AI LEAD Act
Summary, written by a model from the CRS summary
Would establish liability standards for harms caused by AI systems, allowing lawsuits against developers and deployers. It aims to give injured people a clear legal remedy for AI-caused harm.
Model-rated AI relevance 95%.
Sponsored by
Richard DurbinDemocratILData as of: bills Sep 9, 2026 · votes Sep 11, 2026 · statements Sep 9, 2026. What changed
Progress
Introduced
Sep 29, 2025
Reported by committee
—
Passed House
—
Passed Senate
—
Became law
—
Latest action · September 29, 2025
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S6836-6838)
What members said
Releases that cite this bill first, then releases on the same topics.
Sanders would permanently ban superintelligent AI and pause advanced AI development until a new federal regulator sets safety rules.
Source ↗Barrett's bipartisan Doctors Not AI Act would bar AI from making medical-necessity insurance denials and require disclosure of AI use.
Source ↗Landsman's Doctors Not AI Act would keep licensed clinicians, not algorithms, in charge of medical-necessity decisions with transparency for patients.
Source ↗Schrier's Doctors Not AI Act would require doctors rather than AI systems to make health coverage decisions, with oversight and disclosure.
Source ↗Harrigan backs bipartisan monitoring of self-improving AI through NIST while stressing the bill imposes no new mandates and won't impede innovation.
Source ↗Jacobs introduces bipartisan legislation creating a DoD-wide AI incident and vulnerability reporting program to make military AI safer and more accountable.
Source ↗Whitesides introduces the Self-Improving AI Monitoring Act to give federal evaluators visibility into frontier labs' automated AI R&D and reduce superintelligence risk.
Source ↗Trahan touts endorsement of her bipartisan FRONTIER Act, which would impose binding federal safety frameworks, third-party audits, and incident reporting on frontier AI developers.
Source ↗Bill data read 2026-09-09T02:09:45.522Z