Why State Law is Critical to Holding Tech Companies Accountable and Protecting Civil Rights
Damon Hewitt
President and Executive Director
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
The use of AI has expanded rapidly, now being used in workplaces, homes, and even in government. Many people find this technology useful in their daily lives. It has become so commonplace that some people don’t really know they are using it in devices and on platforms at the tips of their fingers. However, this period of growth and expanded reliance, like the technology itself, has no guardrails at the federal level to protect us when things go wrong.
Unregulated technology poses significant risks. Just like other products and devices we take for granted today, AI can also cause harm if not built and suited for how people live and work. This is especially true for Black people and other communities of color. We know AI has been used in ways that have created or compounded racial discrimination across every sector of American life, including in law enforcement, education, delivery of healthcare, and access to credit.
Violations of privacy, proliferation of online hate, digital surveillance, targeted disinformation, and algorithmic bias are all too commonplace.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] For example, a 2019 Berkeley study found that biases in “algorithmic strategic pricing” have resulted in Black and Latino borrowers paying higher interest rates on home purchase and refinance loans as compared to White and Asian borrowers.[6] And universal technological risks, like privacy abuses, often disproportionately impact communities of color. When companies track cell phone location data without consent, and then sell this data to debt collectors, bail bondsmen, and other predatory actors, the harms are disproportionately felt by low-income Black and Brown communities.[7]
We need a variety of tools to limit the harm from emerging technology. State civil rights and consumer protection laws have been among the most effective tools for accountability, supplementing federal civil rights protections in various contexts, such as disability[8] and employment discrimination.[9] In fact, state laws have often been ahead of federal law, providing greater protection and opportunities to pilot novel regulatory solutions, particularly those solutions addressing emerging technologies.
In recent years, states across the nation have been rapidly passing laws to fill gaps in tech regulation.[10],[11] As of 2026, nineteen states have adopted comprehensive data privacy laws to protect residents,[12] and some have adopted laws to regulate data brokers that rabidly collect data about consumer behavior and sell it for profit.[13] Many states and cities have also adopted laws regulating the use of biometric and facial recognition tools.[14] Also, every state has a law that requires companies to notify people when their data has been breached, and many states’ laws include obligations to provide further protections.[15]
Longstanding state consumer protection and civil rights laws have also been crucial in holding tech companies accountable even without specific tech and AI laws. For example, state regulators[16],[17] and private parties regularly use consumer protection laws[18],[19] to sue tech companies and hold them accountable in state courts. In fact, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, representing the Equal Rights Center, filed a lawsuit challenging Meta’s racially discriminatory advertising practices, using claims under Washington, D.C.’s consumer protection and public accommodations laws.[20] Parties have also leveraged traditional state tort laws, such as products liability[21] and public nuisance laws,[22] in actions against tech companies. An added benefit of state laws is that they more closely reflect the norms and preferences of local communities, as they are often the product of community organizing and local advocacy.[23]
There are opportunities to expand the work being done at the state level to protect against technology’s greatest risks and the harms most likely to impact communities of color. By adopting disparate impact protections and codifying the application of public accommodations law to digital contexts, existing antidiscrimination protections are strengthened.[24] State law provides a promising opportunity in this moment, as many of these laws include private rights of action that allow individual residents to directly hold companies accountable in court.
As powerful as state laws are, we also need stronger federal civil rights tools to protect Black communities and other communities of color from the harms of emerging technology. The Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act,[25] currently before Congress, provides a workable framework for regulating the use of AI for consequential decisions with strong anti-discrimination language, a robust auditing framework, and transparency requirements for companies.[26],[27] Yet, instead of passing common-sense measures like the AI Civil Rights Act, in the past year, the federal government has repeatedly attempted to block any state law protections that might apply to AI without even offering federal regulation to fill the resulting void.[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33] This comes after years of failed attempts to pass a comprehensive federal privacy law that would establish transparency requirements and provide basic consumer rights.[34],[35]
While state laws are a key component of tech accountability, we also need robust federal laws to protect our communities across the nation. We need a multifaceted approach to regulating novel technologies, one that reinforces civil rights protections and that empowers communities of color to demand representation in design and accountability for harm.
[1] Spencer Overton, “Overcoming Racial Harms to Democracy from Artificial Intelligence,” The Iowa Law Review (Jan. 15, 2025), https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/volume-110-issue-2/overcoming-racial-harms-democracy-artificial-intelligence.
[2] NAACP, “Stop Dirty Data Centers,” (2026), https://naacp.org/campaigns/stop-dirty-data-centers.
[3] Ivey Dyson, “How AI Threatens Civil Rights and Economic Opportunities,” The Brennan Center for Justice (Nov. 16, 2023), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/how-ai-threatens-civil-rights-and-economic-opportunities.
[4] United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Racism, and AI: Bias From the Past Leads to Bias in the Future,” United Nations (July 30, 2024), https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2024/07/racism-and-ai-bias-past-leads-bias-future.
[5] Kimberly Holmes-Iverson, “Your Computer Might Be Racist,” Howard Magazine (2023), https://magazine.howard.edu/stories/your-computer-might-be-racist.
[6] Laura Counts, “Minority Homebuyers Face Widespread Statistical Lending Discrimination, Study Finds,” UC Berkeley Haas School of Business (Nov. 13, 2018), https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/minority-homebuyers-face-widespread-statistical-lending-discrimination-study-finds/.
[7] Joseph Cox, “I Gave a Bounty Hunter $300. Then He Located Our Phone,” Vice News (Jan. 8, 2019), https://www.vice.com/en/article/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-microbilt-zumigo-tmobile/.
[8] Bloomberg Law, “State Disability Discrimination Laws,” (March 18, 2024), https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/labor-employment/state-disability-discrimination-laws/#california.
[9] Justia, “Employment Discrimination Laws: 50-State Survey,” (Sept. 2022), https://www.justia.com/employment/employment-laws-50-state-surveys/employment-discrimination-laws-50-state-survey/.
[10] The Business Software Alliance, “2025 State AI Wave Building After 700 Bills in 2024,” (Oct. 22, 2024), https://www.bsa.org/news-events/news/2025-state-ai-wave-building-after-700-bills-in-2024.
[11] The National Conference of State Legislatures, “Artificial Intelligence 2025 Legislation,” (July 10, 2025), https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/artificial-intelligence-2025-legislation.
[12] The National Conference of State Legislatures, “Consumer Privacy 2025 Legislation,” (July 28, 2025), https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/consumer-privacy-2025-legislation.
[13] Rachel Melissa and Tonkon Torp LLP, “States Increase Regulation on Data Brokers,” JD Supra (Nov. 4, 2025), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/states-increase-regulation-on-data-3931680/.
[14] Jake Laperruque, “Status of State Laws on Facial Recognition Surveillance: Continued Progress and Smart Innovations,” Tech Policy Press (Jan. 6, 2025), https://www.techpolicy.press/status-of-state-laws-on-facial-recognition-surveillance-continued-progress-and-smart-innovations/.
[15] Ashhurst Perkins Coie, “Security Breach Notification Chart,” (Sept. 2025), https://www.ashurstperkinscoie.com/en/insights/publication/security-breach-notification-chart/.
[16] “Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief,” Arizona ex. rel. Mayes v. Meta Platforms, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California No. 4:23-cv-05448 (Oct. 24, 2023), https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases23/2023-1024_Meta-Multistate-Federal-Complaint-(N.D.-Cal.)-FINAL-REDACTED.pdf.
[17] “Complaint,” People v. Tiktok, Inc., Supreme Court of the State of New York No. 452749/2024 (Oct. 7, 2024), https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/3_redacted_complaint_signed-003.pdf.
[18] Justia, “Consumer Protection Laws: 50-State Survey,” (Oct. 2023), https://www.justia.com/consumer/consumer-protection-laws-50-state-survey/.
[19] The National Consumer Law Center, “Consumer Protection in the States: A 50-State Evaluation of Unfair and Deceptive Practices Laws, Appendix C,” (March 1, 2018), https://www.nclc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/udap-appC-1.pdf.
[20] “Complaint,” Equal Rights Center v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Superior Court of the District of Columbia No. 2025-CAB-000814 (Feb. 11, 2025), https://equalrightscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025.02.11-1-complaint.pdf.
[21] Ariel Fox Johnson, “From Dolls to Downloads: Courts Reimagine Product Liability for the Digital Age,” Tech Policy Press (June 12, 2025), https://www.techpolicy.press/from-dolls-to-downloads-courts-reimagine-product-liability-for-the-digital-age/.
[22] “Order re Motions to Certify Interlocutory Appeal” In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California No. 4:22-md-3047-YGR (March 11, 2025), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/INRESOCIALMEDIAADOLESCENTADDICTIONPERSONALINJURYPRODUCTSLIABILITY/13?doc_id=X445LSM1R8L975844C4DL6KJ5G9.
[23] The Institute for Family Studies, “New Poll Shows Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Federal Preemption of State AI Regulations,” (Nov. 21, 2025), https://ifstudies.org/press-release/new-poll-shows-americans-overwhelmingly-oppose-federal-preemption-of-state-ai-regulations.
[24] David Brody & Sean Bickford, “Discriminatory Denial of Service: Applying State Public Accommodations Laws to Online Commerce,” The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Jan. 2020), https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Online-Public-Accommodations-Report.pdf.
[25] The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, “AI Civil Rights Act,” (2025), https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/ai-civil-rights-act/.
[26] Office of Senator Ed Markey, “Senator Markey Introduces AI Civil Rights Act to Eliminate AI Bias, Enact Guardrails on Use of Algorithms in Decisions Impacting People’s Rights, Civil Liberties, and Livelihoods,” (Sept. 24, 2024), https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-introduces-ai-civil-rights-act-to-eliminate-ai-bias-enact-guardrails-on-use-of-algorithms-in-decisions-impacting-peoples-rights-civil-liberties-livelihoods.
[27] Jo Gasior-Kavishe, “AI Is Infringing on Your Civil Rights. Here’s How We Can Stop That,” The American Civil Liberties Union (Dec. 3, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/ai-is-infringing-on-your-civil-rights-heres-how-we-can-stop-that.
[28] Julia Shapero, “State Lawmakers Press Congress on Plan to Preempt AI Laws,” The Hill (Nov. 24, 2025), https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5620185-lawmakers-oppose-federal-ai-preemption/.
[29] Donald J. Trump, “Executive Order 14365: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” Executive Office of the President (Dec. 11, 2025), “https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/16/2025-23092/ensuring-a-national-policy-framework-for-artificial-intelligence.
[30] Yiqin Fu and Alasdair Phillips-Robins, “When Should Congress Preempt State AI Law? The Lessons of Past Technologies,” The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Sept. 9, 2025), https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/09/congress-preempt-state-ai-law-the-lessons-of-past-technologies.
[31] Jule Pattison-Gordon, “Are Efforts to Pre-empt State AI Regulation Actually Dead?,” Governing (Aug. 18, 2025), https://www.governing.com/artificial-intelligence/are-efforts-to-pre-empt-state-ai-regulation-actually-dead.
[32] J.B. Branch, “Federal Preemption of State AI Laws Is Dangerous and Reckless,” Public Citizen (May 21, 2025), https://www.citizen.org/article/federal-preemption-of-state-ai-laws-is-dangerous-and-reckless/.
[33] Yasmin Abusaif, “Congress Shouldn’t Stop States from Regulating AI — Especially with No Alternative,” The Brennan Center for Justice (July 1, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/congress-shouldnt-stop-states-regulating-ai-especially-no-alternative.
[34] Robert Gellman, “Is There Any Way Forward for Privacy Legislation in the United States?,” Tech Policy Press (July 30, 2025), https://www.techpolicy.press/is-there-any-way-forward-for-privacy-legislation-in-the-united-states/.
[35] Jessica Rich, “After 20 Years of Debate, It’s Time for Congress to Finally Pass a Baseline Privacy Law,” Brookings (Jan. 14, 2021), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/after-20-years-of-debate-its-time-for-congress-to-finally-pass-a-baseline-privacy-law/.
One of the nation’s foremost experts in civil rights litigation and policy, Damon T. Hewitt has more than 20 years of experience, including prior leadership roles in the nonprofit, philanthropic, and public sectors. Prior to joining the Lawyers’ Committee, he was the inaugural executive director of the Executives’ Alliance for Boys and Men of Color and was the chief liaison from the philanthropic community to the White House on policy issues impacting young men of color. Hewitt previously worked for more than a decade as an attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Hewitt joined the Lawyers’ Committee as Executive Vice President in 2019 and was named its President and Executive Director in 2021. Since then, he has led the organization to victories on a range of critical issues, including affirmative action, race-conscious programs, and diversity, equity and inclusion; election protection and voter disinformation; redistricting; fair housing; algorithmic bias and AI; and police accountability. Hewitt’s work has been widely cited in a number of news outlets, including the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Bloomberg News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and CBS. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from Louisiana State University and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.