Bill to Create A.I. Evidence Clinic Pilot Program Was Vetoed in MD

Senate Bill 655 was vetoed by the Governor.  It was titled “ Artificial Intelligence Evidence Clinic Pilot Program – Establishment.”  It would have established a pilot program in the Administrative Office of the Courts to develop a grant program designed “to provide expertise in the artificial intelligence” to the Maryland trial courts “in the form of expert testimony on the authenticity of electronic evidence that the court determines “may have been created or altered using artificial intelligence.”

The veto letter stated: “ While detection of AI alteration in expert evidence in judicial proceedings is and will be a legitimate and growing challenge for courts across the nation, as a separate branch of government, the Judiciary has the inherent ability to develop such programs on its own, and the authority to propose establishment of a budget for them. Therefore, the bill is unnecessary for the Judiciary to establish the Pilot Program, and legislation such as this placing detailed requirements on the Judiciary may be interpreted as an overreach into the independence of the judicial branch of government.”  It added that, under the Maryland Constitution, the Chief Justice determines program funding and the Attorney General opined that the funding provision “has no legal effect.”  It concluded: “In sum, while the bill is well–intended, its purpose can be accomplished without legislation and the bill as passed raises constitutional concerns. For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill 655.”

Some of the Recent Maryland Bills on Artificial Intelligence

The following is a cherry-picked list of some of the recent Maryland legislative activity on A.I.”

House Bill 969 was approved by the Governor and codified as State Finance and Procurement Article §3.5-807.  Titled “Consumer Protection – Workgroup on Artificial Intelligence Implementation,” the bill creates a Workgroup tasked to monitor certain issues and make recommendations including the regulation of A.I. used in decisions “that significantly impact the livelihood and lives” of people in Maryland.  Included among the topics are regulations related to employment, protection of individual privacy, protection of consumer rights, and general A.I. disclosures for all consumers.  One topic is “the impact of the use of artificial intelligence in the determination of government benefits.”  The first annual report will be due on July 1, 2026. The act took effect on July 1, 2025, and requires annual reports until June 30, 2029, at which time it sunsets.

However, House Bill 1331, “Consumer Protection – Artificial Intelligence,” failed. It would have regulated “the manner in which a developer or deployer of artificial intelligence must protect consumers from certain risks; requiring a developer that offers to sell a certain artificial intelligence system to provide certain information and make certain disclosures; requiring a deployer to implement a certain risk management policy and take certain precautions to protect consumers from certain risks; requiring a deployer to complete an impact assessment and make certain disclosures; etc.”

Senate Bill 0936 was not enacted.  It was titled “Consumer Protection – High-Risk Artificial Intelligence – Developer and Deployer Requirements.”  It was for the stated purpose of “[r]equiring a certain developer of, and a certain deployer who uses, a certain high-risk artificial intelligence system to use reasonable care to protect consumers from known and reasonably foreseeable risks of certain algorithmic discrimination in a certain high-risk artificial intelligence system; regulating the use of high-risk artificial intelligence systems by establishing certain requirements for disclosures, impact assessments, and other consumer protection provisions; authorizing the Attorney General to enforce the Act; etc.”

House Bill 589 did not make it out of committee.  It was titled “Artificial Intelligence – Causing Injury or Death – Civil and Criminal Liability.” The official synopsis was: “Establishing that a person who intentionally, knowingly, or negligently designs or creates artificial intelligence software able to cause physical injury or death is strictly liable for damages and subject to a civil penalty if the software is used to cause personal injury or death; and prohibiting a person from intentionally, knowingly, or negligently designing or creating artificial intelligence software able to cause injury or death.”

House Bill 0525, titled “Election Law – Influencing a Voter By Dissemination of a Deepfake – Prohibition,” was not enacted.  It would have prohibited “a person from, with fraudulent intent, influencing or attempting to influence a voter’s decision whether or not to cast a vote or how to vote on a candidate or ballot issue by disseminating a deepfake” “defining ‘deepfake’ as an image, an audio recording, or a video recording that has been intentionally created or manipulated with the use of generative artificial intelligence or other digital technology to create a realistic but false depiction of a person that an ordinary person would conclude is an actual representation.”

House Bill 0740, titled “Election Law – Campaign Materials – Disclosure of Use of Synthetic Media,” also failed.

House Bill 823 also “died” in committee.  It was titled “Generative Artificial Intelligence – Training Data Transparency.”  The official synopsis was: “Requiring a developer of a generative artificial intelligence system, on or before January 1, 2026, and before the developer releases or substantially modifies a certain generative artificial intelligence system, to publish on the developer’s website documentation detailing the data used to train the generative artificial intelligence system.”

House Bill 439 did not pass. It was titled “Vehicle Laws – Fully Autonomous Vehicles – Human Safety Operators and Reporting Requirements.”  The official synopsis was: “Requiring a human safety operator to be present in certain fully autonomous vehicles operating on highways in the State; requiring a manufacturer of a fully autonomous vehicle to submit to the Motor Vehicle Administration an incident report on any vehicle collision, certain citations for traffic violations, any disengagement event, or any assault or harassment of a passenger or human safety operator that occurs in the State and involves a fully autonomous vehicle under certain circumstances; etc.”

House Bill 0005, “Criminal Law – Child Sexual Abuse Material – Artificial Intelligence Software,” stopped in committee.  It would have altered “the term ‘child pornography’ to be ‘child sexual abuse material’ for purposes of certain criminal offenses; defining ‘computer-generated image’ to include images created through the use of artificial intelligence software as the term pertains to provisions of law related to child sexual abuse material; etc.”

House Bill 0663 also failed. It was titled “Civil Actions – Sexual Deepfake Representations and Revenge Porn.”  It would have authorized “a person to bring and maintain a civil action for defamation against another person who distributes a computer-generated visual representation that is indistinguishable from an actual visual representation of the person and falsely depicts the person with his or her intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual activity….”

House Bill 0981, “[r]equiring the State Department of Education to conduct an evaluation on the use and potential use of artificial intelligence in public schools; requiring that the evaluation consist of a survey of local school systems and a review of available systems that use artificial intelligence to assist with student learning; requiring the Department of Information Technology to assist the State Department of Education in performing its review; and requiring the Department to issue a final report on the results of the evaluation by December 15, 2026,” did not pass.

House Bill 1407, “Commercial Law – Voice and Visual Likeness – Digital Replication Rights (Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act – NO FAKES Act)” failed.

Senate Bill 0904, “Data Brokers – Registry and Gross Income Tax (Building Information Guardrails Data Act of 2025),” was not passed. It would have established “the Privacy Protection and Enforcement Unit within the Division of Consumer Protection in the Office of the Attorney General; establish[ed] a data broker registry; requir[ed] certain data brokers to register each year with the Comptroller; and impos[ed] a tax on the gross income of certain data brokers for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026.

This is only a sampling of the many A.I. bills.