SB 226 creates a new chapter in Utah law governing the use of generative artificial intelligence in consumer transactions and certain regulated services. The bill defines key terms such as “generative artificial intelligence,” “high-risk artificial intelligence interaction,” “consumer transaction,” and “regulated occupation,” and it applies to AI systems that interact with consumers through text, audio, or visual communication with limited or no human oversight.
The bill requires disclosures in two main settings. First, if a supplier uses generative AI in a consumer transaction, the supplier must disclose that the consumer is interacting with AI rather than a human when the consumer clearly asks whether AI is being used. Second, individuals providing services in regulated occupations must prominently disclose AI use when the interaction is “high-risk,” such as when sensitive health, financial, biometric, legal, medical, or mental health information is involved, or when the AI provides advice that could reasonably be relied on for significant personal decisions. These disclosures must be made verbally at the start of a verbal interaction and in writing before a written interaction.
The bill also establishes a safe harbor for entities whose AI clearly and conspicuously discloses at the outset and throughout the interaction that it is AI, not human, or an AI assistant. It authorizes the Division of Consumer Protection, in consultation with the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, to adopt rules on acceptable disclosure forms and methods. The bill makes violations of the new chapter a violation of Utah’s consumer protection law, authorizes administrative fines and court enforcement, and allows courts to order injunctions, disgorgement, restitution to injured individuals, attorney fees, costs, and additional civil penalties for noncompliance with enforcement orders.
In addition to the new disclosure and enforcement framework, SB 226 clarifies that generative AI is not a defense to violations of consumer protection statutes administered by the Division of Consumer Protection. It also repeals a prior section addressing generative AI and consumer protection liability, and extends the repeal date of the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act from May 1, 2025 to July 1, 2027. The bill states that it does not displace other state or federal remedies.
The bill appears to have broad support and little visible opposition. It passed Senate committee and floor votes unanimously, then passed the House committee and House floor unanimously as well. The available record shows no committee transcript debate and no recorded dissenting votes, suggesting general agreement on the need for AI transparency and consumer protections. The main policy issue reflected in the text is how broadly disclosure should apply and how much flexibility should be given to the Division of Consumer Protection in defining acceptable disclosure methods, but no significant controversy is evident in the voting history.
SB 226 adds a new consumer-protection chapter to Title 13 of the Utah Code and directly affects suppliers, AI-enabled service providers, and regulated professionals who use generative AI in consumer-facing interactions. It creates affirmative disclosure duties, makes AI use irrelevant as a defense to consumer protection violations, and gives the Division of Consumer Protection and the attorney general enforcement authority, including administrative fines, civil actions, injunctions, disgorgement, and civil penalties. The bill also amends the repeal schedule for the Artificial Intelligence Policy Act and repeals a prior liability-related section, thereby consolidating and extending Utah’s AI regulatory framework.
The overall sentiment around the bill is strongly favorable. It moved through both chambers with unanimous committee and floor votes, indicating bipartisan support and little to no opposition. The bill’s focus on transparency, consumer awareness, and accountability for AI-assisted services appears to have been broadly accepted by lawmakers.
No major contention is evident in the available record. The only potentially debatable issues are the scope of required disclosures, especially for regulated occupations and high-risk interactions, and the extent of rulemaking discretion given to the Division of Consumer Protection in defining compliant disclosure methods. The bill’s safe harbor provision suggests an effort to balance consumer notice requirements with flexibility for businesses and service providers, but the unanimous votes indicate these issues did not generate visible disagreement.