Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming industries – from health care and education to logistics and customer service – across the United States and in Louisiana. At the same time, lawmakers are rushing to “do something” that is relevant and responds to constituents’ questions and worst fears. However, a recent report from the American Consumer Institute (ACI) and R Street titled The AI Terrible Ten: The Worst State AI Policies and Four Better Models to Balance Safety and Innovation warns that some approaches may ultimately do more harm than good.
Louisiana lawmakers have introduced more than 20 artificial-intelligence bills for the 2026 legislative session. Some take a targeted approach to addressing clear harms, but others mirror sweeping regulatory frameworks that experts warn could stifle innovation, increase costs, and disadvantage smaller companies.
Understanding the difference between these approaches will be critical if Louisiana hopes to remain competitive in the fast-moving AI economy.
The ACI/R Street report identifies 10 types of state AI policies that pose the greatest risks to innovation. Many share a common characteristic: broad regulation of AI technologies rather than targeted solutions to specific harms.
One example cited in the report is Colorado’s comprehensive AI law passed in 2024. The law requires developers and deployers of certain “high-risk” AI systems to implement risk-management programs, conduct impact assessments, and take steps to prevent “algorithmic discrimination.”
Yet even leaders involved in enacting the law have acknowledged potential problems. When signing the bill, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis warned about unintended consequences. The bill’s original sponsor later wrote that overly broad definitions and disclosure requirements could impose high costs on innovators and create barriers to product development, job creation, and investment. Colorado’s attorney general has similarly indicated that the law is “really problematic [and] it needs to be fixed.”
Another example is Florida’s “Artificial Intelligence Bill of Rights,” which the report describes as “one sweeping omnibus package of vaguely defined mandates and over-encompassing jargon.” The legislation perpetuates “messy and frivolous private rights of actions that would subject the AI industry to an over-eager plaintiff’s bar that discourages providing consumers with improved products and services.”
Some Louisiana proposals resemble these bad policies. House Bill 734, for example, proposes an “AI Consumer Bill of Rights” similar to that of Florida. House Bill 791 mirrors Colorado’s regulatory structure. Businesses concerned about litigation or regulatory penalties resulting from these policies may simply decide not to deploy new technologies in states with aggressive regulatory regimes.
These proposals also raise broader constitutional concerns. When states adopt different definitions of AI, competing compliance standards, and varying liability rules, companies must navigate a patchwork of regulations. Businesses operating across state lines will often default to the most restrictive rules.
Such regulatory fragmentation risks burdening interstate commerce – an area traditionally governed by Congress under the U.S. Constitution. If states attempt to regulate national digital markets independently, they undermine the principles of federalism by intruding into areas better suited for uniform federal standards.
Not all AI legislation carries the same risks. Several Louisiana proposals follow a model experts consider more effective: targeting specific harmful uses of AI rather than regulating the technology itself.
Bills addressing AI-generated deepfake pornography, election interference, or fraudulent robocalls fall squarely into this category. By focusing on clear harms rather than the underlying technology, these measures can protect consumers while allowing beneficial innovation to flourish.
Transparency requirements, such as requiring companies to disclose when users are interacting with AI systems or when content is AI-generated, can also benefit consumers and help prevent deception. However, if disclosure mandates are overly broad, they can impose compliance burdens that provide limited practical benefits to consumers.
Artificial intelligence holds enormous promise for economic growth, but realizing that promise requires policymakers to strike the right balance.
Sweeping regulatory frameworks risk creating a maze of compliance requirements that discourage investment and slow technological progress. More targeted policies that address specific harms are far less likely to disrupt the competitive marketplace.
As lawmakers debate these bills, they should consider not only how to protect consumers, but also how to preserve innovation, respect interstate commerce, and uphold the principles of federalism that help maintain a dynamic national technology economy.
If Louisiana strikes that balance, it could position itself as a leader in the AI economy. If it instead adopts policies resembling those on the “Terrible Ten” list, it may unintentionally discourage the very innovation it hopes to promote.
