A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 59.1 a chapter numbered 60, consisting of sections numbered 59.1-614 through 59.1-617, relating to Fostering Access, Innovation, and Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence Act established.
HB713 creates the “Fostering Access, Innovation, and Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence Act” (the FAIR AI Act) in Title 59.1 of the Code of Virginia. The bill defines key terms such as artificial intelligence system, base artificial intelligence model, developer, deployer, and misuse, and it applies to persons doing business in Virginia who develop, modify, deploy, or use AI systems in connection with consequential decisions. It also sets an effective date of July 1, 2027.
The bill imposes a disclosure requirement on developers of base AI models. Those developers must clearly and conspicuously disclose, in the model’s terms of service and in a user-accessible manner, the model name, developer name, place of incorporation, most recent release date, date of the latest training-data update, supported languages, and a link to the terms of service. The bill also states that providing this disclosure does not shield a developer from liability for harm caused by the model.
HB713 further creates the FAIR AI Enforcement Fund in the state treasury as a nonreverting special fund. Money in the fund is dedicated to supporting state agency enforcement related to AI system misuse, bias, and workforce disruption, with expenditures made through the State Treasurer on warrants issued by the Comptroller at the Attorney General’s request. In addition, the bill provides that in civil or criminal actions involving harm allegedly caused by an AI system, defendants may not avoid liability simply by arguing that the AI system acted autonomously or caused the harm, though existing common-law defenses such as intervening or superseding conduct remain available.
The bill’s impact would be to establish a new regulatory and enforcement framework for AI in Virginia, particularly for developers and deployers of AI systems used in consequential decision-making. It would create new disclosure obligations, potentially expand exposure to civil or criminal claims involving AI-caused harm, and earmark state resources for enforcement against misuse, bias, and workforce disruption. The measure would add a new chapter to the Virginia Code and could affect AI vendors, businesses using AI tools, and state enforcement agencies.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so the general sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. Procedurally, the bill was left in the House Appropriations Committee, which suggests it did not advance out of committee. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at accountability and transparency in AI, but its liability provisions and enforcement focus could raise concerns among technology companies and other AI users about compliance burdens and litigation risk.
HB713 would amend the Code of Virginia by adding a new chapter in Title 59.1 governing artificial intelligence. It would require disclosure by developers of base AI models, create a dedicated enforcement fund, and limit certain defenses in actions alleging harm caused by AI systems. The bill would directly affect AI developers and deployers doing business in Virginia, as well as state agencies responsible for enforcement, and it would take effect July 1, 2027.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no documented public sentiment from hearings or floor action. The bill’s introduction and referral to Appropriations indicate it was considered but not advanced, and its policy design suggests a pro-accountability, pro-transparency approach to AI regulation. At the same time, the absence of recorded support or opposition in the provided materials means any broader sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s structure, not from debate.
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s liability provisions and regulatory scope. Technology developers and deployers may object to the requirement that AI-related harm cannot be avoided by claiming the system acted autonomously, as well as to the broad disclosure obligations for base model developers. Supporters would likely emphasize transparency, consumer protection, and enforcement against misuse, bias, and workforce disruption. The bill’s creation of a special enforcement fund and its focus on AI-caused harm suggest a stronger enforcement posture that could be controversial among industry stakeholders.