[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6380660,"mediaKeyId","2130299-7eee3c2c3cdcf8794037599ae50105b1","parentId",2130299,"title","Committee considers bill that would require large AI providers to offer detection tools and label synthetic images, audio and video","audioSeconds",4319,"startMs",4325840,"endMs",6756,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2130299-7eee3c2c3cdcf8794037599ae50105b1&start=4325&end=6","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2130299-7eee3c2c3cdcf8794037599ae50105b1/thumbnail_4325840.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6380660/Washington/Committee-considers-bill-that-would-require-large-AI-providers-to-offer-detection-tools-and-label-synthetic-images-audio-and-video","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380660-d37f7fbb5929d6dc6e0ae5a053ed4d59/orig.mp4?Expires=1770542038&Signature=HYukoFK5uuIfierA4jcIrILdmb9vIyHg64Jp4Z7ukPnJpb9XluI2Rptb5v18vx~B0JtxnmTGj0IWWrg8-iN9ghT2k0dMJdCTbwQTltlpzozWyzs79prEsY~cJV3mdJkkEVnoafrOvyWQYjevB0o52BjvedRPIb6Mbf19V56WwlGTKK3g57eQBgwWUoaYeK2-CYD9150ShzceViPzrA7-U2dSeR3Le45R~cTkkTAq8ReKMG3jy2mdPh~uTzS7kXSmkj0dEDPLqNo~ojKL0zkZXtpQHee2z5HiKrWLCBw8kTrr-mHG5S8SKbwPYQ5zzBzVw1-3vALsXNgrb60S1BQWJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans","date","2025-01-17T00:00:00Z","article","Committee staff described House Bill 1170 as a narrower, consumer‑facing measure that would require large generative AI providers to provide detection tools and disclosures for synthetic image, audio and video content.

Emily Pool, nonpartisan staff, summarized the bill’s main requirements: any covered provider with more than 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users and that is publicly accessible in Washington must make available an AI detection tool at no cost; the tool must allow users to assess whether content was created or altered by the provider’s system, be publicly accessible and permit use without visiting the covered provider’s website. Covered providers must also offer users an option to include a manifest or an easily perceived disclosure on any image, video or audio the provider’s system creates or alters. To the extent feasible, the bill requires a latent disclosure — metadata readable by the provider’s tool — that includes the covered provider’s name, time and date of creation and a unique identifier. Violations would be treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the Consumer Protection Act.

Representative Clyde Shavers, the prime sponsor, described HB 1170 as a “narrowed approach, a common sense approach” focused on large providers and on visual and audio media rather than text. Tom Kemp, who advised the California author of a similar bill, said the bill is aligned with the AI Labeling Act and federal and EU efforts and that technical mechanisms and industry standards (such as content provenance efforts) make implementation feasible. Kemp and other proponents said the bill is intended to give consumers tools — including an API for detection checks — to determine whether content is synthetic.

Industry and civil‑liberties groups voiced objections. Robert Singleton of Chamber of Progress and other industry witnesses argued the bill may require technology that does not yet exist to the required standard and that broad definitions could sweep in many consumer experiences. TechNet and trade associations objected to the bill’s private‑enforcement pathway via the Consumer Protection Act and urged additional trade‑secret safeguards and clearer scope. John Coleman of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) said compelled disclosures raise First Amendment concerns and warned that mandatory, permanent labels could stigmatize lawful speech while offering circumventing routes to bad actors.

Committee members exchanged questions with staff and witnesses about threshold levels, the efficacy of proposed detection tools, whether the bill’s requirements are technically feasible, and whether the Consumer Protection Act is an appropriate enforcement vehicle. Witnesses said the bill targets the largest providers but acknowledged technical tradeoffs: detection tools tied to providers’ own metadata would be easier to implement than a general‑purpose AI detector, but no detection regime is foolproof.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing. Members asked for further stakeholder engagement and signaled plans for an AI work session to examine technical feasibility and enforcement options.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1170 and announced plans for a technical AI work session to follow.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans - 1/17/2025 10:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","House Bill 1170 would require covered generative AI providers with at least 1,000,000 monthly users to provide a free detection tool and to offer manifest and latent disclosures that identify images, audio and video created or altered by their systems.","taxTitle","Innovation, Community & Economic Development, & Veterans, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20265,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6380664,"Committee hears bill to require AI developers to post training‑data disclosures; enforcement, trade secrets and scope draw debate",2029,1629965,3659340,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2130299-7eee3c2c3cdcf8794037599ae50105b1&start=1629&end=3659","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2130299-7eee3c2c3cdcf8794037599ae50105b1/thumbnail_1629965.jpg","/articles/6380664/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-require-AI-developers-to-post-trainingdata-disclosures-enforcement-trade-secrets-and-scope-draw-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380664-390d771e8beb430a42828af696111cf0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770542038&Signature=CQcn0hAomDrBlqpin5nB7IH1hQczpRSkR1-0eSn6WPAhyTzdFf94IxZ~b41GJNfRLdmp2~8GGTnuKNU1SlLMPZNKteYsrWXNBruagWHF2f3NxguDkYgbLrdcqIvUnv-mPK5AtPPV5KOYcVlQp9-UndFKMG8wtRq~IySIEB9uo~Kk3q7kpmma9LzyDVF4b21YQNbmJuEWSNGqOqyrdXv14yhyZ6YHyiHxnFj8pqQSGFeLETnfiKpqHJHkvoevsObtQBi-ULfWfEyW9JxBcKzx1A1CgCY3qbOUqaKUSM66uPh-wTrTjbVLT2NKMHrIu2o0fZerSEUvMIbmc5OdB7cE-w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee staff framed House Bill 1168 as a transparency measure that would require developers of generative artificial intelligence systems to post documentation about the datasets used to train models that are made available for public use.

Emily Pool, nonpartisan staff to the committee, told members the bill would require developers — a term defined to include individuals, agencies and corporations that design, code, produce or substantially modify a generative AI system — to post information about dataset sources, the kinds of data points included, whether personal information is present and whether copyrighted works were used. The bill would apply to systems released or substantially modified on or after Jan. 1, 2022, require compliance by Jan. 1, 2026, and assign enforcement to the attorney general with a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation and per day that a violation continues.

Representative Clyde Shavers, the bill’s prime sponsor, framed the legislation as “transparency” that preserves innovation. “The core principle here in House Bill 1168 is transparency. It is not to stifle progress, but to empower consumers and developers alike by fostering trust in these technologies,” Shavers said.

Supporters told the committee transparency is needed to help buyers, deployers and policy makers assess risks in models. Jay Jasima, co‑founder of Transparency Coalition and an affiliated University of Washington professor, said the bill “does not require people to disclose any secrets, any methods, any proprietary methods” and argued developers already announce dataset licensing deals publicly.

Industry and trade groups pushed back on the bill’s scope, enforcement and commercial effects. Rose Feliciano, executive director for Washington and the Northwest for TechNet, testified in opposition to the bill as written, saying the measure includes a private right of action that California’s model lacked and that reporting mandates are “overly prescriptive” and lack trade‑secret protections. Morgan Irwin of the Association of Washington Business and other industry witnesses expressed concern that the state AI task force, established to study AI issues, is the appropriate venue to refine technical and enforcement questions before statutory action.

Committee members asked staff and witnesses practical questions about the penalty structure, the definition of “developer” (including whether a party that substantially modifies an off‑the‑shelf model would be covered) and whether the bill includes a cure period; staff said the current text does not specify a cure period. Members also discussed whether penalties would be assessed per violation or per day and how that would be implemented by the attorney general.

The hearing record shows substantial stakeholder engagement and competing priorities: proponents stressing consumer transparency and auditability, and industry groups urging additional protections for trade secrets and clearer enforcement language. No committee vote was taken at this hearing; the measure will be subject to follow‑up, amendments and possible work‑session discussion.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1168 after testimony from the prime sponsor, staff and invited panels.","House Bill 1168 would require developers of generative AI systems made available for public use to publish documentation describing training datasets, including sources, types of data and whether datasets contain personal or copyrighted information.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6380669,"Committee hears bill to create state match account, expand grant tools to help communities win federal funds",1589,95560,1684840,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2130299-7eee3c2c3cdcf8794037599ae50105b1&start=95&end=1684","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2130299-7eee3c2c3cdcf8794037599ae50105b1/thumbnail_95560.jpg","/articles/6380669/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-to-create-state-match-account-expand-grant-tools-to-help-communities-win-federal-funds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380669-a33dc8180c4c73ba6bb3db44c3f6c53f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770542038&Signature=An6PDbeZRunZTN~VnNphDbz5yqtM2ivWe49Isf8~-KRxiG-kJ451WyLcvKOTGZ0IlTVjyr3U4Ekkq2zHp0ISs6KD29Snz5fcyhqCltazQ~kUgk~YEbJtKl70KTEtM8tAxr1vq5JfGRXcsyQIgys7Mb4I5z9ThlkeafSEumaj1u48Gf2WWZnqyAb6LbUNnR8XsHp0nfySxw8xDP2Ipysq0HQhvBFIiR-gF-EMslYohKTgVeqahHL0cn~0FriJ4TSoflOCNmfJjCrAZ442GDnVCMyvoM2qYB9ByLKIsL28hvWGbMki3wimi4dACLuFGzZxT2G7CxqlKI4~tKw~a1eUdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1057 was presented to the Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee as a package of measures aimed at helping Washington communities access federal grant dollars by offering state matching support and expanded technical assistance.

Department of Commerce staff told the committee the bill would require Commerce to create scoring criteria to prioritize state matching funds, expand an existing grant‑writer recruitment program to include more local economic development organizations and rural and frontier counties, expand the FundHubWA website to list all federal economic opportunities by July 1, 2026, and create a “matched account” that would reserve state funds for approved applicants until they receive a federal award, are denied, or withdraw their application. For the record, Martha Whaling, staff to the committee, summarized the bill’s components and noted the account would expressly bar state funds when they would replace private investment.

The bill’s prime sponsor emphasized the gap in federal funding capture and the role of matches in enabling communities to compete. Representative Barnard, the bill’s prime sponsor, said, “Washington greatly underutilizes federal grants,” and noted a 2023 analysis placing Washington well below national averages in federal grant capture.

Supporters who testified said matching funds and technical assistance are especially important for smaller ports, rural counties and local economic development organizations that lack the staff or budget to prepare competitive federal applications. Cassie Hammond, director of government affairs at the Port of Benton, described her port’s experience securing a $9,560,000 U.S. Department of Transportation grant that required a $2,100,000 local match and said, “providing state matching dollars can help rural communities like ours compete for transformative federal funding without overwhelming our local budgets.” Gary Belew, vice president of economic development for Greater Spokane Incorporated, and other regional economic development leaders told the committee they routinely face matching requirements for Tech Hubs, NSF Engines and other federal programs and cited Oregon’s state match program as a comparative example.

Proponents pointed to returns on previous state matches: testimony cited Commerce examples where relatively small state match dollars leveraged millions in federal funding and created jobs, innovation clusters and infrastructure investments. The bill would also expand a Commerce program that subsidizes grant‑writer recruitment from associate development organizations (ADOs) to include economic development organizations (EDOs), frontier counties and rural counties.

Committee staff and members asked clarifying questions about prioritization criteria, timing for the FundHubWA expansion and fiscal constraints in a tight budget year. Multiple testifiers and the prime sponsor acknowledged the state’s constrained budget but argued a modest pool of matching funds would leverage much larger federal awards and could be structured so allocated funds are only dispersed upon a federal award.

The committee held the bill as a hearing; no committee vote was recorded at this meeting. The hearing record now moves to follow‑up and amendment work in advance of any executive action.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1057 after testimony from the sponsor, Commerce staff and several local economic development and port representatives.","House Bill 1057 was presented to the Technology, Economic Development and Veterans Committee as a package of measures aimed at helping Washington communities access federal grant dollars by offering state matching support and expanded technical assistance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee considers bill that would require large AI providers to offer detection tools and label synthetic images, audio and video

Committee hears bill to require AI developers to post training‑data disclosures; enforcement, trade secrets and scope draw debate

Committee hears bill to create state match account, expand grant tools to help communities win federal funds