State Legislators, Tech Industry Await Clarity on DOJ Regulatory Inquiry

The lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, asked DOJ to withdraw its request for information and avoid blocking states from regulating within their borders. South Carolina Rep. Brandon Guffey (R) signed the comments with a bipartisan group of more than 30 lawmakers and consumer groups. Privacy, social media design, app store accountability and AI regulation are areas that states should be able to regulate, he told us.

Meanwhile, industry groups are pushing for DOJ to explore ways to preempt states from regulating privacy and AI (see 2509220061). Representatives with the National Retail Federation (NRF) and the Software Information Industry Association (SIIA) said in interviews that the RFI lacks clarity on concrete steps DOJ might take in response to some 150,000 public comments.

SIIA Executive Vice President of Global Public Policy Paul Lekas, whose background includes roles at the Department of Defense and the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, suggested the inquiry could lead to a department report and legislative recommendations for Congress. SIIA has long supported a federal privacy law preempting state privacy measures.

“There are certain things that only the federal government has the capacity to do,” and that includes AI and privacy-related policies, said Lekas. “There’s an appropriate role for states, but the federal government should really be in the lead there.”

Any conflicts between federal and state regulations should be settled by the courts, said Guffey: “I don’t know that the federal government would have any say over this. If the states decide that this is what they want within their state, and it’s within the confines of the law, there shouldn’t be any issue.”

Guffey said his primary goal as a lawmaker is to protect children and prevent harms like those inflicted on his teenage son, who committed suicide after a sexual extortion scam on Instagram. The government wouldn’t have to step in if platforms were operating responsibly, he said: “I don’t want to harm capitalism. I want it to work, but I also believe that we have to look at this as making sure that we are designing things that are safe for children.” If a Republican lawmaker opposes state sovereignty on AI regulation, “they’re not a damn Republican,” he said. “It should be the states’ right to regulate online safety.

The RFI sought comments on which state laws “significantly burden” interstate commerce, whether they are preempted by federal authorities, whether there’s legislative or regulatory means for addressing the problem and which federal agencies have jurisdiction. The RFI includes a state goal of alleviating “unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs imposed on the American people.” DOJ didn’t comment this week.

DOJ wasn’t highly detailed in its state goals in the RFI, which was prompted by executive action from President Donald Trump, said Edwin Egee, NRF vice president of government relations and workforce development. Egee previously worked for the National Labor Relations Board.

“I don’t know really how these suggestions are going to be used,” he said. “I don’t know what they’re going to do with all that information.” NRF and SIIA supported House Republicans' proposal to block states from enforcing AI laws for 10 years (see 2507210042).

“My strong presumption is [comprehensive AI regulation] is a matter for Congress,” said Egee. “States have enough to do” on issues from education to health care, he said: “Considering that most of the employers regulated by these state laws operate in at least two states, the vast majority of these employers now cover many, many states, and” it’s a burden to comply.