Here are the most significant bills Libertas Institute tracked this session related to AI and technology.
✅ SB 275: State-Endorsed Digital Identity Program Amendments (Passed)
As more services move online, Utah lawmakers are exploring ways to make identity verification easier while protecting personal privacy. SB 275 follows last year’s SB 260 (2025), which authorized a study of digital identity systems, by allowing the state to begin building a state-endorsed digital identity program.
SB 275, sponsored by Sen. Kirk Cullimore and Rep. Paul Cutler, establishes a State-Endorsed Digital Identity Program and creates a digital identity bill of rights. This bill of rights ensures digital ID will be voluntary, protects the exclusive use of physical identification, and prevents denial of government services for individuals who choose not to participate.
The bill also sets rules for how identity providers can handle personal information. Providers must obtain user consent and may only process the information a user consents to sharing. SB 275 also requires a future legislative audit to evaluate the program’s compliance with the privacy protections outlined in the Digital ID bill of rights.
Our Take:
As governments explore digital identity systems, the focus should remain on user choice, privacy, and limiting unnecessary expansion. Tools that make verification easier can be valuable, but only if participation is voluntary. It is vital that individuals continue to retain control over their personal information.
SB 275 takes a measured approach by keeping digital ID optional, preserving access to physical identification, requiring clear consent from users, and requiring data minimization from providers. By pairing innovation with defined guardrails and legislative oversight, the bill allows Utah to move forward without mandating adoption or centralizing more data than necessary.
❌ HB 286: Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments (Failed)
HB 286, sponsored by Rep. Doug Fiefia and Sen. Michael McKell would have imposed broad disclosure mandates, compliance paperwork, and large civil penalties on AI developers.
Protecting kids and addressing real risks is important, but HB 286 took the wrong approach. Instead of targeting clear, identifiable harms, the bill relied on vague standards and precautionary mandates that would have created significant uncertainty for developers.
Requiring companies to publish evolving safety plans and risk summaries would have slowed iteration and discouraged companies from operating in Utah altogether, leading to reduced access to the very tools families are increasingly relying upon. The bill ultimately failed after these concerns remained unresolved.
Our Take:
Libertas opposed this bill and its failure is a positive outcome. The bill would have introduced significant uncertainty and made it harder to deploy useful AI tools in Utah.
Utah’s approach to AI policy so far has been to create clear, well-defined rules at the legislative state, with targeted protections and space to experiment. HB 286 moved away from that model, and its failure keeps Utah on a more productive path.
❌ HB 438: Artificial Intelligence Amendments (Failed)
HB 438, sponsored by Rep. Doug Fiefia and Sen. Kirk Cullimore, attempted to regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) companion chatbots used by minors by creating liability standards tied to emotional harm and handing broad, undefined regulatory authority to state agencies to determine what is necessary for compliance..
Libertas opposed HB 438 because the bill relied on vague definitions and unclear compliance pathways.The bill’s definition of “companion chatbot” also did not match how many AI systems actually function, and subjective standards such as whether a system “simulates a relationship” would be difficult to apply consistently.
Our Take:
Lawmakers should be cautious about stepping into fast-moving technology markets with broad, undefined mandates. When policy relies on vague concepts, and hands off key decisions to regulators with broad discretion, it creates uncertainty that slows innovation without delivering clear public benefits.
HB 438 leaned heavily on subjective standards and future rulemaking instead of setting clear boundaries in statute. That approach would have made it harder to build and deploy AI tools, especially for smaller developers, while leaving the actual safety outcomes unclear.
✅ SB 108 Online Marketplace Amendments (Passed)
SB 108 sponsored by Sen. Kirk Cullimore and Rep. Doug Fiefia establishes a statewide framework for the regulation of online marketplaces. Online marketplaces often face local-level restrictions that vary from one jurisdiction to another, creating unworkable regulatory complexity for platforms, small entrepreneurs, and consumers. Municipalities have also increasingly sought access to Personally Identifiable Information (PII), raising concerns about user privacy and the lack of a clear legal process.
This bill clearly outlines the state’s regulatory authority over narrowly defined online marketplaces, which includes platforms that provide the technology, payment systems, and communication tools to facilitate transactions between users. The bill prevents a patchwork of inconsistent local regulations that target platforms themselves, while carving out the regulation of local level actors as the responsibility of localities.
Our Take:
Policymakers should avoid creating fragmented regulatory environments that make it harder for businesses to operate across jurisdictions. When cities and counties impose conflicting rules, it raises costs, limits competition, and ultimately reduces access for consumers.
SB 108 moves in the right direction by establishing a single, statewide framework and setting clear guardrails around when and how government entities can access user data. By replacing a patchwork of local mandates with a more predictable system, the bill reduces compliance burdens while still preserving appropriate oversight of underlying conduct.
❌ SB 287: Targeted Advertising Tax
SB 287, sponsored by Sen. Michael McKell and Rep. Jordan Teuscher, imposes a new tax on companies that sell targeted digital advertising to Utah users. The bill applies to companies above certain revenue thresholds and creates new reporting and tax compliance requirements.
Libertas opposed SB 287 for multiple reasons. First because this bill is an unconstitutional tax on a narrow class of online advertising, which has been held to be a First Amendment Violation. The bill is also preempted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act passed by Congress because it taxes online advertising differently than offline – in direct violation of that statute. Finally, while framed as a tax on large technology companies, the economic reality is that advertising taxes will be absorbed by businesses of all sizes that depend on digital advertising on these platforms to reach their audiences.
Our Take:
Policymakers should avoid using the tax code to single out specific technologies or business models. Targeted taxes on digital services distort markets, invite legal challenges, and ultimately get passed down to the small businesses that rely on those tools to compete.
SB 287 attempted to do exactly that by imposing a novel tax on digital advertising, raising serious constitutional and federal preemption concerns. Similar efforts in other states are already facing litigation, creating uncertainty while offering no clear path to durable revenue.
