DE HB 333: Delaware Artificial Intelligence Commission

Operative sections

• 29 Del. C. §9042C(a): creates the Delaware AI Commission to make AI recommendations.
• 29 Del. C. §9042C(b): commission develops statewide AI processes, principles, and guidelines for executive, legislative, and judicial agencies.
• 29 Del. C. §9042C(b): commission inventories generative-AI usage in executive, legislative, and judicial agencies and identifies high-risk areas.

Text

The Delaware AI Commission is created to do all of the following: (a) Make recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Chief Information Officer of the Department on legislative and executive actions regarding AI in Delaware. (b) Develop and recommend statewide processes, principles, and guidelines for executive, legislative, and judicial agencies to follow regarding use of AI. Conduct an inventory of all Generative AI usage in Delaware executive, legislative, and judicial agencies and identify high risk areas.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in Delaware

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court PersonnelDelaware Supreme Court · 2024-10-21

  An interim policy adopted by the Supreme Court of Delaware on 21 October 2024 governing how judges and court personnel across the Delaware judiciary may use generative AI. Only approved tools may be used, users must complete training, decision-making cannot be delegated to AI, and users remain responsible for verifying and protecting the confidentiality of any output.

Decisions on the record

• Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc.United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 2026-08-20

  The District of Delaware addresses plaintiff’s counsel’s disclosure that StrongSuit generated erroneous claim-construction briefing. The court notes counsel’s candor, withdrawn sections, and defense burden, declines Rule 11 sanctions, and warns that future AI mistakes in the case may result in sanctions.

• Palumbo v. PalumboCourt of Chancery of the State of Delaware · 2026-08-10

  The Delaware Court of Chancery master recommends removing Gregory Palumbo as trustee, denying his accounting petition, and shifting fees. The report says the self-represented disbarred attorney cited Kuroda and Koninklijke for propositions they do not support, treated fictitious quotations as an AI hallmark, and found subjective bad faith.

• Leiske v. KiddCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2026-07-01

  The Delaware Court of Chancery orders Richard P. Rollo and Richards, Layton & Finger to show cause over GenAI errors in an answering brief. The court says counsel did not verify citations, left fabricated legal synthesis in a corrected filing, and must address Rule 11 and firm-supervision issues.

• SWSZ Holding v. SZ GlobalSupreme Court of Delaware · 2026-05-27

  On 2026-05-27, in SWSZ Holding v. SZ Global, Supreme Court of Delaware denied the sealing motion without prejudice and directed the movant to refile using only existing, accurately quoted authorities. A self-represented appellant filed a motion using several nonexistent or hallucinated authorities.

• Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 2026-05-27

  On 2026-05-27, in Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.), the District of Delaware warned counsel after plaintiff conceded a fictitious citation and withdrew it from the briefing. Counsel filed a motion using at least one nonexistent or hallucinated authority.