Amazon is accused of artificially inflating the ad prices on its e-commerce site in a lawsuit filed Monday by Washington’s attorney general, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 21 other states.

Amazon denies the allegations, saying its ad pricing has not harmed advertisers or shoppers and that the FTC’s claims mischaracterize how its system works.

Ads are sold on Amazon’s platform through so-called “second-price” auctions, in which businesses set a maximum price they’re willing to pay for an ad. If they’re the highest bidder, they pay only one cent more than the second-highest bid, and the auctions do not allow advertisers to see other bids.

Plaintiffs allege that beginning in late 2018, Amazon started adding surcharges to the prices, despite claims that it was still using a second-price system.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, alleges the tech giant overcharged roughly 1.2 million ad customers by overriding and replacing auction results with “higher prices set by Amazon to increase its profits.” The amount collected through the allegedly deceptive pricing scheme totals $20 billion, according to the suit.

“Many small business owners in Washington rely on Amazon for their livelihoods, and our office is committed to making sure Amazon treats them fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law,” said Nick Brown, Washington’s attorney general, in a statement.

Amazon posted an online response to the allegations. “The FTC’s claim fundamentally misunderstands how advertisers operate,” the company stated. “Advertisers adjust bids based on real-world performance, not descriptions of auction mechanics.”

The company said it prioritizes the relevance of an ad to the shoppers being targeted over bid price alone. As a result, Amazon said, 92% of winning ads in recent years were not given to the highest bidder, and ad performance has improved. Conversion rates — the percentage of shoppers who take a desired action after interacting with an ad — rose 24% from 2021 to 2025, according to Amazon.

The company also said that from 2019 to 2024, the average cost-per-click for sponsored product search ads was flat when adjusted for inflation.

Amazon acknowledged it has changed its ad pricing approach over time, saying that as the system prioritized ad relevance, winning bids increasingly fell below market value. As a result, the company now sets minimum prices, or “reserves,” for participating in an auction and for the minimum market value of the ad.

“Reserves like these,” it said, “are common across the industry.” The company said it does not charge advertisers more than their bid.

Amazon said it clearly explains its pricing process to advertisers. Plaintiffs dispute that, citing company employees who described creating fake auction participants.

The suit states that an Amazon senior scientist said that to increase auction prices, the company inserts “an invented auction participant representing how much Amazon thinks that particular ad slot is worth.”

The lawsuit is being led by the FTC and also includes the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont.

The company is also in the FTC’s crosshairs in a separate, broader antitrust case accusing Amazon of maintaining an illegal monopoly in online retail, which is scheduled for trial next year.

Plaintiffs in the case announced Monday are asking the court to order Amazon to reform its practices, pay restitution and civil penalties for each violation, and cover attorneys’ fees.

Washington state will receive up to $339 million as part of a historic $17.1 billion multistate settlement with Meta, resolving allegations that the tech giant intentionally designed Facebook and Instagram with addictive features that harmed youth mental health.

Attorney General Nick Brown said Wednesday that the landmark agreement delivers on core youth-safety product changes — including hard caps on daily time limits, late-night scrolling blocks, and disabled push notifications during school hours — that state lawmakers failed to pass through legislation over the past two years.

“Let me say to the young people of Washington state: This agreement shows that your health and safety is more important than Meta’s profits,” Brown said in a news release.

Under the deal, Meta must overhaul Instagram and Facebook for young users by enforcing a two-hour combined daily time limit, turning off push notifications during school hours (8 a.m. to 3 p.m.), and blocking access late at night between midnight and 6 a.m. Teen users will also get the option to switch off algorithmic feeds in favor of a chronological timeline.

The agreement resolves claims brought by a coalition of 47 states, Washington, D.C., and three territories. While Meta acknowledged the settlement could cost up to $18 billion total over 10 years, it marked a rare legal resolution for a major platform facing nationwide youth safety litigation.

Outside the landmark Big Tobacco agreements of the late 1990s, the $17.1 billion deal represents the largest state consumer protection settlement in U.S. history. State officials and tech policy experts are framing the enforcement action as a similar watershed moment for regulating algorithmic harms and digital product design.

Washington state will receive a guaranteed baseline of $237 million from the core youth-safety agreement, with its payout potentially scaling up to nearly $339 million over the next decade if other major platforms like TikTok and Snapchat adopt comparable terms.

The Attorney General’s Office plans to use the funds to cover legal costs, bolster ongoing consumer protection enforcement, and directly fund state programs tackling the youth mental health crisis driven by social media use.

The settlement also mandates an independent third-party auditor to evaluate and report Meta’s technical compliance directly to state regulators annually over the next five years. Beyond usage limits, Meta must restrict social comparison features such as targeted beauty filters, hide public “like” counts for younger users, and implement stricter age verification to prevent children under 13 from creating accounts.

In addition to the core youth-safety agreement, Washington will receive a separate $10.2 million payment resolving long-standing state claims against Meta for sharing nonpublic user data with third parties like Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 election cycle.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield announced that his state’s share will total more than $125 million over 10 years. 

In a public statement, Meta praised the agreement as setting a new benchmark for youth safety, while emphasizing that the restrictions should apply across the entire industry.

“While this is an important step, these protections will only be truly effective if our peers — TikTok and YouTube — put the same measures in place,” a Meta spokesperson said.

The agreement remains subject to final judicial approval in federal district court.

More than 20 states have now passed the “Washington model” of privacy legislation. Washington state hasn’t. 

In the years since then-state Sen. Reuven Carlyle introduced the Washington State Privacy Act in 2019, the blueprint has been adopted across the country, mandating that companies get the consent of consumers before collecting sensitive personal data, and providing consumers with the right to correct and delete their details in those databases.

In its home state, the bill stalled in negotiations between the House and Senate two years in a row. Every year since, a comprehensive privacy bill has been introduced in the Washington state Legislature but has failed to pass. 

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown released his office’s first data privacy report Aug. 14, calling on lawmakers to pass a privacy law that would limit how much personal information companies can collect and keep in the first place.

But that proposal will face the same hurdle that has blocked efforts to pass a state privacy law for seven years: a fight over whether consumers should be able to sue companies that violate it.

“The attorney general supports greater data privacy protections for Washingtonians,” said Mike Faulk, a spokesperson for the AG’s office. “In our experience, this has proven to be a difficult subject for the Legislature to build consensus on.”

Experts say the stakes are rising as AI systems train on personal data that often falls outside Washington’s existing privacy protections. Without a baseline privacy law, they say, lawmakers also have less to build on when they try to regulate AI itself. 

Rethinking privacy

AI has rendered some parts of the Washington model moot, while making others more necessary than ever, according to policy experts. 

As states have begun to pass the first AI regulations, one of the highest priorities has been the regulation of AI-based high-risk decisions.

In Washington, for example, the state Legislature passed the Prior Authorization Transparency Act, which bars health insurers from using AI as the only basis to deny, delay or modify care. Washington state lawmakers also considered a bill to regulate the use of AI to make decisions of financial, educational, or legal consequence.

This is proving to be a much easier lift in states that passed the “Washington model,” often years before the current AI craze. That’s because Carlyle’s bill happened to include what’s now known as an automated decision-making technology (ADMT) opt-out clause, which granted residents the right to opt out of automated profiling when used for “legal or similarly significant effects.” 

Algorithmic wage and price determinations, as well as AI-based healthcare and employment technologies, could be regulated under the pre-existing privacy act, or by tweaking those laws.

“The states that have passed automated decision making laws have done so on top of existing privacy laws,” said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, a managing director at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). “There’s already restrictions, or at least the beginnings of restrictions, on automated decision making baked into these privacy laws. It’s a natural model to build on top of.”

Meanwhile, AI has made it more dangerous to go without a privacy law, because an absence of privacy legislation means more personal data online for AI models to access, said Kara Williams, counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Williams said data minimization could prevent or limit companies from repurposing personal data to train AI systems. 

“It goes back to using the data for the purpose you collected it for,” Williams said. “Almost all of the data that companies have used to train AI systems or develop the algorithms that led to this moment were not collected for the purpose of training AI systems.”

Data minimization requires companies to restrict the collection and use of customer data to the service the customer requested. That often precludes secondary uses like selling it to a data broker.

The Washington attorney general’s privacy report also endorsed a data minimization standard, which the original Washington model does not include.

Carlyle said he might have written one in, if he were drafting the bill today.

“We live in an AI world with a giant vacuum in the sky, sucking up every ounce of data that exists on a person,” Carlyle said. “So I think the concept [of data minimization] makes some sense.” 

Meanwhile, experts say AI makes some elements of the Washington model irrelevant. 

Zweifel-Keegan of IAPP said those elements include the right to control, correct, and delete personal data, which was the bread and butter of Carlyle’s bill. Because LLMs are a weighted map of associated words, there is no straightforward way to selectively delete or change information once a model has been trained.  

“That’s just fundamentally how LLMs work. They’re not a table where you can go to my name and see all the other records that are associated with me,” Zweifel-Keegan said. “You can’t go in and selectively delete information.”

While states around the country that have passed the Washington model are now seeking to revise its provisions to meet the AI moment, Washington state has no comprehensive privacy law to start with.

“AI is making us rethink some of our foundational expectations of what a privacy law does,” Zweifel-Keegan said. “Washington could be the place where that happens.”

The story of the “Washington model”

In 2019, when now-retired State Sen. Carlyle introduced the Washington State Privacy Act, it passed the Senate 46-1 before dying in the House. One year later, it passed both chambers but died after a long and heated fight in conference.

Some say the bill didn’t deserve to pass after being “rewritten” by tech lobbyists. Others say the lawmakers who opposed the bill let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

The original bill was based on an opt-out framework, also called “notice and consent,” which required a platform to present a privacy policy to users who consent to the collection of their data by continuing to use the platform. The bill’s sole enforcement mechanism was the state attorney general, and did not offer a private right of action for individuals to sue companies that violated the proposed rules. 

In 2019, Carlyle was focused on establishing a baseline notion of consumer rights — one that could be revised later, as other states ultimately did.

“At that time we didn’t have a direct understanding that consumers have a right to correct or delete their personal data, we didn’t have an understanding of what opt out meant for advertising, or an understanding of data brokers and the role that they play,” Carlyle said.  

His bill also established special protections for sensitive data and frameworks to hold corporations accountable for complying with transparency and disclosure requirements. 

“Those were pretty novel pillars that didn’t exist,” Carlyle said. “That’s why it had a big effect on other state laws.” 

By March 2021, Virginia had passed a privacy law closely modeled off of Carlyle’s template, and over the next few years, more than 20 other states did, too.

In Washington, meanwhile, no progress was made. After Microsoft endorsed the Senate bill in 2019, consumer advocacy groups and some state lawmakers said that the tech lobby’s influence had gone too far. The state House countered with a stronger privacy bill, premised on opt-in data collection frameworks and enforced by a private right of action.

Both the 2019 and 2020 legislative sessions ended in failed negotiations between the state Senate and House over their competing privacy laws. Every year since 2021, Rep. Shelley Kloba has introduced a bill that preserves the House’s stronger language. It has yet to make it to the House floor. 

A potential compromise

The sticking point for Washington negotiators in 2019 and 2020 was the enforcement mechanism. Carlyle’s bill proposed state attorney general enforcement, while the House bill, led primarily by then-Rep. Zack Hudgins, included an additional private right of action.  

Consumer advocacy groups are firm in their support for a private right of action as part of a data privacy law. 

“Attorney general enforcement alone is not sufficient to enforce privacy laws, just because of limited resources and staff and funding that attorneys general across the country face,” said Williams, the EPIC counsel. “We need a stronger enforcement mechanism, like a private right of action, that would allow consumers to vindicate their own privacy rights and to take companies to court who have violated their privacy rights.” 

For some in the tech industry, a private right of action is seen as unnecessarily harsh, stymieing innovation while AG enforcement would have sufficiently guaranteed compliance. 

“I believe that the difference is, are you looking to get companies to comply and have clear enforcement or are you looking to punish?” said Rose Feliciano, TechNet executive director of policy for the Northwest United States. TechNet is a trade association that includes tech industry giants such as Amazon and Google.

Carlyle agreed, saying his efforts failed because the trial attorneys “were not enthusiastic about giving up a right of private action against big tech.” The insistence on letting individuals sue, he said, is a case of “perfect is the enemy of the good.” 

“It’s the ultimate representation of, ‘we can’t have any regulation, any policy framework, any guidelines, any protections whatsoever, unless it’s a grand slam home run for individual lawsuits,'” he said.

The private right of action has continued to hold up privacy legislation.

Rep. Kloba’s alternative, the People’s Privacy Act, ties enforcement to the state’s Consumer Protection Act, under which a plaintiff’s private action can seek damages, attorney’s fees, and treble damages capped at $25,000. Her bill treats all violations, including failure to comply with records keeping and timely responses to consumer queries, with the same severity.

This winter, Kloba may be open to changing that. She said she’s willing to consider separating enforcement rules so that some violations would be eligible for a private right of action and others would be subject to civil penalties enforced by the attorney general’s office. 

“Over the last eight years, various laws have been put in place in different states and we’ve seen them then go back and improve them over time,” she said, “and so I think it’s time to have that conversation.”

A judge in Seattle ordered Kalshi to shut down large parts of its prediction market in Washington state by Sept. 2 — less than three weeks from now — and denied the New York-based company’s attempt to pause the order while it appeals the ruling.

The order by King County Superior Court Judge John McHale, issued Wednesday, requires Kalshi to geofence Washington users out of markets for sports, elections, politics, entertainment, culture, tech and science, and “mentions,” contracts on whether public figures will say specific words.

Kalshi can continue offering markets on commodities, climate, economics, and finance in the state. Users will also be allowed to close out positions they already hold in the prohibited categories.

The order sets a $120,000-a-day penalty if Kalshi misses the Sept. 2 deadline, although Kalshi can also submit an affidavit explaining any delay and let the court determine the final penalty.

That penalty would match what Nevada regulators are separately seeking from Kalshi in a June contempt motion for allegedly failing to comply with a similar injunction there.

In his ruling, McHale wrote that Kalshi “willfully ignored” a Washington State Gambling Commission notice from December 2025 stating that event-based contracts are not authorized in the state. He also concluded that “the public interests at stake and potential harm to consumers” outweigh harm to Kalshi from the injunction.

Kalshi disputed the premise of the ruling on Thursday, reiterating its position that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission “has exclusive jurisdiction” over the exchange.

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s decision and are considering all legal options,” spokesperson Jacki McGavick said in a statement responding to the ruling.

Attorney General Nick Brown, who brought the suit, said in a statement that Kalshi “has gotten rich promoting wagers on sports, elections, natural disasters, events related to the Iran War, and more.”

However, Kalshi said its platform does not offer markets on wildfires, war, death, or terrorism. Kalshi has disputed reporting that has grouped its platform with rival Polymarket, which has drawn scrutiny for wildfire and other markets Kalshi says it doesn’t allow.

Kalshi had asked both McHale and the state Court of Appeals to pause the injunction pending appeal, and lost at both levels: a Court of Appeals commissioner denied an emergency stay request Monday, and McHale entered his own denial Wednesday with his larger order.

It’s the latest development in a case that Brown filed in March. McHale granted a preliminary injunction on July 20, finding Washington was likely to prove Kalshi is running illegal online gambling and rejecting the federal preemption argument. Kalshi appealed to the Court of Appeals and brought in former U.S. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal for its defense.

Kalshi’s remaining state-court options include asking a full Court of Appeals panel to review the commissioner’s ruling, or seeking emergency review at the Washington Supreme Court.

Washington state is emerging as a key battleground in the national fight over whether federal commodities oversight allows prediction markets like Kalshi to override state gambling laws.

King County Superior Court Judge John McHale in Seattle sided with Washington Attorney General Nick Brown on July 20, granting a preliminary injunction and rejecting Kalshi’s core defense: that oversight by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission preempts state gambling law.

A check of the docket shows the case has escalated significantly since then. Kalshi has appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, and asked McHale to pause his injunction pending that appeal.

Court records also indicate that former U.S. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, Kalshi’s lead national counsel in similar state cases, is now representing the company in the Washington state case. The involvement of a lawyer with years of experience arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court signals that Kalshi is preparing for a serious appellate fight over federal preemption rules.

McHale has yet to rule on Kalshi’s stay motion or enter the operational terms of his injunction, which means the platform is still operational in the state nearly three weeks after his ruling.

Both sides have been pushing to shape McHale’s decision, submitting federal court rulings from other states for his consideration.

• In its filings, Kalshi has cited a July 27 Minnesota federal court order that blocked that state from enforcing a similar prediction-market ban.
• Washington countered on Aug. 5 by pointing out a Utah federal ruling against Kalshi, then followed on Aug. 7 with a Michigan federal ruling against Coinbase Financial Markets, which is trying to run its own prediction market.

McHale’s next ruling, expected in the coming days, should determine whether Kalshi will have to stop operating in Washington state while its appeal plays out.

Members of Washington’s AI task force point to the state’s new AI regulations as evidence that regulation and innovation can coexist, but a panel discussion this week marking the end of their two-year effort showed just how unsettled the core issues remain. 

The task force is caught between consumer and labor groups calling for more extensive guardrails, and tech industry representatives concerned about compliance costs, exposing the tension between the demands of the fast-moving AI industry and the risks the technology poses to individuals.

That came to the fore at a panel on Wednesday, held at the Seattle startup incubator AI House, where task force members faced an unusual mix of people: an audience of AI startup founders, plus a roster of pro-regulation experts representing the legal, labor, and consumer protection fields. 

Panelists were there to discuss the task force’s final report, which recommended AI regulations to the state legislature. Four of the eleven recommendations were adopted, in part or in full, and passed into law this spring. 

“We are here today to see how much of this sentiment — that Washington does not have to choose between embracing innovation and protecting people — comes out in the content of the report,” said Ryan Burns, co-founder of Responsible AI Washington, who moderated the panel. 

That line has become a refrain for AI regulators in Washington. Gov. Bob Ferguson, then the state’s attorney general, requested the legislation creating the task force in 2024. He appointed representatives from government, labor, academia, and the tech industry, directing them to explore how AI could be “regulated without stymieing innovation.” 

In the final report, published in July 2026, Attorney General Nick Brown wrote that the task force had “made clear” that the two priorities could coexist, despite the federal government’s pro-innovation agenda. But Wednesday’s event showed that might not be so simple. 

Narrow regulations passed

Washington passed its first AI regulations this spring, including a requirement that companion chatbots remind users that the bots are not human and another that prohibits medical insurers from denying a patient coverage solely on the basis of an assessment made by AI. For Burns, the laws that did not pass were more telling.

“It did strike me as meaningful that the recommendations that have been adopted pertained to narrower application areas,” Burns said. “The recommendations that have not yet passed were a lot bigger.”

One of those recommendations was to regulate the use of AI for high-risk decision making, meaning applications of AI to hiring processes, algorithmic pricing, criminal justice, and healthcare. A similar law has passed in states such as New York, Connecticut, Illinois, California, and Colorado, but the Washington bill died before reaching a floor vote in either chamber.

The task force’s recommendation to require AI developers to disclose the datasets they are using to train their models, as California does, also died, as did a third recommendation to develop guidelines for the use of AI in the workplace. 

In an interview with GeekWire, state Rep. Mia Gregerson, who sponsored some of the comprehensive bills, said she appreciated the work of the task force but maintained that there is much more work to be done. 

“We are a tech heavy state, so we have an even bigger responsibility to do good work to catch up to what other states are doing,” Gregerson said. “We are so behind.”

On Wednesday, panelists said broader AI regulations failed in part because they drew less interest from the public.

“What passed in the legislature was more sector specific things where the consumer harm was more clear, and I think that’s a product of political dynamics,” said Yuki Ishizuka, technology policy manager for the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. “It’s harder to connect broader governance or transparency bills to harm to people.”

Broad AI regulations also faced heightened opposition from the tech industry, where a patchwork of state regulations means higher legal fees. At task force meetings, which were open to the public, representatives from the tech industry opposed regulations around AI development that would add “procedural hoops.” 

Cost of compliance

Concern about overregulation was echoed by attendees of the event, the majority of whom were founders of small AI startups.

When it came time for the Q&A, multiple audience members asked the task force to consider the financial burden for small startups of complying with complicated state regulations.

The distinction between big tech and startups has become a refrain for AI House, where entrepreneurs met with U.S. Sen. Patty Murray last month to discuss the nuances of AI regulation for so-called “small tech.”

“As these recommendations turn into policy, it’s important that startup founders are part of the conversation,” AI House Managing Director Jacob Colker told GeekWire. “A five-person startup doesn’t have the same legal, compliance, or policy capacity as a trillion-dollar company.”

But Jai Jaisimha, co-founder of a pro-regulation organization called the Transparency Coalition and a former startup founder himself, cautioned against creating legal carve outs for certain AI developers. 

“Arguing that you’re exempt because it’s too much data to disclose, or it’s a trade secret, those arguments send a sign that normal software development and governance does not apply to AI,” Jaisimha said. “Disclosure and consumer protection, these are standard practices in other industries.”

While the bills that would have been most costly for developers to comply with did not pass into law, those that did will still create significant legal consequences for AI developers who don’t abide by them. 

Panelist and technology law expert Ryan Calo, a University of Washington law professor who was not a member of the task force, said the state’s new companion chatbot law will be “blood in the water for the plaintiffs’ bar” for two separate reasons. 

• First, any failure to comply could now be treated by the courts as “negligence per se,” meaning that the plaintiff will not have to show broader negligence but will simply have to show that the defendant violated the law. 
• Second, any failure to follow these regulations is deemed an unfair or deceptive act under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, giving consumers a private right of action and exposing developers to higher financial penalties. 

The question for the tech industry will be about where the state’s attorney general will prioritize enforcement. 

“The AG has a lot of power, but not enough to bring every violation of the law. So you have to think of the Eye of Sauron, and whether it will focus on you. If you’re a little startup, probably not, but if you’re Meta, probably yes,” Calo said.

Future AI regulation

As Washington state prepares to implement its new regulations this January, regulators are bracing for backlash from the federal government.

A December executive order from the Trump administration called on Congress to pass a “minimally-burdensome” AI policy preempting state laws, created an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state laws that don’t “sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance,” and threatened to cut broadband funding to those states. It named Colorado, which enacted the first comprehensive state AI law in 2024.

Federal preemption would require Congress to pass AI regulation of its own, which it has yet to do, but Trump’s order still seems to be having an effect. 

• This spring, Colorado repealed its AI regulation and replaced it with a more conciliatory law. 
• In Virginia, where no AI regulations have gained traction, legislators pointed to the federal government’s threats. 
• And in Utah, lawmakers withdrew a bill to regulate frontier models after the Trump administration sent them a memo criticizing it for “opposing the federal government’s agenda,” according to Politico.

“We believe that, if the federal government is going to act, they should act with meaningful AI regulation, and should not preempt the state’s ability to protect its citizens,” said Ishizuka of the Washington state AG’s office. 

The federal pressure has not stopped some leaders from calling for far-reaching regulation. Some members of Wednesday’s second panel, which was made up of representatives from labor, academia, and consumers from outside the task force, proposed redistribution: Future AI regulation should reallocate the profits made by developers to pay for AI’s impending costs, such as cybersecurity improvements, worker retraining, and updates to school curricula.

“My worry is that there is going to be a lot of money being made, and I really think that bill should go to the people that are making a lot of money off of it,” Calo said. “I’m not sure that all of the [task force’s] recommendations directly address that redistribution element.”

Some state lawmakers are ready to address it. Gregerson, whose district includes SeaTac Airport and whose constituency includes many Uber drivers, told GeekWire she hopes to allocate state funds for retraining rideshare drivers who are replaced by autonomous vehicles.

State Rep. Clyde Shavers, who was not present at Wednesday’s panel but was a member of the task force, has said he wants to spend the next session establishing liability frameworks for AI-related harm.

Now that the report has been published, the task force will be disbanded, but the work will continue at the Attorney General’s Office, where a new Tech Policy Team will be led by Ishizuka. 

“With the completion of the task force’s work, there is strong interest in the AG’s office to continue to focus on AI policy,” Ishizuka said. “We’ll look at emerging technologies and bring in outside expertise so that there is informed regulation.”