From the journal

Connecticut Enacts AI Transparency Act Covering Employer Automated Decision Tools, June 2026

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed Senate Bill 5 into law in June 2026, enacted as Public Act 26-15 and known as the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act. The CART Act imposes disclosure requirements on employers using automated employment decision tools, prohibits using such tools as a defense to discrimination claims, and includes whistleblower protections. Key provisions take effect 1 October 2026.

2 min read

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed Senate Bill 5 into law in June 2026, enacted as Public Act 26-15 and designated the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act (CART Act). The statute is in force with a phased implementation timeline. The automated employment decision tool (AEDT) provisions take effect on 1 October 2026. The CART Act also covers consumer-facing AI companion chatbots, frontier model developers, and online platforms used by minors.

The CART Act defines automated employment-related decision technology (AEDT) as any computational process using machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence to assist or replace discretionary employment decisions. Effective 1 October 2026, employers must disclose the use of an AEDT to any employee or applicant when that tool's output is a substantial factor in an employment-related decision. Connecticut General Statutes are amended to prohibit treating use of an AEDT as a defense to employment discrimination claims. Employers must also disclose in mass-layoff notices whether an automated tool contributed to the reduction decision.

Connecticut employers, staffing agencies, applicant tracking system vendors, and HR technology providers must audit current AEDT deployments and build compliant disclosure workflows before 1 October 2026. AI product vendors selling AEDT tools to Connecticut employer clients bear separate compliance obligations, requiring coordination with enterprise buyers on disclosure infrastructure. Employers planning workforce reductions informed by AI-driven analytics must include new statutory disclosures in any mass-layoff notice.

The CART Act regulates consumer-facing AI companion chatbots and generative AI content provenance under different effective dates from the 1 October 2026 AEDT provisions. Frontier model developers above defined compute thresholds face separate reporting obligations. The Connecticut Attorney General will issue further guidance on AEDT scope, disclosure format, and safe harbor conditions ahead of the October 1 implementation date.

Licentium advises technology companies, employers, and AI product vendors on state and national AI regulatory compliance in the United States and under the EU AI Act. We maintain a partner network of US employment and technology law specialists across key jurisdictions. To discuss how the CART Act affects your product roadmap or workforce operations, contact us. Work we undertake includes AI regulatory compliance gap analysis, automated decision tool auditing, AI governance policy drafting, and multi-state AI law compliance strategy.

Source: Governor Ned Lamont, Public Act 26-15 (Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act, Senate Bill 5), signed June 2026

AI Regulatory

More from the journal

See all
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.

Illia Prokopiev

The Legal Perimeter for DeFi Vault Curators: Panama, BVI, and Cayman Islands

Under the laws of Panama, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands: When can a tokenised DeFi vault constitute a regulated collective-investment vehicle? When can a compensated “curator” with authority over collateral, portfolio composition, rebalancing, valuation or oracle sources, emergency controls, execution, wallets or keys constitute a regulated investment manager, fund functionary, investment-business provider, mutual-fund administrator, custodian or virtual-asset service provider?