State-led efforts to place guardrails on artificial intelligence have mostly steered clear of the third rail of tech regulation: allowing citizens to sue to enforce the laws.
These private rights of action are often stripped from bills, or never included in the first place, because the tech industry will go to the mat opposing them. Many lawmakers do not think it is worth the fight.
But that didn’t deter a powerful committee chair in New York from introducing a sweeping AI regulation bill this year that includes a private right of action.
At 29, Sen. Kristen Gonzalez (D), dubbed a “zillennial” in City & State, is the state’s youngest senator and the youngest woman ever elected to the chamber. She is also chair of the Senate Internet & Technology Committee, a member of the National Conference of State Legislatures AI task force, and a participant in a bipartisan, multistate AI policy working group.
Gonzalez spoke with Pluribus News about her efforts to regulate AI and why she believes a private right of action is essential to holding companies accountable. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Pluribus News: How are you thinking about the rapid advancement of AI, its role in society and whether that’s something to be embraced, feared, regulated, unleashed? What’s your philosophy?
Kristen Gonzalez: I see it as an opportunity to build a better future for all of us. A lot of my work has revolved around what young people want to see in our society in the future. And what I’ve learned and understood from my constituents and young people today is we’re excited about innovation, we’re excited about the potential of new technology, and we also see the risks as very real.
In the past, we’ve seen other generations make mistakes by being reactive with their legislation. We want a government that is modern and knowledgeable on these technologies, but also proactive in regulating these sectors so that we’re maximizing the benefits while also mitigating the risks.
PN: And you are confident that you can both regulate this technology and still encourage or at least not hinder innovation?
Gonzalez: Yes, I am confident that we can do that. But what I’m more confident about is our need to do that because we’ve seen how deeply hurtful it can be to an everyday person when these technologies do not work as intended.
A good example, and one that was certainly top of mind recently for a lot of my constituents, was what happened with UnitedHealthcare when they used an AI-powered tool to help make decisions about coverage that had a 90% error rate and resulted in rejections. We should certainly be focusing on the current use cases, especially those that are high risk.
(Note: The error rate was alleged in a 2023 class action lawsuit regarding denial of rehabilitation care. UnitedHealthcare says it pays about 90% of claims upon submission.)
PN: Last year, as a first-term lawmaker, you passed laws related to deepfakes in elections and state use of automated decision-making technologies, including the nation’s first protections for government workers who might be replaced by AI. What is your priority for 2025?
Gonzalez: That set us up really well for this year because we have looked at democracy, we have looked at public sector, and now naturally we need to turn and look at the private sector. So we introduced the New York AI Act, which gets to the heart of how private sector companies are stewarding these tools, and focuses on high-risk use cases, and also provides whistleblower protections for workers.
We’re also introducing legislation around chatbots and the New York privacy act, because we know that any good private sector legislation also comes from having a foundation of privacy. Those are certainly our AI priorities this year.
PN: Let’s talk about the New York AI Act. We know Colorado passed the nation’s first comprehensive AI law last year. Now we’re seeing several more versions of that being introduced in states around the country. But your bill appears to be stronger from a consumer protection standpoint. For instance, it includes a private right of action. Help us understand how it fits into the national landscape.
Gonzalez: I’ve been part of the [Multistate AI Policymaker Working Group] and have been very inspired by the work that other states have done, and other legislators have done. Where our bill came from was a need to shift the conversation and not only apply a risk-based framework to regulating artificial intelligence, but a rights-based framework.
Our bill is a stronger version because we want to ensure that we’re protecting fundamental rights and people from algorithmic bias and discrimination.
We also want to ensure that we’re including things like the whistleblower protections that I mentioned and protections for New Yorkers like a private right of action to give them the tools to shift power away from companies, which right now have outsized power in this space. People should have the ability to take any company to court if they have been wrongfully discriminated against or significantly harmed by an application of these tools.
New York should always be a leader in this space, and I wanted to put forward a bill that shows who we are as New Yorkers, which is folks who are willing to take on hard fights and be a leader especially when it comes to technology.
PN: Speaking of hard fights: By including a private right of action, you will undoubtedly bring on a large fight. It’s not a feature that has been included in the other AI bills we’ve seen around the country, and it’s also not been a feature in the consumer data privacy laws that have passed. So why are you including that when Democrats in other states have decided it’s not worth the fight?
Gonzalez: For us that’s been such an important part of our work to shift power towards people and also to ensure that we’re holding companies accountable. We understand that not all companies are the same. We have smaller companies, midsize companies and larger companies and, of course, the larger companies take up a lot of the air in the room like Meta, OpenAI and Microsoft.
Certainly, we want to create legislation that meets these companies where they’re at. But anytime an AI tool is being used to make high-risk and high-impact decisions about a New Yorker’s life, if that tool is not working effectively every New Yorker should have the right to seek justice, for whatever harm they’ve experienced, in court.
Fundamentally, a private right of action is something I know my constituents want to see but something my office and I believe in.
PN: Is the private right of action nonnegotiable?
Gonzalez: I certainly am going to fight to keep private right of action as part of this bill.
PN: What do you see as the path for this bill and what are its prospects?
Gonzalez: This is the initial introduction of this bill. We’re taking meetings right now with everyone because we believe that good legislation comes from conversation and from collaboration. I’m meeting and receiving feedback from advocates, from think tanks and academics. I’m certainly meeting and receiving feedback from the private sector and companies who have a vested interest in productive legislation.
What I’m finding is that we all agree that legislation and regulation needs to happen in this space, and we’ll continue to work to find the strongest version that works for all of us. As a legislator, of course, my primary focus is always going to be delivering for working people and the people in my district.
PN: There is an emerging school of thought that maybe the better approach to AI regulation is to do more of a liability-based regime whereby you let these companies know that if they unleash something into society that is discriminatory or unsafe, there will be strict liability for that. What do you think of that approach?
Gonzalez: There are many schools of thought. We’re certainly talking to everyone about what the right approach is, but where I’ve landed with my bill is accountability and impact assessments — making sure that folks are auditing their systems consistently — and a mesh of a risk-based approach and a rights-based approach.
PN: President Trump has now repealed the Biden-era AI safety executive order. Do you feel more urgency to act on AI regulation in 2025 because of the new administration?
Gonzalez: Absolutely. Without federal legislation it’s going to be left to the states, and we have a responsibility to move quickly. We’re already seeing some of the higher risk use cases come out and impact our constituents.
That is why we’re working together [through the working group], because a patchwork of legislation also isn’t sustainable. So we want to try to be coordinated in our approach as much as possible.
PN: Regarding the chatbot legislation: Character.AI lawsuits in Florida and Texas alleging harms to minors got a lot of attention. How are you envisioning New York leading on regulation specific to companion chatbots and protecting young people?
Gonzalez: The impact of chatbots on minors is top of mind for my colleagues in the state Senate. Governor [Kathy] Hochul (D) also agrees. Even outside of Character.AI, we know that these chatbots have a serious impact on mental health but also misinformation. I’m hoping to see this momentum lead to passage of our chatbot bills.
PN: As you think about chairing the Internet & Technology Committee and having the New York AI Act as your primary focus, what can observers reasonably expect to emerge from New York in 2025? Is this the kind of thing where you need to work a bill of this size and scope for a couple of years to get it passed? Or do you think there’s momentum to do this?
Gonzalez: Certainly, we’ve seen bills pass in [one] year when they’re addressing serious issues that are a threat to our constituents, an example being our deepfakes bill. There’s an urgency here, and we’re going to continue pushing to pass a version this year. So far the reception has been very positive.