Virginia AI Regulations

Last verified: March 24, 2026

Regulatory Status

HB-2094

High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act

vetoed

Passed by the Virginia General Assembly on February 20, 2025, but VETOED by Governor Glenn Youngkin on March 24, 2025. Would have made Virginia the second U.S. state to enact comprehensive AI regulation. The bill targeted machine-learning-based AI systems used as the principal basis for consequential decisions — defined as decisions with material legal or similarly significant effects on consumers regarding education, employment, financial services, health care, housing, insurance, legal services, or marital status. Developers would have been required to exercise a reasonable duty of care against algorithmic discrimination and provide deployers with documentation on system performance and limitations. Deployers would have been required to implement risk management programs, conduct algorithmic impact assessments before deployment and after significant updates, and disclose AI use to affected consumers with an opportunity to correct inaccuracies or appeal adverse decisions. Enforcement by the Virginia Attorney General with fines of $1,000 per violation and up to $10,000 for willful violations, with a 45-day right-to-cure period. Governor Youngkin vetoed citing burdens on small businesses and startups. Delegate Maldonado has indicated plans to reintroduce narrower legislation targeting healthcare in a future session.

Effective: View Bill Text →

Key Requirements

Developer Duty of Care Developers must use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from intended and contracted uses of high-risk AI systems
Developer Documentation Developers must provide deployers with documentation describing system performance evaluation, intended outputs, risk mitigation measures, proper use, prohibited uses, and monitoring requirements
Synthetic Content Detection Developers must ensure AI-generated synthetic material can be detected using industry-standard tools or tools provided by the developer
Deployer Risk Management Program Deployers must devise and implement a risk management policy and program specific to each high-risk AI system they deploy
Algorithmic Impact Assessment Deployers must complete an impact assessment before deployment and before significant updates, covering system purpose, discriminatory risks, and mitigation steps; records retained for the longer of deployment duration plus 3 years
Consumer Disclosure Deployers must disclose to consumers when a high-risk AI system made or substantially influenced a consequential decision affecting them, including principal reasons for the decision
Consumer Correction and Appeal Rights Deployers must provide consumers an opportunity to correct inaccurate personal data used in consequential decisions and to appeal adverse decisions
HB-580

Division of Consumer Counsel; Duties; Artificial Intelligence Fraud and Abuse

pending

Passed the Virginia General Assembly on March 11, 2026; pending signature by Governor Spanberger as of March 24, 2026. Expands the duties of the Division of Consumer Counsel within the Office of the Attorney General to include establishing and administering programs to address artificial intelligence fraud and abuse in Virginia. Creates mechanisms for receiving and investigating consumer complaints involving AI-related fraud and emerging technology harms, and establishes an alert system. Appropriate complaints are referred to federal, state, or local agencies charged with enforcement of applicable consumer laws. Sponsored by Delegate Jackie Hope Glass (D-Norfolk). This is an enforcement and consumer protection infrastructure bill rather than a substantive AI regulatory framework.

Effective: View Bill Text →

Key Requirements

Consumer Counsel AI Fraud Duties Division of Consumer Counsel must establish and administer programs to address AI fraud and abuse affecting Virginia consumers
AI Complaint Mechanism Division must create mechanisms for receiving and investigating consumer complaints involving AI-related fraud and emerging technology
Consumer Alert System Division must establish an alert system for AI-related consumer fraud
Complaint Referral Authority Division may refer appropriate AI fraud complaints to federal, state, and local agencies with applicable consumer law enforcement authority
HB-797

Artificial Intelligence Independent Verification Organizations

pending

Passed the Virginia General Assembly on March 10, 2026; pending signature by Governor Spanberger as of March 24, 2026. Directs the Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) to authorize and oversee a voluntary marketplace of independent verification organizations (IVOs) that assess AI systems and applications for adherence to industry standards. IVOs are third-party expert bodies that verify whether AI products meet heightened safety and risk prevention standards. AI products certified by an IVO earn a voluntary "gold standard" seal. Participation by AI developers and deployers is voluntary, not mandatory. The bill also directs the Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS) to evaluate the feasibility and impact of the IVO framework, considering risk magnitude, measurable risk metrics, existing mitigation standards, current assessment methodologies, and practices in other states. Budget appropriation of $450,000 for the first year to support implementation. An amended substitute was adopted replacing a mandatory framework with the voluntary VITA-governed marketplace model.

Effective: View Bill Text →

Key Requirements

VITA IVO Authorization Virginia Information Technologies Agency must authorize and oversee independent verification organizations (IVOs) that assess AI systems and applications
Voluntary AI Certification AI developers and deployers may voluntarily seek IVO certification; certified products earn a 'gold standard' seal — participation is not mandatory
IVO Adherence Standards IVOs assess AI systems' adherence to standards reflecting best practices for prevention of personal injury and property damage
JCOTS Feasibility Study Joint Commission on Technology and Science must evaluate feasibility and fiscal impact of the IVO framework, including existing standards and other states' practices

Insurance Implications