From the journal

Federal court pauses enforcement of the Colorado AI Act

A federal court has stayed enforcement of Colorado's SB 24-205 weeks before its 30 June 2026 effective date, leaving one of the country's most far reaching state AI laws on hold.

2 min read

On 27 April 2026 a federal court in Colorado approved a joint request to stay enforcement of the Colorado AI Act. The order pauses litigation deadlines. It also freezes the law just weeks before its scheduled 30 June 2026 effective date.

What the law was set to require

The Colorado AI Act, codified as SB 24-205, was on track to be among the most comprehensive state level statutes on high risk AI. It would have imposed disclosure, risk management and impact assessment duties. These obligations applied to developers and deployers of consumer facing AI tools.

Why the case was filed

The litigation began in April 2026. A leading social media and AI company sought declaratory and injunctive relief on constitutional grounds. The United States Department of Justice intervened on the same side. The DOJ argued that several provisions effectively require AI systems to incorporate discriminatory ideology. That position invokes both the First Amendment and federal preemption.

Where things stand now

For the time being, the Colorado Attorney General will not initiate investigations or enforcement actions under the Act. That position holds while the case remains stayed. The Colorado General Assembly is also reconsidering the timing and scope of the legislation. The current session is due to adjourn on 13 May 2026, and bills can move quickly in those final days.

Why deployers should still plan as if it applies

The pause does not eliminate compliance risk. Employers and AI deployers operating in Colorado should continue to plan for the law as drafted. A renewed effective date, a narrower scope, or modified obligations are all possible outcomes. Documentation of model use, governance frameworks and impact assessments remain prudent regardless of the litigation outcome.

The Colorado position also matters beyond its borders. Other state legislatures have looked to SB 24-205 as a template. The final shape of the law, after litigation and amendment, will influence how the next wave of state AI bills are drafted.

AIUnited StatesColorado

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).

Illia Prokopiev

Stablecoin regulation in the US, Hong Kong and Singapore

Stablecoin and digital-token regulation now combines market-entry authorization with continuous financial-crime controls in daily operations. The question is whether the United States’ proposed payment-stablecoin customer identification program, Hong Kong’s narrow first licensing round, and Singapore’s digital payment token (DPT) directory support a bank-like compliance characterization. They do, with material limits. The more accurate proposition is that compliance is moving beyond approval into continuous financial-institution-grade operations.