S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________
9219
2025-2026 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
November 3, 2025
___________
Introduced by M. of A. CUNNINGHAM -- read once and referred to the
Committee on Science and Technology
AN ACT to amend the general business law, in relation to requiring arti-
ficial intelligence technology used in professional fields to be
developed and maintained in consultation with experts in such fields
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Legislative intent. The legislature finds and declares that
artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly influencing deci-
sions and operations across professional fields including medicine, law,
engineering, architecture, education, and finance. To ensure public
safety, ethical alignment, and accuracy, AI systems must be designed and
trained with the substantive input of credentialed professionals from
relevant fields. This act aims to promote accountability and protect the
public by requiring such collaboration.
§ 2. The general business law is amended by adding a new article 47-A
to read as follows:
ARTICLE 47-A
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN PROFESSIONAL FIELDS
SECTION 1710. DEFINITIONS.
1711. PROFESSIONAL OVERSIGHT REQUIREMENT.
1712. DOCUMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE.
1713. ENFORCEMENT.
1714. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
1715. SEVERABILITY.
§ 1710. DEFINITIONS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE, THE FOLLOWING
TERMS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING MEANINGS:
1. "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE", "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY", OR
"AI" SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN SUBDIVISION ONE OF SECTION SEVEN-
TEEN HUNDRED OF THIS CHAPTER.
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD13614-01-5
A. 9219 2
2. "GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS
IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION SEVENTEEN HUNDRED OF THIS CHAPTER.
3. "PROFESSIONAL DOMAIN EXPERT" SHALL MEAN AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HOLDS A
VALID LICENSE, CERTIFICATION, OR CREDENTIAL IN A REGULATED FIELD AND HAS
AT LEAST THREE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN SUCH FIELD, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, A MEDICAL DOCTOR, REGISTERED NURSE, LICENSED ATTORNEY,
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, LICENSED ENGINEER, OR CERTIFIED EDUCATOR.
4. "DEVELOPER" SHALL MEAN ANY ENTITY OR INDIVIDUAL THAT DESIGNS,
BUILDS, TRAINS, OR DEPLOYS AN AI TECHNOLOGY FOR PUBLIC USE OR FOR SALE
IN THE STATE.
§ 1711. PROFESSIONAL OVERSIGHT REQUIREMENT. 1. ANY DEVELOPER OF AN
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY INTENDED FOR USE IN A PROFESSIONAL
DOMAIN REGULATED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW SHALL DEMON-
STRATE THAT AT LEAST ONE PROFESSIONAL DOMAIN EXPERT HAS BEEN DIRECTLY
AND SUBSTANTIALLY INVOLVED IN AT LEAST, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
(A) THE TECHNOLOGY DESIGN PHASE;
(B) THE DATA SELECTION AND TRAINING PROCESS;
(C) VALIDATION AND TESTING OF SYSTEM OUTPUTS; AND
(D) ONGOING RISK ASSESSMENT AND POST-DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION.
2. THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY USED IN AREAS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMIT-
ED TO:
(A) HEALTH CARE DIAGNOSTICS, TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS, OR PATIENT
MONITORING;
(B) LEGAL DECISION-MAKING OR DOCUMENT GENERATION;
(C) FINANCIAL ADVISING OR LENDING TOOLS;
(D) EDUCATIONAL CURRICULUM OR ASSESSMENT TOOLS;
(E) CONSTRUCTION, ARCHITECTURE, OR STRUCTURAL SAFETY SYSTEMS; AND
(F) PUBLIC SAFETY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES.
§ 1712. DOCUMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE. 1. DEVELOPERS OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGIES SHALL SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AFFIRMING:
(A) THE IDENTITIES AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL DOMAIN EXPERTS
INVOLVED IN THE AI TECHNOLOGY, PURSUANT TO SECTION SEVENTEEN HUNDRED
ELEVEN OF THIS ARTICLE;
(B) THE SPECIFIC PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT IN WHICH SUCH PROFESSIONAL
DOMAIN EXPERTS CONTRIBUTED; AND
(C) ANY KNOWN RISKS, LIMITATIONS, OR ETHICAL CONCERNS DISCLOSED DURING
DEVELOPMENT.
2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE TO DEVELOPERS
WHO HAVE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS
SECTION AND ARE FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. ANY TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPERS
FOUND TO BE NOT IN COMPLIANCE MAY BE SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION AND PENAL-
TIES PURSUANT TO SECTION SEVENTEEN HUNDRED THIRTEEN OF THIS ARTICLE.
§ 1713. ENFORCEMENT. 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE
AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.
2. NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS PROVIDING THE BASIS
FOR A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ARTICLE.
3. A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL
CONSTITUTE AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION THREE
HUNDRED FORTY-NINE OF THIS CHAPTER AND SHALL BE ENFORCED SOLELY BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUBDIVISION (H) OF SECTION
THREE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SUCH
VIOLATION.
A. 9219 3
4. (A) IN ANY ACTION COMMENCED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ANY
VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE, IT SHALL BE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT THE
DEVELOPER, DEPLOYER, OR OTHER PERSON:
(I) DISCOVERS A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE THROUGH
RED-TEAMING;
(II) NO LATER THAN SIXTY DAYS AFTER DISCOVERING SUCH VIOLATION THROUGH
RED-TEAMING:
(A) CURES SUCH VIOLATION; AND
(B) PROVIDES TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN A FORM AND MANNER PRESCRIBED
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOTICE THAT SUCH VIOLATION HAS BEEN CURED AND
EVIDENCE THAT ANY HARM CAUSED BY SUCH VIOLATION HAS BEEN MITIGATED; AND
(III) IS OTHERWISE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF:
(A) THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PUBLISHED BY
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY;
(B) ISO/IEC 42001 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDI-
ZATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION;
(C) A NATIONALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED RISK MANAGEMENT FRAME-
WORK FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECISION TECHNOLOGY, OTHER THAN THE
RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS DESCRIBED IN CLAUSES (A) AND (B) OF THIS
SUBPARAGRAPH, THAT IMPOSES REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIV-
ALENT TO, AND AT LEAST AS STRINGENT AS, THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED
PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE; OR
(D) ANY RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DECISION
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO, AND AT LEAST AS STRIN-
GENT AS, THE RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS DESCRIBED IN CLAUSES (A), (B),
AND (C) OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH.
(B) THE DEVELOPER, DEPLOYER, OR OTHER PERSON BEARS THE BURDEN OF
DEMONSTRATING TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED
PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SUBDIVISION HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
(C) NOTHING IN THIS ARTICLE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PURSUANT TO THIS
SECTION, SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PREEMPT OR OTHERWISE AFFECT ANY RIGHT,
CLAIM, REMEDY, PRESUMPTION, OR DEFENSE AVAILABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY.
ANY REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT
TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL APPLY ONLY TO AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION BROUGHT BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
RIGHT, CLAIM, REMEDY, PRESUMPTION, OR DEFENSE AVAILABLE AT LAW OR IN
EQUITY.
3. ANY DEVELOPER FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE MAY BE
SUBJECT TO:
(A) CIVIL PENALTIES NOT TO EXCEED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER
VIOLATION;
(B) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO HALT DEPLOYMENT OF AN AI TECHNOLOGY; OR
(C) PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF NON-COMPLIANT PRACTICES.
§ 1714. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL PROMULGATE
SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS ARE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE AND ENFORCE
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.
§ 1715. SEVERABILITY. IF ANY CLAUSE, SENTENCE, PARAGRAPH, SUBDIVISION,
SECTION OR PART OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE ADJUDGED BY ANY COURT OF COMPE-
TENT JURISDICTION TO BE INVALID, SUCH JUDGMENT SHALL NOT AFFECT, IMPAIR,
OR INVALIDATE THE REMAINDER THEREOF, BUT SHALL BE CONFINED IN ITS OPERA-
TION TO THE CLAUSE, SENTENCE, PARAGRAPH, SUBDIVISION, SECTION OR PART
THEREOF DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY IN WHICH SUCH JUDGMENT
SHALL HAVE BEEN RENDERED. IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATURE THAT THIS ARTICLE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENACTED EVEN IF SUCH
INVALID PROVISIONS HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED HEREIN.
A. 9219 4
§ 3. This act shall take effect one year after it shall have become a
law. Effective immediately, the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any
rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its
effective date are authorized to be made and completed on or before such
effective date.