Allegedly deceived consumers about how much money they could access and how quickly — core product claims were unsupported.

Allegedly misrepresented that its AI-powered accessibility tool could make websites fully compliant with WCAG — a claim the product could not substantiate.

Marketed as 'the world's first AI lawyer' without testing whether outputs matched human-lawyer expertise.

Unlawful personal-data processing and deficient age-verification safeguards for users of an AI chatbot.

Falsely claimed conversational AI could replace human customer service reps and generate substantial earnings. Misled small businesses with false refund guarantees. Consumers lost up to $250,000 each.

$18M judgment largely suspended due to inability to pay; $50,000 actually collected. Permanent business-opportunity ban.

Falsely claimed AI-powered 'Active Listening' service could target ads based on conversations captured from consumers' smart devices. No voice data was actually used — the service was resold email lists. Also falsely claimed consumers had opted in.

CMG paid $880,000; MindSift $25,000; 1010 Digital Works $25,000. May 2026.

Falsely claimed AI-powered content moderation protected young users on its anonymous messaging app. Ban on offering anonymous messaging apps to under-18 users.

$4.5M FTC redress plus $500K Los Angeles DA civil penalty. July 2024.

AI-powered hiring system automatically screened out applicants based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

$365,000 paid to affected applicants. Settled with anti-discrimination policy, training, and EEOC monitoring.

AI-generated job advertisements contained unlawful citizenship-status restrictions. Settlement required ending the practice and training obligations.

No monetary penalty stated; settlement focused on training and compliance. February 2026.

Marketed AI content detection tool with unsubstantiated efficacy claims. Required to substantiate claims, retain evidence, and notify consumers.

No monetary penalty; consent order with compliance reporting. April 2025.

Class action alleging Workday's AI applicant screening tools discriminate based on race, age, and disability. Court denied Workday's motion to dismiss FEHA claims in June 2026, ruling AI tool vendors can be held directly liable as employers' agents.

Class certified May 2025. June 2026 order allowed FEHA and ADA claims to proceed. No settlement or final judgment yet. Potential landmark case for AI vendor liability.

NYC Local Law 144: $500–$1,500 per day per violation

Dec 2025 NYS Comptroller audit found DCWP enforcement 'ineffective' — 17 violations found by auditors vs 1 by DCWP in same 32 companies. DCWP committed to proactive enforcement from Jan 2026. First real fines issued Q4 2025. A Manhattan staffing agency paid ~$18,000 for running an AI resume screener without a bias audit.

New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act: $1,000 per violation

Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA): $10,000–$12,000 per curable violation; $80,000–$200,000 per uncurable violation; $2,000–$40,000 per day for continuing violations

No enforcement actions publicly announced as of July 2026. AG complaint portal is live. Intent-based liability standard makes enforcement selective. Safe harbor for NIST AI RMF compliance.

Colorado AI Act (SB 24-205 / replaced by SB 26-189): Up to $20,000 per violation under Colorado Consumer Protection Act

Federal court paused enforcement of SB 24-205 on April 27, 2026. Governor Polis signed SB 26-189 on May 14, 2026, repealing and reenacting as a narrower ADMT regime effective January 1, 2027. 60-day cure period available. No private right of action.

EU AI Act: Up to €35M or 7% global annual turnover (prohibited AI); €15M or 3% (high-risk obligations); €7.5M or 1.5% (misleading information)

Prohibited AI provisions enforced since Feb 2025. GPAI obligations since Aug 2025. Full high-risk (Annex III) enforcement from Aug 2, 2026. Extraterritorial — applies to US companies placing AI on EU market.