[{"_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",6328307,"mediaKeyId","2320617-f1be92c8d5fc9c4bee8d2ec55331a2c7","parentId",2320617,"title","State officials pitch AI investment fund, regulatory sandbox; lawmakers press for testing, transparency","audioSeconds",2715,"startMs",4464000,"endMs",7179000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2320617-f1be92c8d5fc9c4bee8d2ec55331a2c7&start=4464&end=7179","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2320617-f1be92c8d5fc9c4bee8d2ec55331a2c7/thumbnail_4464000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6328307/Connecticut/State-officials-pitch-AI-investment-fund-regulatory-sandbox-lawmakers-press-for-testing-transparency","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6328307-afc450389d8f0b76c5c85f70e6674a0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770876968&Signature=bS7FxDRt5Ytk-bXz8FZtUFiRY9A3S9Sqv51QksxaI2MzhMAnYU20yjoD7hjWSAvm8Ae~zSVn~iAlAPhNPVhhQSoi~SPSRq9Wdw~2wZ0Yu5tJiQOpkKBiv5Rs~vnNkEEniQrXz7b2gG5KyUxYyDNRfPGBPIitILPtkNunRu8EmpAxb-7paFAg68JzpUjbNFywWkW5om~MwzcdmoAhC~~LYlDozrcquHsYvV7nSEDdXMKlR~zIDTdoj3zQ9o6YTK988yuJsOPjdKUMEMVbV-BJAYQi~N1~knYGGPyA-sizt1pWN7bOVA9M3gsQtAo4XtDmxlxhf1-Tzvx~h6J4G7vCtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CGA - General Law Committee","date","2025-02-14T00:00:00Z","article","Connecticut officials on Feb. 14 proposed state-backed investment, data and testing programs to help the state capture AI-driven business growth while also trying to prevent harm, as members of the General Law Committee pressed for clearer rules on privacy, testing and accountability.

The nut graff
The administration offered a three-part plan: allow state agencies to post curated datasets for AI training; create an artificial intelligence regulatory sandbox to test new services under modified licensing; and set up an artificial intelligence and quantum technology investment fund at Connecticut Innovations to back local companies. In a wide-ranging Q&A, lawmakers pushed the administration to clarify testing expectations, buyer protections and when the state would step in to require fixes to biased systems.

What officials proposed and why it matters
Dan O’Keefe, commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), framed the proposal as a means to keep companies and jobs in Connecticut by giving startup founders access to training data, an avenue for limited regulatory relief while testing new services, and investment capital. He told the committee the fund would be managed by Connecticut Innovations and that agencies would be empowered to publish data for model training while protecting privacy. Commissioner O’Keefe also described the sandbox concept as a way for applicants to test innovative products under limited licensure or regulatory flexibility before full deployment.

Lawmakers and witnesses pressed on three practical issues: what tests or metrics will define lawful versus biased outcomes; how small businesses get access to models and test data when developers claim proprietary protections; and whether state and regional coordination is possible so that different states do not create a patchwork of rules that deter investment. Representative LaMarr and Senator Maroney asked about model transparency and the potential for private litigation under existing consumer-protection law. O’Keefe said he had asked the attorney general to consider an opinion on whether existing consumer and anti-discrimination statutes already apply to AI-based decisions.

Industry witnesses, including Brianna January of Chamber of Progress and academic panelists later in the hearing, generally supported the investment and sandbox ideas but asked for stronger privacy guardrails and safe‑harbor language so companies can test and fix their systems without immediate exposure to lawsuits while still preserving consumer remedies for discrimination. Several lawmakers urged steps to increase access to compute and workforce training; O’Keefe said DECD is pursuing options, including RFIs, to expand compute access for research and start‑ups.

What’s next
Committee members signaled they want more detail before approving broad statutory changes: they asked for explicit testing standards, a clearer definition of “high risk” uses, and a plan for cross‑state coordination. Several witnesses suggested a state AI institute or public testing lab that could certify models against agreed benchmarks; O’Keefe welcomed that idea and flagged the Connecticut AI Alliance and university partners as potential collaborators.

Ending
Lawmakers praised the proposal’s ambition but repeatedly said the devil is in the details: Connecticut is seeking to balance competitiveness and consumer protection by coupling investment with rules, and the committee asked the administration to return with specific testing standards, privacy safeguards and workforce support before the bill moves into final form.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Friday 2.14.2025 General Law Public Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","Connecticut officials on Feb. 14 proposed state-backed investment, data and testing programs to help the state capture AI-driven business growth while also trying to prevent harm, as members of the General Law Committee pressed for clearer rules on privacy, testing and accountability.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature CT, Connecticut","taxId",77677,"location","Connecticut","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},6328296,"Kratom debate puts Connecticut regulators, advocates on opposite sides",7993,12507000,20500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2320617-f1be92c8d5fc9c4bee8d2ec55331a2c7&start=12507&end=20500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2320617-f1be92c8d5fc9c4bee8d2ec55331a2c7/thumbnail_12507000.jpg","/articles/6328296/Connecticut/Kratom-debate-puts-Connecticut-regulators-advocates-on-opposite-sides","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6328296-c341c94336dfcd2931ec0229380caad9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770876968&Signature=DQj2cJ4OAeTOSaYDRcvp180iOsn94OQJpnEqCtCzQ2U6Aj8Yd~BdxK-GfADaOy9Df~RcasBRhWgyZ~GYLJn1zYyHJHuu5hw6Kc9m-5x5uh-rGUBKxdSG4uOK-Z3K4fKrw~aPRT0U9SlbQSZj8bERH~0gd1bXJdE7THZ8qMXJFK8ILhvW5a-W4S~qpe58CZYccsJzC2uTtsvwQgOl7qgt5d0DzAAlxC6H0cTpAZgQToO-q-91tp4-jfVwKSyQavFpo8MmoJNKtA5wIiu19IGj92HzM0FOkM29eRUOWaCX-qT~kGcuBfFwKBPz1EWNhDv0n93Gs~hFF-n3setecuYc2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Connecticut lawmakers on Feb. 14 heard sharply divided testimony about whether kratom — a botanical commonly sold as a dietary product — should be added to the state’s controlled‑substances list.

The nut graf
Supporters of scheduling kratom told the General Law Committee that adulterated or synthetically modified products are being sold in convenience stores and marketed to children, and urged the committee to adopt DCP’s proposed language. Opponents including industry groups and scientists urged Connecticut to instead regulate quality, ban synthetics and establish age limits to keep products out of minors’ hands without forcing consumers onto illicit markets.

What supporters told the committee
Representative Mara, speaking for legislators who prioritize public health, said adulterated kratom products — flavored, candy‑like items and synthetic derivatives that amplify opioid‑like effects — present a risk to young people and argued the state should move to schedule those substances so law enforcement and regulators can act. Several committee members, and witnesses who described poison‑control incidents in other states, framed the problem as one of product engineering: kratom in its traditional leaf form differs from concentrated or chemically modified products that have emerged on the market.

Opposition and alternatives
Walker Galvin of the Global Kratom Coalition and other witnesses urged the committee not to ban whole‑leaf kratom, arguing the existing science and public‑health reviews (including past federal and WHO assessments) do not support an outright prohibition. They urged targeted rules instead: prohibit sale to people under age 21, bar candy‑style formulations and mascots that appeal to children, and ban semi‑synthetic alkaloids such as concentrated 7‑hydroxy‑mitragynine above a set alkaloid threshold. Industry proponents also asked the committee to adopt a consumer‑protection approach that requires clear labeling, batch testing and limits on synthetic modifications.

Science and enforcement questions
A scientist who testified recommended that if the committee moves to regulate, the statute should target semi‑synthetic, high‑potency alkaloids and include a numerical threshold — for example a maximum percent of 7‑hydroxy‑mitragynine in the total alkaloid profile — rather than a full ban on the botanical. Committee members asked about enforcement mechanics, who would inspect stores, and whether regulation would push consumers into black markets. Witnesses warned that prohibition risks driving sales underground and creating a less accountable market.

Ending
The committee did not take immediate action. Members asked DCP and public‑health experts to provide more data on local incidents, testing capabilities, and options to couple an age‑restricted, quality‑assured market with an enforcement plan to stop adulterated or synthetic products from reaching children.","Lawmakers heard dueling testimony on whether to add kratom and certain synthetic alkaloids to the state controlled‑substances list. Supporters urged a ban on adulterated, high‑potency formulations marketed to children; opponents, including industry groups and some scientists, urged regulated access with age limits and product testing instead.",{"_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},6328301,"State consumer protection, liquor and drug-control bills draw questions on seltzers, kratom and enforcement",806,1580000,2386000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2320617-f1be92c8d5fc9c4bee8d2ec55331a2c7&start=1580&end=2386","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2320617-f1be92c8d5fc9c4bee8d2ec55331a2c7/thumbnail_1580000.jpg","/articles/6328301/Connecticut/State-consumer-protection-liquor-and-drug-control-bills-draw-questions-on-seltzers-kratom-and-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6328301-abe3709eb77780573ecb7e11f114c434/orig.mp4?Expires=1770876968&Signature=BcO74b7gOCZ1ggkkOgMKERkJwAHUGoG0Hx4kmjXASAx0DoWkZm5XV1LxoZeBAvROFJ0nrGaxNkjZiQwpPONQu0ivuHeS8rpfFYh-Q9W1kcigHS0PIsO1frwxBKxf9WRfGqEN746A7ovppzC6-sO1SfAYXJGhVX6w45FjkEXPjtcCQC260a7Q-mpqxWWqD9EGUsqSet6L1FePHiY8cGPj--hx91NiUHJaYHOUtCQwSZV~JAUHbSvUWdFI9x~XFaD6BcTq-kW7XE3LdnpBt2xOUlHrAmEE09m7hB8wEA-hnSrVs7cQCY5vH1g6-cqxu4yZ4~j0TPVhGyD1ekgT8RsX8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) outlined bills on Feb. 14 to streamline liquor permitting, broaden drug controls and strengthen gambling enforcement, prompting detailed questioning from legislators about safety rules, enforcement tools and the balance between public health and industry costs.

The nut graf
DCP told the committee it sought several changes: an education program for new liquor permittees and expanded restaurant-caterer permits for assisted living; in the drug-control bill the department proposed adding certain intoxicating substances (including kratom) to the controlled list and creating a receivership process for failing cannabis businesses; and in gaming the department asked for strengthened enforcement and authority to pursue unlicensed sweepstakes-style operations.

Key proposals and committee concerns
Commissioner Caffarelli described three DCP bills (liquor HB6854, drug control HB6855 and gaming SB1235) aimed at public safety and better regulatory tools. He said the liquor bill would extend restaurant-caterer permits to assisted living and launch a free education class for new permittees paid for by grant funding. Caitlin Anderson, director of Liquor Control, told lawmakers assisted living venues can now hold limited service but the bill would remove barriers and allow more flexible service under a permit class.

In the drug control measure the department proposed to designate some emerging intoxicating products as controlled substances and to restrict sales of raw hemp and manufactured hemp products behind a counter for 21 and older. The department also sought authority to create a receivership option for failing cannabis businesses so a receiver could ensure continued compliance with Connecticut law if a licensed operation becomes insolvent.

Lawmakers pressed DCP on the proposal to require child‑resistant caps on THC seltzers. DCP argued that bright, attractive cans and small THC doses could cause accidental ingestion by children and that child-resistant packaging would reduce risk and create parity across products. Industry witnesses and members of the committee said the measure could impose steep costs on startups and small Connecticut manufacturers; several asked for evidence of local ingestion incidents to justify the rule. Commissioner Caffarelli noted other states have adopted such packaging to reduce accidental ingestion and said the intent was public health protection.

Kratom and enforcement
Republican and Democratic lawmakers urged DCP to explain procedures for rapidly identifying new harmful “designer” intoxicants sold in convenience stores and to outline the department’s interactions with local law enforcement when unregulated products appear. Several legislators said they’d received constituent complaints about convenience stores selling unregulated intoxicants to minors. DCP said the bill contains tools to schedule new substances by administrative policies and procedures and to support local law enforcement actions.

Gaming, lottery and advertising
On gaming, DCP described proposed steps to tighten penalties for illegal gambling operations and to prohibit advertising that effectively links regulated operators with offshore illegal sites; licensees would have 10 days to cure noncompliant ads or face action. Several legislators followed up on retail sales agent licensing and the lottery’s retail conversion, seeking clarity on due process in license suspensions and on communication expectations between the lottery and regulators.

Ending
The committee signaled follow-up hearings and drafting changes are likely: members want clearer cost estimates for packaging rules, more detail on kratom and designer substance scheduling mechanics, and refined due‑process language for gaming and lottery licensing changes before any bill is reported out.","Department of Consumer Protection officials pitched a package of bills to tighten liquor permitting, add new controlled substances and boost gambling enforcement. Lawmakers pressed the agency on child-resistant caps for THC beverages, tools to stop unregulated products, and whether kratom belongs on the controlled list.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

State officials pitch AI investment fund, regulatory sandbox; lawmakers press for testing, transparency

Kratom debate puts Connecticut regulators, advocates on opposite sides

State consumer protection, liquor and drug-control bills draw questions on seltzers, kratom and enforcement