Three states wrote tech rules Washington hasn't

Pennsylvania: rules for the buildings behind the AI boom

Pennsylvania's House sent a bill on hyperscale data centers to its Energy Committee on November 4, and the bill reads like a checklist of everything towns near a data center worry about. HB2888 would establish reporting and information submission requirements for hyperscale computer data centers operating in the state, and it would require the operators to produce energy plans, water plans and regional benefits plans. It would also impose duties on three state bodies — the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Community and Economic Development and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission — and it provides for alternative compliance payments, ratepayer protections and community benefit plans. m:…8489

The bill is still only a proposal — it was referred to committee, not passed — but the shape of it matters. This suggests Pennsylvania's lawmakers have decided the data center question is no longer just about attracting construction, but about who pays for the power and water, who benefits, and who gets a say. The bill's inclusion of community benefit plans and ratepayer protections points the same way: the fight over data centers is moving from the statehouse to the town hall. m:…8489

New York: age checks built into the device

New York's Senate took a different approach to the same problem: regulating technology at the point where people actually touch it. Senate bill S8102, sponsored by Senator Andrew Gounardes, would require manufacturers of internet-enabled devices to conduct age assurance to determine a user's age category. Manufacturers would have to provide a digital signal through a real-time API to online services, identifying whether a user is a covered minor. The bill was amended and recommitted to the Senate Consumer Protection Committee on November 4, 2026, where it now sits. m:…4814

The mechanism is the interesting part. This suggests New York wants the age check to happen in the hardware, not in each app or website, which would put the compliance burden on device makers rather than on the platforms themselves. That is a different theory of regulation from the one in the kids' safety debate, and it is the kind of detail that decides whether a rule is workable or just aspirational. m:…4814

Forty-five attorneys general: a federal standard, or nothing sticks

Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez is leading a coalition of 45 attorneys general urging Congress to pass the Senate version of the Kids Online Safety Act, known as KOSA. The coalition supports Senate Bill 1748, which would establish minimum safety standards for social media and gaming platforms, and it is pressing in particular for the bill's duty of care provision, which would establish a lasting standard for those platforms and is intended to adapt as technologies and platform features evolve. The letter was signed by attorneys general from 45 jurisdictions, including Alabama, Alaska and American Samoa. m:…3104

The coalition's argument rests on a settlement it says is not enough. A $17 billion multistate settlement with Meta was recently announced, and it requires safeguards for users under 18, including daily time limits and bullying protections. But the coalition argues that the settlement cannot provide consistent protections across the whole technology industry, and that only a federal duty of care would do that. State attorneys general have been investigating major social media platforms since 2021 regarding addictive design features, so this letter is the latest step in a campaign the states have been running since 2021, and it is now asking Congress to finish the job. m:…3104

The pattern

Put together, the three moves describe a moment in American tech regulation. Pennsylvania is writing rules for the physical infrastructure, New York is writing rules for the devices, and the attorneys general are asking Washington to write the rules for the platforms. The irony is that the states asking Congress to act are the same states that have spent years acting on their own — and the reason they want a federal law now is that 45 separate state rules, however energetic, cannot do what one national standard can. The question for the companies is no longer whether they will be regulated, but by whom, and in how many places at once. m:…8489 m:…4814 m:…3104