The law in question is state Senate Bill 24-205, also known as the Colorado AI Act. It was passed in 2024, although it will not take effect until June 30. The act was created to protect consumers in Colorado from foreseeable risks of high-risk AI systems through impact assessments, information disclosures, and publicly available risk summaries. On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to intervene in xAI’s lawsuit and on Monday, a federal judge ruled that the law’s enforcement is on hold.
President Donald Trump’s December executive order was the first indication that such a lawsuit might be filed, as it specifically called out the Colorado law.
The case, xAI v. Weiser, aims to prevent enforcement and implementation of the law, arguing that it is “unconstitutional” and alleging that it promotes discrimination.
DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet K. Dhillon criticized the law in a statement for allegedly attempting to “require AI companies to infect their products with woke DEI ideology.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser “has no comment on this active litigation," his office’s Director of Communications Lawrence Pacheco said in an email. One of the law’s sponsors, state Rep. Brianna Titone, argued that it actually does the opposite of what the lawsuit claims.
“The whole point of the law that we put in place was to prevent discrimination,” Titone said. There is a disconnect between the lawsuit and the legislation, Titone added, because the law as written requires companies not to discriminate.
Although there are questions about the future of the Colorado AI Act, policymakers are actively working to put a new bill in place that will change the current policy, she said, “so this really doesn’t have any relevance.”
This work to create new protections started during the 2025 special session, Titone said, led by a task force convened by Gov. Jared Polis to create guidance that will similarly protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination in a way that aims to compromise with opponents.
“Our session ends on May 13, so we don’t have that much time left to put this new law into effect, but it is our goal to do that,” Titone said.
The lawsuit raises concerns about how state-level AI laws might negatively impact innovation, but Titone argued that the legislation is actually beneficial for those selling AI products, because building a product that performs better and mitigates risk will improve sales.
Discrimination is a significant risk posed by AI systems, with one example being those used in the hiring process. The hiring process can already involve discrimination, but as Titone said, an AI system can theoretically discriminate against thousands of people in the same amount of time that a human hiring manager can discriminate against just a handful. Companies that deploy these systems open themselves up to liabilities if the systems they use discriminate; the Colorado law shifts that onus onto the creators of those systems.
Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the impacts of a fragmented AI legislative landscape, but there is bipartisan support for state-level AI regulation. Titone underlined that Colorado policymakers originally developed the law with a goal of working with other states to pass uniform AI protections. There is “strength in numbers” when collaborating with other states to advance technology safeguards, she said.
The federal government’s approach to AI regulations shifted when Trump took office again, with the administration’s goal being to position the U.S. as an AI leader. Titone described this shift as a “180” for the future of AI regulation as the administration attempted to pre-empt state-level AI policymaking. However, both Democrat and Republican government officials have emphasized that an executive order cannot block state legislation.
Colorado is not alone in facing pushback on its attempts to enact AI safeguards; California, too, has been met with opposition in these efforts, in large part from big tech companies. Some experts have even criticized the federal AI framework as an attempt to “protect Big Tech at the expense of everyday Americans.”
Colorado Rep. Manny Rutinel, another of the bill’s sponsors, said via email: “Coloradans deserve technology that works for everyone, not just billionaires.”
