Maryland bill to create AI work group draws criticism over membership skew

House Bill 956, introduced on behalf of Delegate C.T. Wilson, would establish a statewide work group to study artificial intelligence implementation and issue recommendations by July 1, 2026. The bill was presented to the Senate Finance Committee on March 20 by Charon Lanier, legislative director for Chairman C.T. Wilson.

Lanier told the committee that HB 956 would "ensure Maryland takes a proactive approach to AI policy, balance and innovation, consumer protections, and fairness as AI technology evolves." He said the work group would include representatives from technology, e-commerce, biotechnology, real estate, health care and education and would study private-sector AI use, review enforcement mechanisms and develop policy recommendations.

Why it matters: Witnesses at the hearing urged the committee to change the bill's membership before moving it forward. Dozens of consumer advocates, labor representatives and privacy groups told senators they feared the current structure would produce recommendations that favor businesses and miss harms to workers and consumers.

Donna Edwards, president of the Maryland State and D.C. AFL-CIO, said the bill as drafted omits labor representation on the panel and urged lawmakers to add worker advocates. "Labor is not even represented on this task force," Edwards said, adding that workers are "the ones that are gonna be more impacted than anyone else." She recommended the work group review prior state AI bills and statutory language instead of starting from scratch.

Grace Geddy, policy analyst at Consumer Reports, said the bill directs the work group to consider consumer, employment and privacy rights but includes no slots for consumer-protection or civil-rights organizations. "There are three representatives of the real estate community but zero representatives of consumer protection interests," Geddy said. She urged the committee not to advance the bill without significant changes to its makeup and said Colorado's task force provided a more representative model.

Ben Winters, director of AI and privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, called the membership "absolutely unacceptable" if the legislature intends the work group to stand in for substantive AI regulation. "We're way beyond working groups and task forces," Winters said, arguing that the panel as drafted would likely yield business-friendly recommendations and defer real regulation.

John Fiestro, representing the Cyber Security Association in Maryland, asked the committee to add cyber-security professionals to the panel and suggested reducing the number of individual industry seats from three to two to accommodate additional stakeholders.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and other public-interest groups made similar points in written testimony and at the hearing, arguing the bill omits academics, technologists, civil-rights advocates and privacy experts and warning the composition would bias recommendations against meaningful protections.

Committee response and next steps: Senators asked witnesses clarifying questions about proposed membership changes and prior state models. Lanier acknowledged Colorado's task force and said HB 956 is intended to "position Maryland as a leader in AI governance," including work-group recommendations due July 1, 2026. No formal action or vote was recorded during the hearing.

Ending note: Several witnesses said they would support a work group if its membership were broadened to include labor, consumer, privacy and civil-rights representation and if the panel's work built on prior legislative hearings and studies rather than starting anew.