Editor’s note: This is the second of three stories in a series that examines Utah’s approach to artificial intelligence and its ongoing governance.<\/p>\n
SALT LAKE CITY \u2014 If you want to understand why Utah \u2014 traditionally a state that shies away from overregulation \u2014 is suddenly the national architect of artificial intelligence policy, you have to look at the lawsuits sitting on Margaret Woolley Busse’s desk.<\/p>\n
As executive director of the Utah Department of Commerce, Busse has been on a four-year “social media journey,” leading the charge against tech giants<\/a> like TikTok, Meta and Snap. But for Busse, those legal battles aren’t just about the past; they are a cautionary tale for the future.<\/p>\n “We haven’t really solved the social media problem, and now we have this,” Busse says, referring to the explosion of generative AI. “We are seeing the same business models \u2014 collecting data, using it to monetize \u2014 that made social media bad. We decided we weren’t going to let that happen again.”<\/p>\n The ‘political crisis’ of trust<\/p>\n Busse described AI as facing a “political crisis.” While Silicon Valley is focused on velocity, the public is increasingly anxious. Recent tragedies involving AI “companions” and teen self-harm have shifted the needle; for many families, the excitement of a smarter world has been replaced by the fear of an extractive one.<\/p>\n “Anxiety has actually overcome excitement in terms of how Americans view AI,” Busse noted. “If we don’t have trust in the technology, there’s going to be a massive backlash. We have to do it in a way that builds trust \u2014 not through voluntary ‘pinky swears’ from tech companies, but through high-stakes transparency.”<\/p>\n Legislative ‘teeth’ in 2026<\/p>\n Utah’s answer is a framework built on six distinct pillars<\/a>: regulatory policy, public protection, learning, workforce, academia and state government. The current 2026 legislative session is moving forward with HB286, the “Artificial Intelligence Transparency Act<\/a>,” spearheaded by Rep. Doug Fiefia, R-Herriman. Unlike earlier social media laws, this bill treats advanced AI models as product features rather than “free speech,” requiring “frontier model” developers to:<\/p>\n Publish child protection plans: Detailing exactly how they prevent harmful targeting or emotional exploitation of minors.Provide whistleblower protections: Ensuring employees within these AI firms can report safety incidents or “catastrophic risk” without fear of retaliation.The enforcement “hammer”: Busse was clear \u2014 the state isn’t just offering slaps on the wrist. Violations carry civil penalties of $1 million for a first offense and $3 million for subsequent ones. If a company in Utah’s “learning lab” misses a safety mark, the state can immediately revoke its regulatory relief, leaving it fully exposed to legal liability.Doctor, not device<\/p>\n