Committee advances bill requiring AI-detection tools and disclosures for generative content

A proposed substitute of House Bill 11 70 that would require certain providers of generative artificial intelligence systems to make AI-detection tools available and to provide disclosures for AI-produced content was reported out of the Technology, Economic Development, and Veterans Committee on Jan. 28, 2025, with a due-pass recommendation.

Martha Whaling, staff to the committee, summarized the substitute and explained it would change the statutory definition of an AI system to clarify covered entities, exclude government agencies and tribal nations from coverage, and require system-provenance data intended to help users assess authenticity. The proposed substitute also describes conditions under which an AI-detection tool must avoid outputting personal provenance data to the extent technically feasible and requires the Attorney General to allow covered providers an opportunity to cure violations under the consumer-protection authority.

Committee debate focused on several amendments proposed to further clarify definitions and the scope of covered providers. Representative Keaton offered an amendment to align definitions with those used by the state AI task force; Representative Penner offered amendments to narrow the definition of covered provider to entities that create or substantially modify systems and to allow omissions for trade secrets when the omission does not materially affect a tool’s functionality or accuracy. None of the amendments before the committee were adopted; the proposed substitute was reported out as written with a do-pass recommendation and a roll-call vote.

Opponents raised concerns that the bill could impose compliance costs on small businesses that connect to generative AI via application programming interfaces (APIs) without substantially modifying underlying systems. Representative Penner described a scenario in which a small education-technology startup that uses an API could be swept into regulation intended for large developers and argued for a definition that would exempt API-based resellers unless they substantially modify systems or meet a user-threshold.

Proponents stressed the consumer-protection goals and the economic-development potential of having a clear framework for disclosures and detection tools. Supporters also argued the substitute has been the product of significant stakeholder input and will be refined further through the legislative process; staff and sponsors said they expect floor amendments.

Formal action: the committee reported the proposed substitute House Bill 11 70 out of committee with a due-pass recommendation; the clerk recorded the roll-call tally as eight ayes and five nays.

What happens next: The bill advances to the floor with expectance of additional amendments; committee discussion left open a series of issues for further work, including vendor thresholds for covered providers, the technical feasibility and accuracy of AI-detection tools, and protections for trade secrets and copyrighted material.

Votes at a glance: the clerk recorded Representative Ryu (aye); Representative Kloba (aye); Representative Barnard (no/do not pass); Representative Cortez (aye); Representative Donaghy (aye); Representative Keaton (nay/do not pass); Representative Paul (aye); Representative Penner (no/do not pass); Representative Shavers (aye); Representative Simmons (aye); Representative Thomas (aye); Representative Volz (nay/do not pass); Representative Waters (nay/do not pass). The chair announced the tally as eight ayes and five nays.

Quotes in this article are drawn from committee staff briefings and the recorded floor remarks during the executive-session consideration of HB 11 70.