State and Local

Virginia’s one-hour social media limit for minors is a misguided policy that undermines parental authority, raises constitutional concerns, and fails to effectively address the real drivers of youth online harm.

Policymakers who want to protect patients while ensuring clinicians can use tools that improve care should look to Utah for how regulatory sandboxes can maximize patient access to beneficial tools while minimizing clinical risk.

Center for Data Innovation Director Daniel Castro sent a letter to Maryland Senate Finance Committee Chair Pamela G. Beidle, Vice Chair Antonio L. Hayes, and members of the committee in opposition to Senate Bill 889.

Maryland’s proposed broadband price controls for low-income households would undermine investment and fail to solve affordability, leaving vulnerable families worse off than a consumer-focused voucher approach would.

This merger will be a win for consumers, and regulators should not stand in the way. Critics contend that mergers and acquisitions like this undermine competition. But that is far from the case in the consumer broadband market.

States have moved many public services online, but the legal steps to get married remain largely paper-based. Modernizing marriage licensing, recording, and certificates would reduce costs, save time, and make the major life event easier for American families.

California’s broadband affordability debate is being skewed by analysis that ignores real-world consumer use and competition, and risks misdirecting policymakers away from solutions that actually help low-income households.

While it is true that state antitrust regimes may go beyond the scope of federal antitrust law, that does not justify the radical departure from the Sherman Act contemplated by the Recommendation in terms of the principles, standards, and rules that should define sound antitrust enforcement at all levels of government.

New York’s AI safety law claims alignment with California, but its small deviations create duplicative state requirements that fragment U.S. AI policy and increase compliance costs without improving safety.

Fifty conflicting state AI laws create a fragmented, innovation-crushing patchwork, which federal preemption can solve by establishing a single, coherent national framework for AI regulation.