Gov. Ned Lamont , who had remained skeptical of the bill early Thursday morning, became more amenable to the revamped legislation by the late morning as more details emerged. Both the governor and Speaker of the House Matt Ritter said he would have to review the late-breaking changes in the bill that led to the bipartisan 32-4 vote shortly before midnight.
The chief proponent of the legislation, state Sen. James Maroney, spent much of Wednesday negotiating and revising the bill, which could potentially fly in the face of the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representative's plan to push for a 10-year moratorium prohibiting states from controlling the development of AI.
"Let me read it," Lamont said after an unrelated news conference in Danbury. "I want to thank Sen. Maroney for everything he's done to try to get a bill that gets broad support. My general concern is to be the first in the region to have AI regulations that could scare away some innovators. But I can be instructed so we'll take a look at it."
Maroney, a nationally recognized advocate of AI rules who is the co-chairman of the legislative General Law Committee, ended up removing two sections of the legislation in attempt to gain at least tacit support from Lamont, who earlier in the day reiterated a long-standing position that he wasn't inclined to support it.
At about 9:30 p.m., a deal was struck for gaining support from Senate Republicans, but Maroney wasn't sure if Lamont would drop his opposition.
"It would be my hope in that we had discussed with them, transparency before that they seemed agreeable to," Maroney, in the Senate chamber, whispered to reporters about talks with Lamont's office. "But that was before there were words on paper." The revised bill would include a new unit within the state attorney general's data privacy division.
Maroney said the new version of the bill would delete the definition of algorithmic bias, which has been found to discriminate against women and people of color in employment and housing. It contains new criminal sanctions against the use of nonconsensual intimate images called deep-fake revenge porn.
"You would have the right to know that AI is being used," he said. "You'll only have a right to appeal a decision if it's based on the wrong data." But ramifications for the industry in cases of discrimination were removed in attempt to make it more palatable to the opponents.
"Look, I'm really cautious about the bill," Lamont told reporters earlier Wednesday, acknowledging that Maroney, D-Milford, had worked with various industry and advocacy interests including Department of Economic and Community Development Commissioner Daniel O'Keefe, who had been opposed to the legislation throughout the General Assembly sessions of 2025 and 2024.
"I just worry about every state going out and doing their own thing; a patchwork quilt of regulations; Connecticut being probably stricter and broader than most," Lamont said. "What that means in terms of AI development here. Maybe you're at-risk here, so I want to be very cautious about that."
A year ago, Maroney's effort to regulate the fast-growing industry passed the Senate but died without action in the state House of Representatives under Lamont's threatened veto.
"I understand peoples' concerns about AI," Lamont said. "I know about deep fakes. I also know that our consumer protection laws are really strong. We're going to hold people accountable. I do worry a lot. I think at the end of the day the headline is 'Connecticut is a leader at regulating AI,' and they'll be 30 other states trying to take some of our very best programmers and those who are going to be at the forefront. AI should be a natural big piece of Connecticut going forward. I would just slow down a little bit. Those things that are illegal, we're going to make sure that people are held accountable. I think we're in a good place right now."
Nonpartisan legislative staff estimated that implementing the legislation could cost $3 million or more in the budget year that starts July 1.
Speaking with reporters Thursday morning before the House session, Ritter and House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, who had just met behind closed doors with Matt Brokman, Lamont's chief of staff, stressed the need to thoroughly review the AI bill.
"We'll see how it plays out," said Ritter, D-Hartford . "It's got a long way to go. I think it truly is a question of whether Connecticut should be the first state to regulate the Internet in this way. I think that's where the governor is coming from and I tend to agree with that position. I think we're too small and when other states or Congress does it, it will be easier to do it."
"It's part of the challenge of balancing the interests of the risks that are posed by AI against the opportunities for economic development," Rojas, D- East Hartford, said. "Maybe we can be helpful to bridge the divide if they're getting closer," Ritter added.
The debate in the Senate finally started at about 10:30 p.m. Wednesday, with Maroney standing to discuss the details, including free programming for state residents to learn generative AI skills and earn credentials. "This is a critical skill for our work force," Maroney said of the proposed AI Academy. "It's not enough to building something, people need to learn."
Another goal is to use AI in state government to make it more efficient and help state services, he said. Collecting data on AI-related layoffs in the state would help on future outreach in attempt to decrease the gap between Connecticut's wealthy and low-income families. Republican support was led by Sen. Paul Cicarella of North Haven and Sen. Heather Somers of Groton.
"It could streamline processes," Cicarella said. "We see it evolving every day. It makes things move quicker. It's absolutely mind-blowing. It's all about prompting. It's so important, the education part. Now we're going to have classes right here in Connecticut." He thanked Maroney for addressing the concerns of industry. "We want businesses to come to Connecticut." He said that the removal of two sections that could have discouraged business, was important.
Maroney warned that bugs in AI can wrongly discriminate against job seekers and in the screening of tenants seeking housing.
State Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, who voted against the bill, warned that small employers could be disadvantaged by unintentional consequences in a bill that was revised during the day and thrust on the Senate at a late hour. "Why are we in such a race to be first?" he said. "What if we're wrong? It's our businesses that suffer. We don't need to be the first. We need to be the best."
"This has never been about being first," Maroney said, linking a rise in social anxiety to the rise of social media around 2010. "What if we are right?" He noted that New York state has recently invested $100 million in artificial intelligence. "We're seeing harms, unfortunately, every day."
Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff warned that in Washington, the federal government seems at the mercy of big tech that opposes any regulations. "This is a very difficult and complex issue," said Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R- Brookfield, warning that earlier versions of the bill would have hindered businesses and hospitals. Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said that waiting for national regulations would be acceptable, but there is little chance that will happen in Congress and the White Horse.
Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, who has worked on the issue in recent years with Maroney, said that the compromise bill does not meet concerns of Black and brown lawmakers and the issue of algorithmic bias. "We walked back off the protections we had," he said, noting that the revised bill protects businesses from consequences for discrimination. "People are going to be trampled potentially, but it's okay. I've always been on of the people who was trampled. Broken lives and broken people are often the cost of business."
"I want to tell Sen. Winfield I'm sorry," said Maroney, citing recent studies that indicate people with "Black-sounding" names are being discriminated against while the industry is "putting profits ahead of people."
On Thursday morning, House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, noting the potentially veto-proof vote in the Senate, said that among the four GOP lawmakers who voted against the bill was conservative Sen. Rob Sampson from Wolcott and moderate Tony Hwang of Fairfield. "We just don't want to impact adversely a developing industry," he said. "We have two ends of the Republican spectrum saying this bill has problems."
©2025 Journal Inquirer, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
