An Act to direct the Joint Commission on Technology and Science to evaluate the feasibility and impact of developing a framework for any person or entity seeking to act as an independent verification organization that assesses artificial intelligence models or applications; report.
HB797 directs the Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS) to study whether Virginia should create a framework for independent verification organizations that would assess artificial intelligence models or applications for compliance with standards aimed at preventing personal injury and property damage. The bill does not itself regulate AI systems or create a licensing program; instead, it requires JCOTS to evaluate the risks posed by AI in the Commonwealth, the availability of measurable risk metrics, existing mitigation standards, and approaches used in other states.
The study must also examine the fiscal impact of creating and implementing such a framework. If JCOTS concludes that a framework is advisable, it must further assess whether a licensing scheme for verification organizations is feasible and whether the Virginia Information Technologies Agency or another state agency could administer it. JCOTS is required to report its findings and recommendations to specified legislative committees by November 1, 2026.
The bill has a limited immediate legal impact because it is a study measure rather than a substantive regulatory change. It does not amend existing AI statutes or impose new compliance obligations on developers, deployers, or verification entities. Its practical effect is to place AI governance, third-party auditing, and potential state licensing of verification organizations under formal legislative review, which could inform future regulation in Virginia.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote data indicating opposition, and the bill was enacted as Chapter 425. The overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable toward careful study of artificial intelligence oversight, with the legislature choosing to gather information before adopting any binding regulatory framework. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the measure was treated as a preliminary, noncontroversial step in AI policy development.
Because the bill only requires a feasibility study, there is no documented substantive disagreement in the available materials. The main issues the study is designed to explore—such as the scope of AI-related risks, how to measure those risks, whether independent verification should be licensed, and which agency should oversee any licensing regime—are the likely points of future contention. Any debate would likely center on the costs of regulation, the reliability of AI safety metrics, and whether state oversight should be handled by VITA or another agency.