Matthew Gaske of Indiana University – Kelley School of Business has written State Attorneys General and Federalist Technology Regulation. Here’s the abstract:
Consumers are adopting novel technologies at increasing rates. These technologies’ versatility requires policymakers to weigh regulatory tradeoffs of increasing complexity. New laws addressing consumer-technology risks are slow to emerge, incoherent, or avoidable. Meanwhile, federal and state civil enforcers’ application of existing laws like unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP) statutes limit nascent consumer-technology harms. However, enforcement takes time, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, presidential policy, and organizational disruption impair federal agencies. Companies might deprioritize consumer-protection goals when entering new markets. Enforcement must become more effective to support near-term consumer interests and long-term policymaking.
This article argues that partisan state attorneys general (state AGs) are well suited to use a president’s technology governance to amplify existing state consumer-protection laws and enable better lawmaking. Presidents exercise great influence on the geopolitically important technology sector. State AGs’ discretionary litigation and political salience are valuable to presidents. These activities are assets for state AGs to negotiate with presidents to accommodate state enforcement priorities. In turn, a president can boost UDAP statutes’ near-term effects by adopting and communicating state expectations to an industry seeking beneficial policies and contracts.
This article uses the evolution of presidential governance of generative artificial intelligence to illustrate this framework’s plausibility. The analysis contributes to the literature recognizing state AGs’ adaptable business oversight, technology-regulation role, and growing national impact. Finally, the article proposes legal and organizational changes to improve state AGs’ negotiating positions.
