[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6023873,"mediaKeyId","5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131","parentId",5761387,"title","Experts and industry groups debate Massachusetts proposals for model audits, trust fund and high‑risk AI rules","audioSeconds",6250,"startMs",655000,"endMs",6905000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131&start=655&end=6905","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131/thumbnail_655000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6023873/Massachusetts/Experts-and-industry-groups-debate-Massachusetts-proposals-for-model-audits-trust-fund-and-highrisk-AI-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6023873-7c3cef0c1d061e7101b348aaa8deece8/orig.mp4?Expires=1774416319&Signature=S1jr1K0uZQBPBLZ~8bJo1kDwKIrdmK026pDBrV1yvrWj7OnZxbPmVtsHIrX4FmJjABoOo5MwaaaZ9QVozwWRgsC0A73dBgfeuFVT28FNwtnSsOrRRfAR-a2yCypt57kxPP93n5N7AriL3n5B61ktNPsSObDijy5LYu4lFhX~xWRjMk1Py33AiL~iLgKxww1OsUV8GR4kS~xSdC62ZGjHwlieX8erXz4rBYv7RnkjkqtgZ5Ae36NYiT6xBi4EmXKF4bpIPxUhY3Q~v4cLZHkF1G8Cfrrr-PO9gGnSbHe3-oso9qjco-BcznzynjF8s0rZK7Pc-iIF5yTz5UlA6USM3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Massachusetts Legislature","date","2025-09-11T00:00:00Z","article","State and industry witnesses — including engineers, insurers, legal experts and trade groups — addressed a set of bills that would set state standards for AI model training, auditing, risk management and use in healthcare and insurance.

Supporters urged clear requirements for security, model documentation, independent audits, human review and alignment with federal guidance. Opponents and industry groups warned that overly broad definitions could sweep in longstanding predictive tools and discourage startups, and they urged sector‑specific approaches and safe‑harbor mechanisms.

Senator testimony introduced S37 and related proposals, describing a framework for model governance that would require annual safety assessments, public posting of model security protocols, third‑party audits and incident reporting to the attorney general. \"This bill proposes a framework to govern AI model training,\" a sponsor told the committee.

Health and life‑sciences witnesses said rules should preserve human clinical judgment. Malik Patel, an engineer working in life sciences, described proposals that would require developers of covered models to implement cybersecurity protections, independent annual audits and continuous monitoring, and urged alignment with FDA \"good machine learning practice\" and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.

The property‑casualty industry, represented by Christopher Stark of the Massachusetts Insurance Federation, supported flexible regulatory tools and pointed to the Division of Insurance’s existing bulletin on AI as an example. He warned that some draft definitions of \"artificial intelligence systems\" in H94 and H97 could be so broad as to capture decades‑old predictive models and asked the committee to clarify language and exempt legitimate risk‑mitigation uses such as cybersecurity and certain safety tools.

AI attorney John Weaver recommended policymakers consider targeted private enforcement and sanctions carefully. \"Private rights of action allow governments to crowdsource enforcement,\" he said, but urged careful drafting to avoid frivolous litigation and asked the committee to consider mechanisms that require plaintiffs to meet defined thresholds.

Industry trade groups urged a balanced approach. The Massachusetts High Technology Council and Chamber of Progress recommended aligning state rules with federal frameworks, protecting trade secrets where appropriate and avoiding measures that would drive firms out of state. Several witnesses suggested sandboxing and sectoral rules rather than a single omnibus statute.

The committee received technical and policy testimony across several bills and asked for additional written comments and drafting suggestions. No formal votes were taken at the hearing.

Less critical detail: witnesses suggested adoption of NIST and FDA guidance as compliance anchors and asked for explicit carve‑outs for existing regulated activities and safety‑critical use cases.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity - 9-11-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Testimony covered multiple bills — including S37 (AI trust fund and model governance), H94 (rules for high‑risk systems), and S46/H97 (healthcare/insurer safeguards). Witnesses urged standards based on NIST/FDA guidance, warned about overbroad definitions and asked for carefully drafted carve‑outs and sandboxing to protect innovation.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MA, Massachusetts","taxId",77682,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6023876,"Performers, unions back bill requiring clear consent for digital replicas of voices and likenesses",273,5263000,5536000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131&start=5263&end=5536","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131/thumbnail_5263000.jpg","/articles/6023876/Massachusetts/Performers-unions-back-bill-requiring-clear-consent-for-digital-replicas-of-voices-and-likenesses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6023876-b69601f89c09ba3410f8daa07452398c/orig.mp4?Expires=1774416319&Signature=FwsbxS2zKkOqxjm91mtQiWESiHHaQpqbUqCpRbqbxQbRSrwTAuKJyOKmw-~Ozhel8HyFR03GMYgHMHznEcuLn5VpI~lMPuA650TiderWaotJ8Uk9PijB86Ks2iCd58XgXhJhCECRiwRcqIHcZFrTm6vV3jUXAnRDyBiNDvtgj7GDCO9sHsAgTslihQcpCRMB4x4CwfeeBBig7qxqDjRiBI2fJym47edv-U0t6NW2yINenysSh7LwjiwW4HA-TmtWTPVdZdMb3qhFzCyp3e8PyqzVxrv~rXCOPy0-hXpjkVh8bBbuTVBGI7EaZoOSkhnylKPv35qtJEZP7HHpzV~vwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","SAG‑AFTRA New England and performers urged the Joint Committee to report House Bill 74 favorably and to require clear, conspicuous contract language before digital replica rights are assigned.

Witnesses told the committee that current standard contracts can bury language granting perpetual or broad rights to use a performer’s voice or likeness in ways the signer does not expect. House Bill 74 would not ban transfers of digital replica rights but would require that contracts be specific about the scope, media and intended uses so performers can give informed consent.

\"This bill requires contracts to clearly and conspicuously state digital replica rights and terms and to be reasonably specific in describing the intended uses of the digital replica,\" said Jessica Marr, executive director of SAG‑AFTRA New England. Marr told the committee the measure follows laws recently passed in California and New York and would protect performers and creative professionals who may lack bargaining leverage.

Performer Andrea Lyman testified that the legislation is about preserving livelihoods and ensuring consent. \"When we enter into agreements, it must be with informed consent, ensuring that we can continue to make a living from our work,\" she said.

SAG‑AFTRA witnesses urged the committee to advance H74 alongside other AI‑related bills, including the FAIR Act, noting that protections for digital likenesses and worker surveillance can be complementary parts of a broader approach to AI governance.

The committee took no final action at the hearing; advocates submitted written testimony and requested continued engagement on contract language and enforcement mechanisms.

Less critical details: witnesses emphasized the need for reasonable representation and compensation protocols when performers agree to transfer digital replica rights.","SAG‑AFTRA representatives and performers urged the committee to pass H74, which would require contracts to clearly disclose digital‑replica rights and ensure informed consent and reasonable specificity for intended uses of a performer’s voice or likeness.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6023881,"Researchers, parents and doctors urge algorithm audits to protect adolescents on social platforms",0,4519000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131&start=4519&end=4519","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131/thumbnail_4519000.jpg","/articles/6023881/Massachusetts/Researchers-parents-and-doctors-urge-algorithm-audits-to-protect-adolescents-on-social-platforms","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6023881-18aa6647f2ca25c0da63345a26439e31/orig.mp4?Expires=1774416319&Signature=YJyWdsLoZPX6x-8ruk7XlWi8WJqReG-XO3hCYffqTD5yhCxRCyhiYu~TKtHS7vVaeVnCsBOAu7CI0vd5AuGpTlJtjt4-sKdWcljqYZF-PmBLUDnSwoGCyMsj3~Z71hX3mUMEzJNyHfoombe8DXZvZv9nYk6z5Rpr9e0U1I5PIGgU6lv~EVlUxsqX-BBME5sr6tRo8sD8SDWbAf7g~As37RlqSNZC1xOruQvR9pa4wAgymvWMlwD91XBgckkrYhg7TFdsL~jIkn3N7ZXzyR1CX2eTr6Xg41cb6t7oaVeGrnOy9yJSRvy3NsZ9KtF9g~tePCJrPqwHZtubHmPao~hGHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Parents, public‑health researchers and algorithm auditors urged the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology to report Senate Bill 51 favorably and to require independent algorithm risk audits and transparency reports for social platforms that use engagement‑based recommendations affecting children.

Witnesses said engagement‑optimizing algorithms deliver content that amplifies risk for vulnerable youth, and they urged the state to require audits focused on harms including addiction‑like use patterns, exposure to bullying and predatory marketing.

\"Transparency and accountability are at the heart of this legislation,\" said Deb Schmill, who testified as a parent and sharply criticized platforms’ opaque recommendation systems. \"The costs of inaction are measured in the mental health and safety of our children,\" she told the committee.

Professor Nancy Costello, director of a First Amendment clinic and legal lead for a Harvard research project, described a narrow legal approach: the bill would measure and report harm from engagement‑based algorithms rather than ban speech or regulate third‑party content. Costello noted that the reports would be usable by researchers, journalists and law enforcement and that third‑party auditors would be vetted by the attorney general.

Dr. Brynn Austin, a pediatric researcher, summarized experimental and observational research linking recommendation systems to serious harms. Citing a study comparing TikTok feeds, she said the platform delivered “over 400 times more videos classified as markedly disordered pro‑eating‑disorder content to individuals with eating disorders compared to videos sent to healthy individuals,” and argued the pattern is driven by engagement optimization. She told the committee that engagement algorithms can lock vulnerable teens into harmful content without the teen explicitly seeking it.

Independent auditor Cathy O’Neil explained that audits can reverse‑engineer platform behavior using transaction‑level data and show which users or groups are systematically exposed to manipulative content. She described an audit technique used in a payday‑lender case and said the same methods can detect targeting of harmful content to vulnerable youth.

Supporters emphasized the bill’s narrow scope: it assesses platform decisions that the platforms themselves make (the recommendation engines) rather than policing user speech. Witnesses urged public disclosure of audit findings to support enforcement, research and policymaking.

The committee heard no final action; backers asked for a favorable report and additional technical conversations on audit standards and auditor vetting.

Less critical detail: testimony discussed ways audit reports could be used by the attorney general to pursue deceptive‑practice claims if platforms prioritize engagement at the cost of child safety.","Witnesses backed Senate Bill 51, which would require independent third‑party audits and transparency reporting for engagement‑based algorithms, citing studies that link platform recommendations to increased exposure to eating‑disorder content and other harms to youth mental health.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6023886,"Massachusetts hearing spotlights FAIR Act to curb workplace AI surveillance and automated decisions",718,1970000,2688000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131&start=1970&end=2688","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5761387-173496a8e0d27cac4d5d13806c83e131/thumbnail_1970000.jpg","/articles/6023886/Massachusetts/Massachusetts-hearing-spotlights-FAIR-Act-to-curb-workplace-AI-surveillance-and-automated-decisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6023886-e345cb6bea0f10567f9849a52bf66318/orig.mp4?Expires=1774416319&Signature=PdvxDbTs14ANxqiLY5QlGZOUZ0SAABmrn3q8BtV4TUiCBhzQt-xhiqsQU16W3-CPV2nQxXBncrgb1pbF1uCrrb7NBpI6xHZC-49UHBOqPBAbfByP9oXs7RJB7611~Kp-Iv6rRS04nppppJUfXI13WzEMg~iXqUCaP70Mc2BikK-N5u0SIgPfumG5slZWQSTBEujNuUGp9ByXxekR4aYEGR6tUxFDgVyztlb0HViVRwn6jWECDcFUOk6v8hYaV28dWgj9HS~d4jWjCMS7j7jhIclHrFM0af3TAEkJjpJqIEet2p~Hv9Gg0C5aWtpV2BvLBWt1vClOmilcLfFohilekg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A hearing of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet, and Cybersecurity featured broad support for the FAIR Act (H77/S35) as labor leaders, worker representatives and national experts described how employer use of artificial intelligence is already disrupting pay, benefits and workplace safety.

Advocates said automation and so-called “bossware” — software that tracks employee behavior and feeds algorithmic decision systems — has led to denied medical claims, delayed wage replacement, rejected doctors’ notes and other problems that have real consequences for workers who live paycheck to paycheck.

The FAIR Act would limit intrusive employee data collection, require disclosure when employers use automated decision systems, mandate meaningful human review for employment decisions that rely on AI, and strengthen anti‑retaliation protections. The bill’s supporters told the committee that those protections are needed now because federal law does not address modern workplace surveillance.

Union leaders gave multiple examples of worker harm. \"Our employers have rapidly and without notification implemented AI systems to cut costs and pad profits in short sighted ways that hurt workers, customers, and communities,\" said Adam Kasinski, president of IUE‑CWA Local 201, describing cases where algorithmic bots denied benefits or triggered premature preauthorizations that left workers without medication. Kasinski said some doctors refuse to treat patients because claim denials and automated prior authorization errors have made billing unreliable.

Chrissy Lynch, president of the Massachusetts AFL‑CIO, told the committee: \"The FAIR Act starts this overdue conversation.\" She and other witnesses described how surveillance tools collect data for reasons beyond essential job functions and can chill protected activity and collective organizing.

National nonprofit and research witnesses echoed the workplace examples. \"Workers who know little, if anything, about systems that are influencing major decisions about them can't protect themselves,\" said Matt Cherrer of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who highlighted polling and deliberative studies showing strong voter support for transparency and human review.

Researchers and labor advocates urged the committee to pair transparency with enforceable limits. Irene Tong of the National Employment Law Project noted an emerging pattern of continuous, second‑by‑second tracking — including webcams and biometric monitoring — that creates a climate of fear and physical stress for workers.

Unions representing a range of sectors — manufacturing, health care, education and public services — told personal stories about delayed benefits, rejected documentation and automated performance metrics that do not account for the realities of hands‑on work. Jim Durkin of AFSCME Council 93 and Dave Foley of SEIU Local 509 described the stakes for public‑sector employees who care for vulnerable populations.

Supporters urged the committee to report the FAIR Act favorably and recommended implementation details such as narrow definitions of permissible data collection, clear notice requirements, and meaningful appeal processes. Opposing concerns raised in the hearing centered on the potential breadth of new rules and their impact on innovation; a separate industry panel asked the committee to tailor rules sector by sector and to protect small developers.

The committee did not take a vote at the hearing. Supporters left written testimony and asked the chairs to work with stakeholders on technical language and enforcement mechanisms.

Less critical details: witnesses asked that the committee align Massachusetts’ approach with actions taken by other states and federal guidance where possible, and to avoid drafting that unintentionally exempts legitimate safety or risk‑mitigation systems.","Union leaders, worker advocates and national experts urged the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology to back the FAIR Act (H77/S35), saying employers’ use of AI systems for monitoring, benefits decisions and performance evaluations is widespread, error-prone and causing real hardship for workers.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Experts and industry groups debate Massachusetts proposals for model audits, trust fund and high‑risk AI rules

Performers, unions back bill requiring clear consent for digital replicas of voices and likenesses

Researchers, parents and doctors urge algorithm audits to protect adolescents on social platforms

Massachusetts hearing spotlights FAIR Act to curb workplace AI surveillance and automated decisions