The AI Accountability Act is a federal bill, H.R. 1694, that would direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to study how accountability measures can be built into artificial intelligence systems used in communications networks. It does not create rules, penalties, or enforcement powers. Introduced in February 2025, it sits in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and has not moved.1Congress.gov. H.R.1694 – Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act
The name is easy to confuse with other proposals and with state laws that use similar language. The federal bill by that title is a study bill. The more prescriptive measures showing up in the news, including California’s Generative AI Accountability Act and Colorado’s consumer protection law, are separate.
What the Bill Would Do
H.R. 1694 tasks the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, who heads the NTIA, with conducting a study and holding public meetings on two subjects: how accountability measures are being incorporated into AI systems used in communications technologies, and what information about those systems should be made available to the people and communities affected by them.2Congress.gov. H.R.1694 – Text
The bill defines an “accountability measure” as a mechanism such as an audit, assessment, or certification designed to provide assurance that an AI system is trustworthy. The study must address how accountability measures can help close the digital divide and promote digital inclusion, how they can reduce cybersecurity risks, and how the term “trustworthy” should be defined in the AI context.2Congress.gov. H.R.1694 – Text
The NTIA would submit reports on both the study and the stakeholder meetings to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation no later than 18 months after enactment. Those reports must include the results of the analysis, a description of stakeholder feedback, and recommendations for governmental and nongovernmental action.2Congress.gov. H.R.1694 – Text
What the bill would not do is equally important. It does not regulate AI developers. It does not require audits. It does not create liability, define prohibited uses, or empower any agency to bring an enforcement action.
Current Status and Prospects
Rep. Josh Harder of California introduced H.R. 1694 on February 27, 2025, with Rep. Robin Kelly of Illinois as cosponsor. It was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce the same day. As of mid-2026, no hearings or markup sessions have been scheduled, and the bill remains at the introduced stage.3Congress.gov. H.R.1694 – All Info
This is the bill’s second time around. The same sponsors filed it in the 118th Congress as H.R. 3369 on May 16, 2023; that version was referred to the same committee and saw no further action.4GovInfo. H.R. 3369, Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act
The odds are not favorable. More than 150 AI-related bills were introduced in the 118th Congress without a single one becoming law.5Brennan Center for Justice. Artificial Intelligence Legislation Tracker The Energy and Commerce Committee has held AI hearings in the 119th Congress, including an April 2026 session on AI and the power grid, but none focused on AI accountability in communications networks.6House Energy and Commerce Committee. AI and the Grid: Meeting Growing Power Demand While Protecting Ratepayers
What the NTIA Has Already Done
Much of the work H.R. 1694 would formally commission has already happened. In March 2024, the NTIA published an AI Accountability Policy Report drawing on more than 1,400 public comments.7NTIA. NTIA Calls for Audits and Investments in Trustworthy AI Systems The report frames accountability as a chain: documentation and disclosures about how AI systems work enable independent audits and red-teaming, which in turn make consequences possible through liability, regulation, and market pressure.8NTIA. AI Accountability Policy Report
The report recommends federal guidelines for AI audits and auditor certification, standardized disclosures sometimes called “AI nutrition labels,” clarified liability rules across the AI supply chain, mandatory independent evaluations of high-risk AI systems, and registries for high-risk deployments and adverse incidents.9NTIA. AI Accountability Policy Report (Full Report) These are recommendations, not rules. Turning any of them into requirements takes legislation, which the current bill does not attempt.
Other Federal Bills With Similar Names
Several other bills use “accountability” language and target AI. They are separate proposals with different mechanics.
Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2025
Introduced September 19, 2025, by Rep. Yvette D. Clarke and Sen. Ron Wyden, this bill would require large companies to assess the impacts of automated systems they use and sell, create transparency requirements about when and how those systems are used, and give consumers information about AI-driven decisions in housing, employment, credit, and education.10Rep. Clarke’s Office. Clarke Introduces Bill to Regulate AI’s Control Over Critical Decision-Making
AI LEAD Act
Introduced September 29, 2025, by Sens. Dick Durbin and Josh Hawley, this bill would classify AI systems as products and create a federal cause of action for product liability claims, letting individuals, the U.S. attorney general, and state attorneys general sue AI developers when their systems cause harm.11FedScoop. Bipartisan Senate Bill Would Establish Path for AI Harm Lawsuits Sponsors have described it as avoiding the “mistake” of Section 230, which shielded social media companies from liability for user content.12Sen. Durbin’s Office. Durbin, Hawley Introduce Bill Allowing Victims to Sue AI Companies
AI Fraud Accountability Act
Introduced March 4, 2026, by Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester and Tim Sheehy, with a House companion from Reps. Darren Soto and Vern Buchanan, this bill targets AI-generated deepfakes used for fraud. It would create a federal offense under the Communications Act for using realistic digital impersonations to defraud people, with criminal penalties and FTC civil enforcement, and it establishes a NIST-led working group on digital impersonation.13Sen. Blunt Rochester’s Office. Senators Blunt Rochester and Sheehy Introduce AI Fraud Accountability Act
State Laws Using the Same Label
When people search for “AI Accountability Act,” they sometimes mean a state law rather than the federal bill.
California. The Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act, SB 896, was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 29, 2024. It requires the state Office of Emergency Services to analyze risks that generative AI poses to critical infrastructure, with annual summaries to the legislature. It also requires any state agency using generative AI to communicate with individuals about government services to disclose that the communication is AI-generated and to provide contact information for a human employee.14StateScoop. California AI Accountability Act15CalMatters Digital Democracy. SB 896 – Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act
Colorado. SB 24-205, “Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence,” was enacted May 17, 2024. It requires developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to exercise reasonable care to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination in employment, housing, lending, education, insurance, and essential government services. Deployers must conduct impact assessments, notify consumers when a high-risk system makes a consequential decision about them, and offer a mechanism to appeal.16Colorado General Assembly. SB24-205 – Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence Governor Jared Polis signed a bill in August 2025 postponing the effective date to June 30, 2026, citing compliance costs for state and local governments and businesses.17Colorado Attorney General. AI – Colorado Attorney General
Illinois. Senate Bill 315 passed the state House 110-0 and the Senate 52-5 in May 2026. It targets developers of “large frontier” AI models, defined as companies with annual revenues above $500 million training models above a specified compute threshold. Those developers would publish transparency frameworks, retain independent auditors, and report critical safety incidents to state authorities within 72 hours, or 24 hours if there is an imminent risk of death or serious injury. Civil penalties reach $3 million per violation, enforced by the attorney general. Governor JB Pritzker has indicated he will sign it, with core requirements set to take effect January 1, 2028.18CBS News Chicago. Illinois Lawmakers Pass Landmark Artificial Intelligence Accountability Bill
Texas. The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, HB 149, was signed by Governor Greg Abbott on June 22, 2025, and took effect January 1, 2026. It focuses on government agencies and healthcare providers, requires disclosure when consumers interact with an AI system, and prohibits using AI to intentionally discriminate against protected classes, engage in social scoring, or manipulate behavior toward self-harm or criminal activity. Enforcement rests with the Texas attorney general, with civil penalties from $10,000 to $200,000 per violation.19Texas Legislature. C.S.H.B. 149 – Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act
Across mid-2025, 38 states had enacted roughly 100 AI-related measures.20NCSL. Artificial Intelligence 2025 Legislation
The Preemption Fight
Whether state AI laws survive is now a live federal question. On March 20, 2026, the White House released a “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” calling on Congress to preempt state AI laws that impose “undue burdens” and to bar states from regulating AI development, which it characterized as an “inherently interstate phenomenon.”21The White House. National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence – Legislative Recommendations
The framework followed a December 2025 executive order that created an “AI Litigation Task Force” to challenge state AI laws in court and authorized conditioning federal funding on state compliance with federal standards.22Ropes Gray. White House Legislative Recommendations: National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
Congress has so far rejected broad preemption, striking such provisions from both the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. House Democrats have introduced the GUARDRAILS Act to repeal the executive order, arguing the framework lacks enforceable standards.23Akin Gump. White House Releases Long-Awaited Artificial Intelligence Framework
For now, the federal AI Accountability Act remains a modest study bill sitting in committee, while the substantive rules on AI accountability are being written state by state, and the question of whether Washington will override those state rules has yet to be answered.