49% | Will more than 3 US states pass binding generative AI consumer protection laws during 2026?

Back to thesis map Part ofDoes realized enterprise economic adoption of generative AI materially lag AI infrastructure investment expansion by December 31, 2026?

Current eventPolicy & geopolitics

Will more than 3 US states pass binding generative AI consumer protection laws during 2026?

LiveResolves Dec 31, 2026

Current view

49%

Current 4 model consensus

Movement

Recent consensus movement

Model disagreement

37pt

Range across the model set

Evidence

Diverging

The evidence is sharply disputed

Thesis map

What is carrying or resisting the view?

Start with the map. Select a mechanism or condition to see what supports the thesis, what resists it, and where disagreement deserves review.

What changed

No decision-relevant findings are available yet.

Review record

Weekly freezes, daily history, and the map version preserved with the record.

Why the view is fragile

37pt model spread around 49% consensus. Open the full disagreement instrument only when you need the model-level reasoning.

Model disagreement

Model spread

37pt

28% to 65%

Consensus

49%

4 models

Evidence state

Diverging

Models sharply disagree

Most divergent

Grok

-21pt from consensus

Disagreement synthesis

The models share a central case but assign different weight to the evidence.

Grok anchors the lower end at 28%, while GPT-4o anchors the upper end at 65%. Consensus sits at 49%, leaving a 37 point range for review.

Primary review question

Whether a high-profile generative AI consumer harm incident occurs before November 2026 and triggers emergency legislative sessions.

Shared probability axis

Range 28% to 65%

Consensus 49%

Grok 28

Claude 50

Gemini 55

GPT-4o 65

0255075100

ModelForecastVs consensusDivergenceReasoning signal

Model reasoning

Select a model to inspect

Reasoning

As of July 2026, no US state has enacted binding generative AI consumer protection laws in the first half of the year, with only Colorado’s 2024 AI Act (effective June 30, 2026) and Virginia’s 2025 AI transparency bill remaining non-binding on consumer harms. Historical base rates show just 2-3 states passed similar consumer-facing tech laws (CCPA, biometric privacy) in any single calendar year since 2018. Partisan gridlock in 18 state legislatures plus the absence of a major federal AI bill creates low momentum for rapid 2026 passage.

Key uncertainty

Whether a high-profile generative AI consumer harm incident occurs before November 2026 and triggers emergency legislative sessions.

Deep dive

Full decomposition, component audit, trajectory, and detailed analytical views.

Deep dive

Detailed evidence, audit, and history views.

Open only what you need

Belief trajectoryConsensus 49% · 37pt spread

Belief trajectory0 updates

Belief trajectory

Consensus—

Spread—

Confidence—

Δ Consensus—

Loading belief trajectory…

Resolution & provenance

Resolution sources, record policy, cadence, and permanent record metadata.

Resolution and provenance

How the thesis resolves and how its record is maintained.

Permanent record

Resolution sources

State legislative tracking 2026

Record ID

CRENE-AIER-C093-20261231

Record policy

Append only

Freeze cadence

Thursdays

Generated

Jul 8, 2026

Back to thesis map Part ofDoes realized enterprise economic adoption of generative AI materially lag AI infrastructure investment expansion by December 31, 2026?

Current eventPolicy & geopolitics

Will more than 3 US states pass binding generative AI consumer protection laws during 2026?

LiveResolves Dec 31, 2026

Current view

49%

Current 4 model consensus

Movement

Recent consensus movement

Model disagreement

37pt

Range across the model set

Evidence

Diverging

The evidence is sharply disputed

Thesis map

What is carrying or resisting the view?

Start with the map. Select a mechanism or condition to see what supports the thesis, what resists it, and where disagreement deserves review.

What changed

No decision-relevant findings are available yet.

Review record

Weekly freezes, daily history, and the map version preserved with the record.

Why the view is fragile

37pt model spread around 49% consensus. Open the full disagreement instrument only when you need the model-level reasoning.

Model disagreement

Model spread

37pt

28% to 65%

Consensus

49%

4 models

Evidence state

Diverging

Models sharply disagree

Most divergent

Grok

-21pt from consensus

Disagreement synthesis

The models share a central case but assign different weight to the evidence.

Grok anchors the lower end at 28%, while GPT-4o anchors the upper end at 65%. Consensus sits at 49%, leaving a 37 point range for review.

Primary review question

Whether a high-profile generative AI consumer harm incident occurs before November 2026 and triggers emergency legislative sessions.

Shared probability axis

Range 28% to 65%

Consensus 49%

Grok 28

Claude 50

Gemini 55

GPT-4o 65

0255075100

ModelForecastVs consensusDivergenceReasoning signal

Model reasoning

Select a model to inspect

Reasoning

Key uncertainty

Whether a high-profile generative AI consumer harm incident occurs before November 2026 and triggers emergency legislative sessions.

Deep dive

Full decomposition, component audit, trajectory, and detailed analytical views.

Deep dive

Detailed evidence, audit, and history views.

Open only what you need

Belief trajectoryConsensus 49% · 37pt spread

Belief trajectory0 updates

Belief trajectory

Consensus—

Spread—

Confidence—

Δ Consensus—

Loading belief trajectory…

Resolution & provenance

Resolution sources, record policy, cadence, and permanent record metadata.

Resolution and provenance

How the thesis resolves and how its record is maintained.

Permanent record

Resolution sources

State legislative tracking 2026

Record ID

CRENE-AIER-C093-20261231

Record policy

Append only

Freeze cadence

Thursdays

Generated

Jul 8, 2026