Consumer Protection - Workgroup on Artificial Intelligence Implementation
HB956 establishes the Workgroup on Artificial Intelligence Implementation within Maryland law. The workgroup is tasked with monitoring how artificial intelligence is being used and making recommendations on a broad set of consumer-protection and public-policy issues, including AI used in high-impact decisions, privacy and labor protections, consumer rights, private-sector deployment, disclosures to consumers, enforcement authority for the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division, and the use of AI in determining government benefits.
The workgroup is structured as a multi-sector advisory body with legislative members, executive-branch officials, and appointees from technology, e-commerce, biotechnology, real estate, health care, education, academia, civil rights, cybersecurity, consumer-protection nonprofits, data privacy groups, the Maryland Veterans Chamber of Commerce, and labor-affiliated tech organizations. It is staffed by the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, must coordinate with the Maryland Cybersecurity Council, and must report annually beginning July 1, 2026. The bill also authorizes a possible $100,000 annual appropriation starting in fiscal 2027 and sunsets the workgroup on June 30, 2029.
The bill adds a new section to the State Finance and Procurement Article, creating a temporary state workgroup rather than directly regulating artificial intelligence. Its legal effect is to formalize an advisory and reporting mechanism for future AI-related consumer protection policy, potentially informing later legislation or agency action. It also contemplates future budget support and places the Attorney General’s consumer protection role, privacy issues, and government-benefits uses of AI within the workgroup’s review scope.
The voting record shows strong bipartisan support, with unanimous third-reading passage in both chambers and no recorded opposition. The absence of committee transcript material suggests little visible controversy in the available record. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a prudent, forward-looking study measure addressing a rapidly evolving technology area.
The main policy tensions implied by the bill involve how aggressively Maryland should regulate AI, especially in employment, consumer decision-making, privacy, and public benefits administration. The inclusion of representatives from industry, civil rights, consumer-protection, labor, and technical sectors suggests an effort to balance innovation concerns with safeguards against misuse. Any contention likely centered on the scope of the workgroup’s mandate, the breadth of stakeholder representation, and whether the state should move from study to regulation, but no explicit opposition appears in the available votes or transcripts.