so, it basically spins up this private governance framework where you end up with these IVOs, this is important, voluntary IVOs for businesses that are acting according to good faith to try and compete in a marketplace to signal to consumers that they are following certain best practices. For doing so, they are rewarded not with amnesty, not with legal immunity, but with a stronger defensive court because they are signaling and acting in good faith. And the attorney general provides a check on that by setting out in the bill specific guidelines for what should be considered in that. So for all these reasons, I'm generally supportive of the framework that 628 is pushing. I do want the committee to be alert to some of the risks that could come from the legislation and perhaps consider some guardrails to try and guard against some of those. One of those is the risk, maybe not in Ohio, but in other states, that an activist attorney general would try and use the legislation to jawbone companies into compliance with the rule. Obviously, we don't want that. These soft law structures, in this case, the IVO framework, have value because they are voluntary and because they are iterative. And that leads me to my next point, which is you will probably, there's a good chance that you could have private market incentives to take a voluntary law of companies that are in unique positions to be able to comply with it and turn it mandatory. Which is something that I think we need to be very keenly aware of as a problem. Because the value comes from the voluntary and iterative nature of these things evolving over time. That's how you get the flexibility. If you make it mandatory, you're really delegating away a lot of your ability to legislate and create carefully crafted law around artificial intelligence. So that's something that we need to guard against. I think you could do that in text. The other thing I think you guys could consider is potentially thinking through how it synergizes with other pieces of legislation already under consideration in the committee. One of those would be the Right to Compute Act, basically saying that the legislation that the committee considers or passes has to just meet a compelling government interest. It's basically saying that any law worth doing is worth doing well, which is something that I think is particularly apt in the artificial intelligence era because we're less than three months into 2026, and we already have 1,500 laws. I have 1,500 bills, I should say. About 9.5% of the bills introduced become lost according to the Future of Privacy Forum. That was a number from 2025. So that's a pretty high hit rate. So we do run the danger of spinning up a very dangerous web for a technology that's going to change very quickly. And I will consider, one thing I will raise for the committee is that you just be aware of the fact that what you're considering right now of artificial intelligence actually includes a lot of different technologies. That won't involve LLMs or chatbots. Like it very reasonably could spin up into a world of world models, where rather than looking through text, that you're actually using different devices or technologies to measure world experiences. So you could very easily end up in a case if you have mandatory strict legal requirements that put you in the awkward position of having laws geared around chatbots that actually don't have anything to do with text. So I say all of this just because I like a lot of, after weeks of consideration, I think House Bill 628 is very thoughtful, and it's voluntary and private governance structure. But I do think that we have to be aware of some of the risks and consider either other pieces of legislation that we think would complement it well, such as right to compute, or other amendments to the legislation to put guardrails on the tendency to turn a voluntary and successful government solution into something that ultimately becomes a problem five years from now. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.
Representative Demetrio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Coles, for your testimony. And I agree. Representative Matthews is a very thoughtful guy. And seriously, so I wanted to ask you a couple things. First, I brought this up to the representative when he was giving his testimony. One of my concerns is all the big tech companies want this, right? And it feels like it's kind of the foxes running the hen house a little bit. All the lobbyists are gonna try to get whatever is good for them into these sorts of frameworks to make it easier to get these licenses or whatever the proper nomenclature is. And I'm concerned too that that could stifle the little guys in this process. And so I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. And then also I'd like to hear about what's the risk of not doing this bill? Is there one? I'm just curious on your thoughts.
Sure. Well, let me start by answering your second question first before I get to the little guy because I've written pretty extensively about that because I think that fits into the larger picture of artificial intelligence laws throughout the country. but let me just start by saying what the risks of not doing this are. I think what we've seen is you're going to see different proposals, mostly ones that have been formed in Colorado or New York called the RAISE Act or SB53, RAISE Act in New York, SB53 in California. Basically, these set out two different proposals to govern what are called frontier model regulation. I put them as the seventh worst category of legislation in my AI Terrible 10 report. But one of the dangers that we have on that is for all the problems of the patchwork, New York and Colorado are very much synergizing their rules. So basically New York took what was a very problematic framework and basically copied a lot of what California was doing, leading to a bi-coastal squeeze, where California and New York basically decide for the rest of the country what frontier model regulation should look like. There are definitional problems, uncertainty issues. There's a lot of reasons that I think that's particularly problematic. But now it's because of certain government incentives that's now being attached in other states to other types of bills. So instead of just like frontier model regulation, you're now having frontier model regulation paired with like algorithm pricing or kids online safety or basically competing interests within the same bill that they're then trying to push together. So I think the risk of not doing something like this is you end up with something like the RAISE Act or California's SB 53, which has been spreading through wildfire throughout the country and I have particular issue with. I think it's a particularly problematic framework. As for your point on squeezing out the little guy, there's a chance that it could do that, but hard law would squeeze them out more. right if you had a mandatory statute that says that you have to have all these compliance costs and actually comply with the patchwork that is far more likely to to actually hurt the little guy as they try and they don't have the resources of big tech you know to go state by state and hire on the lot the lawyers and lobbyists like big tech had far greater influence on things like sp53 and raised they in many cases they supported it and i opposed it right like i i think those are particularly problematic frameworks So like in this case I would agree with you that if this thing becomes mandatory I think that would be a particularly big problem for the little guy And it might pose some more minor problems to the little guy now but it far better than the alternatives that we seeing in other parts of the country
Before we get to some of the other reps, I want to step back for a minute. Let's get a give us a little more of your background. Where are you coming from in regard to the big picture? you and your organization, where are you coming from to this issue?
Yeah, so about me, I worked for the Buckeye Institute for about four years before I took this job working for the American Consumer Institute in D.C., but I'm still an Ohio native and a Columbus resident, so I still live here in German Village. What Ohio does is very important to me. What I'm asking is what are the core tenets of the organization you're representing? We're a generally free market, pro-market consumer group. So I want to put some context to your remarks. That's fine.
Representative White.
Yes, thank you. And thank you, Chair. And thank you for your testimony today. I wanted to go back and spoke when you spoke about your concerns. And I'm going to loosely quote because I might not be able to read what I wrote. But going back to when you spoke about you said AI or tech will change very quickly and tighten those because it's so multifaceted. that tightening too quick could cause restrictions that can cause cuts or restrict innovation. And another end, maybe that doesn't even exist yet, or like you said, if I'm using text messaging, that we could be putting guardrails in and so understand that soft law. And I wanted to go back to ask, the bill includes the reptile presumption against civil liberty, and from that for verified AI systems. So from your perspective, and of course this is you, you can be completely honest with us here, does it create accountability concerns then, or does it provide appropriate clarity when we're talking about developers and employers?
Well I think we're deciding between which kind of accountability that we want to have. So we can either do accountability through the 1500 AI bills that have been introduced this year and the 1200 that were introduced last year, as I mentioned 9.5% of them are becoming law, Or we can do it through a tort system, which I think is a tacit admission of the fact that AI is far more regulated than a lot of people already think, right? So, and I will clarify that just giving a rebuttable presumption in court, there are plenty of safeguards in the bill that basically say if you violate any of these things, you don't get that rebuttable presumption. And also that this is not immunity from action, right? It just means that the other person needs to prove that you're at fault because you had the foresight to go through and try and prevent a lot of these harms.
Can I get one follow-up?
Please.
Thank you. Can you repeat the bill in California that you referenced that we could also use as alternative regulatory models?
Yeah, so that would be SB 53. 253?
53.
53. Okay.
Thank you.
Good. Thank you.
Representative Muhammad.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony as well. I did want to ask, I know one of the things that you laid out was the concern that you had with the Attorney General on oversight. I guess what would be some recommendations that you have? Would you be in favor, for example, of a task force or additional professionals outside of the attorney general's office doing some of the oversight? What would be some recommendations if you have any?
Well, so I'll start with the fact that the bill spins up an AI advisory council to try and make sure that what the attorney general is doing is it basically tries to put certain limitations on making sure that you don't have rogue unchecked powers. That being said, a lot of what you're talking about already exists and is spinning up in the AI era. There's going to be a lot of different experts and softball organizations that, regardless of what you do in this bill, are going to try and spin up to create standards and oversight. The way I see it, that's unpreventable. You're going to have, whether somebody likes it or not, you're going to have a lot of different regulations on artificial intelligence. And then you're also going to have new norms and best practices that spin up. The one I would probably bring up to you is the NIST standard, the National Institute for Standards and Technology. They're doing a lot on artificial intelligence already. And I will get into this. This is one of the dangers that I actually see. We're trying to force this already. We have one for AI, which is more new, and then we have one for privacy that is drawn on industry best practices over the course of 20, 30 years. Trying to force something that's developed over 20, 30 years and incentivize that is far different than trying to incentivize something that's been here for two years and still has all sorts of problems. So not all soft laws created equal, but all that being said, this bill specifically isn't setting up something that is directly related to that, but it is creating a novel governance structure. that I personally think is far better than a lot of the alternatives that we're seeing in other states.
Senator Ferguson.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony. The Chair and the Vice Chair are actually on House Government Oversight Committee with me. We're going to be talking about regulatory sandbox later this afternoon, and you and I have talked about that. I know you're very, very aware of that. But any of these bills that kind of touches on these licensures, I like to try to take that like approach of erring on that side of giving them a little bit more leeway. Like, for instance, this here says the bill permits the attorney general to license, but I'd much rather people be licensed within a context possibly, and then maybe they would have the ability to reel it back if they're acting outside of that. So the point of the question being taking a page out of the regulatory sandbox kind of mindset, how would you see us moving forward with this bill maybe and erring on that side of giving people some extra leash or rope before pulling it back?
Well, I definitely think that's something that we should do. And when you start to pull the bits and pieces of things, I think hidden within the puzzle pieces of the Ohio Tech and Innovation Committee is a unique perspective on AI governance that isn't being considered in other states. When you pair something like the regulatory sandbox, which looks at existing outmoded rules. The way I describe that is silicon is currently colliding with jurisdictional steel, and the sandbox is a great way to go at and look at specific outmoded regulations that weren't designed around artificial intelligence to try and pick those out. Compare that with something like right to compute, which could, in my opinion, synergize very well with something like House Bill 628. That's how you become a leader among other states as you end up with this package of different ideas that other states aren't pursuing that squares well, and that's how you become a visionary for the future with AI leadership.
Let's go a little further on this concept that you articulated in regard to voluntary versus required. Yeah. Rep. Matthews, maybe you want to weigh in as well, but let's start with you. I want to understand where you think that line is more fully compared to what we've got in the text of the bill. as compared to where you think the tipping point is when it crosses over into something problematic?
I think there's a few ways to look at it. I think one of them could be two years from now. Let's say the approach is successful. Let's say 40% of companies join. Well, then you end up with regulation by raised eyebrow of like, hey, this 40% of the company has already joined this thing. Why are these 60% not joining it? You could theoretically see different private companies that would only contract with somebody that would have the licensure, the voluntary licensure under this bill. That would create a pretty big market incentive for people to go into something that's mandatory. And the other one is, like, if you end up with AI, AI so novel, I'm just kind of pontificating with you, right? Of, like, you could end up in a situation where AI ends up with insurances to hedge against some of these risks, right? And it could be that a company that has this would represent a lower risk to the insurance agency, and they'd pay a lower premium, right? And if they're paying a lower premium, that creates an incentive for other companies to move towards a mandatory framework. My point is there's a lot of ways, and I can't sit here and enumerate every single one of them. It could be governmental, private market, the gambit of ways for this to create an incentive to what is voluntary now become mandatory. And I think that should be the impetus of the committee is trying to decide how to keep what I've landed on as a pretty good policy, how to keep it a good policy two years from now.
Okay. I didn't hear the bright line language that I'm looking for. Can you give me more clarification?
I'm sorry?
Can you give me more clarification? Well, I think your explanation is helpful in regard to where it could go. Yeah. We are lawmakers. We have to have words that have implication to that. I'm struggling on what you think those words would need to be in addition to what we already have.
Oh, okay. I think I understand your question more now. This was kind of my point, right, of like you could either put specific words in the bill, of which I don't have like specific terminology for what could actually go in right now, but I'd be happy to work with your office to come up with some of that. The alternative is to pair it with other types of legislation that would put specific guardrails on this, saying that you have to meet a compelling government interest, and if this thing were to become mandatory, there's a chance it could violate that kind of thing. That helps a bit.
Rep, you want to weigh in at all?
Through the chair, I think I'd probably just be reiterating, I think the biggest concern here would be in two years it's become mandatory. So if we were adding language to this bill to really beef it up and ensure that this verification process could not be mandatory in the future whether it a review of the of this process two years from now Those would be the only suggestions I would have if that answering your question And to echo Representative Demetrio's case, I think that is a concern of mine, too, is ensuring that this bill works for the innovator, the small startup company that we are, as a state, leading in this space from large to small. Yeah, for sure. I think that's right.
Rep. Dmitriot, do you want to weigh in any further?
Because the language – I don't want us to do the impossible, right? But we see the connection between some of these other bills clearly in what we're trying to do here. I'm just wanting to be sure we've got all the words on the table because you've got a handle on some of the stuff that is in the arena here of balls in the air here. Do you want to help enumerate? Sure, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, sure, thanks. I guess, yeah, I appreciate it's voluntary and, you know, you can do it if you please rather than mandatory. I like that. I guess in reality, though, you know, we all can probably identify something in the free market where, you know, it's an optional sort of tag to have on the bottom of your website where it's like, hey, you don't have to have this. And maybe other entities are saying you don't even have to have this to do business with us. but really everyone knows that you have to have that to do business with the government or some other entity. And so I guess that's, you know, I'm not sure how do we mitigate that risk, but I mean, we can all probably acknowledge, even if we don't want to acknowledge out loud, like that is a reality. And you can see how easily this could happen with, hey, you have to go through all this compliance, voluntary, but you have to go through all this compliance to get this, you know, IBO certification. And, you know, if you have a ton of lawyers and you have a big balance sheet, no problem. We got, that's just a line item, a rounding error. But if you're some entrepreneur or innovator, you can see how this could be difficult to kind of overcome that hurdle to get that big contract or whatever it may be. Yeah, that's right.
I think what I want to leave this committee, let's have you hook up with Rep Matthews' office. let's let you spin that around for a bit and you hear the connection between these other pieces of the bills we've got we need LSC to help us get this stuff in line let's be sure we're doing that I think that's an important piece of this so are you comfortable leaving it there for the moment? just for clarification we're looking at language to add to the bill I don't know if we are or not I want you to hear him out. Because what I don't want us to do is assume we know what's going to happen in two years. I don't think we know what's going to happen in two months in regard to this enormous spin-up that's around us. But I do think we want to take seriously the issue of the concern. We'll be back as a committee. We can change this if we have to. But let's try to get it as right as we can. Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Then I do have a question I think is relevant as we go forward. Could you give us a definition? I'd be interested. This is designed to mitigate risks. What do you think of when you think of risks to AI?
Because I've been thinking about that a lot, and I don't have a clear answer. What's risky? I think that's tough. I think there's a lot of different kinds of risk. Right. There's certain some people worry about like specific risks around like child online safety. Some people worry about risks of bias. The problem is risk risk is so broad. Right. So really other states, when they consider this, they're really trying to think through like transparency. Right. So like so that consumers can be aware of like how the model works. And right now, one thing that I've been in discussion with some other peer organizations is how to kind of come up with that owner's manual of artificial intelligence. This would, again, be a private governance thing, important. I think this would be something that I could see coming out more something like a university that basically tells people how the model works. Because right now, one of the biggest risks, in my opinion, is just people don't understand how the model works. So when you get junk in, junk out, they're like, I don't really understand what this means. So that's one of the risks. But there's really many risks.
Wait a minute. Let's think about this for just a second here. The way I've been approaching this, and maybe I'm wrong, but I've been seeing that the body of law that we have in Ohio is relatively sufficient in regard to crime and things of that nature as it replies to human on human. In my mind, the challenge here is applying that same standard to an electronic system that has capability in and of itself. And so I think in my mind, at least for initially, I think we should concentrate on adherence to the known torts that we have. What do you say? Mr. Truman, then I think that's value to be more specific on defining what risks. that'll, we'll get a lot of promise there. Let's work together on that. I want to move on pretty quickly. Representative McLean, let's hear what you guys say.
Yeah, thank you, Chair. I think you're, agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying there, you know, because, and with what you're talking about here with soft law and how we as a legislature are constantly in a battle in keeping up with innovation and if we try to be specific on, in technical terms on a lot of these things, we're always out of date with the industry. And so we have to be conscious of applying the wrongs that we know today and relate them to what could be in these new forms of technology. So I guess to kind of bring it back to 628, my question is always sort of that line of when government needs to get involved. Like, do we – is this IVO certification through the government, the legal protection, the rebuttable presumption language, is that necessary? Or are there private market solutions, you know, like we've talked about on this bill? Otherwise, consumer reports or the UL listing, like, are there private solutions to this problem? Could something outside of the realm of government provide this IVO service, or does it have to have that AG legal protection for this to be viable? I guess just to kind of throw that out to you.
It's quite possible. I mean, that's the problem with being a future teller, right? It's quite possible that soft law will spin up in response to very real market concerns or market demands that people have. But at the same time, I think we should be alive to the fact that AI is probably more regulated than a lot of us already think. that comes from already existing laws that already apply to AI. There are plenty of deep fake laws, laws against child porn, all of which apply to artificial intelligence. Making clarifications to make sure in statute that they do apply, I think is very important. But also not reinventing the wheel when we already have a wheel, I think is part of this as well. And we should also be alive to the fact that, you know, I think AI is probably far more exposed to the American tort system than a lot of people think, both on two counts. They're exposed to it on the product liability side. and then they're also exposed to it on the negligent side. So in that sense, AI is very regulated, and I've warned about potential over-regulations of other technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, that the court applies a very strict standard in a way that does slow technological progress. So at some point we have to ask what type of regulations we want to be okay with.
Yeah, well, we don't know, but we're working on it. Rep. I know you have a question. I really want to move on, though. So please keep your question. We're going to revisit this, clearly. And in fact, I'd encourage you to get a hold of Rep. Matthew's office if you have two things. Thank you for your time. We've strung you out just a little bit. Do stay in touch. This is very challenging stuff, okay? But thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. Challenging but important. Thank you everyone.
All right. This concludes the third hearing for House Bill 628. All right. The chair will now bring forward House Bill 505 for its third hearing. And I will recognize Vice Chair Workman for a motion.
Thank you, Chair. I move to amend House Bill 505 with substitute Bill L1361527-4.
The motion is in order. The substitute bill is on your iPad for your review. Would the chair, vice chair, briefly explain the sub-bill?
Yes, the substitute bill makes several changes and accomplishes the following. Streamlines the refund process for campaigns on crowdfunding platforms. Modifies the reporting guidelines for crowdfunding platforms to the Attorney General's office to only require reporting on campaigns that raise over $10,000. And renumbers the statutes in the bill to place it under the purview of the charitable law section of the Attorney General's office.
All right, very good. Are there any objections to adopting this sub-bill? All right, then. Without objection, substitute bill L-136-1527-4 is adopted into House Bill 505. All right, more on this bill later, but for now, this concludes the third hearing for House Bill 505. All right, seeing no other business. This concludes then the House Technology Innovation Committee. We are adjourned.