UT SB 226: Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Amendments

Operative sections

• Utah Code §13-75-103(2): individuals providing services in regulated occupations must disclose high-risk generative-AI interactions.
• Utah Code §13-75-103(2)(b): regulated-occupation providers must comply with all occupation requirements when providing services through generative AI.
• Utah Code §13-75-103(3): required disclosures must be verbal at the start of oral interactions and written before written interactions.

Text

13-75-103. Required disclosures. ... An individual providing services in a regulated occupation shall: (a) prominently disclose when an individual receiving services is interacting with generative artificial intelligence in the provision of regulated services if the use of generative artificial intelligence constitutes a high-risk artificial intelligence interaction; and (b) comply with all requirements of the regulated occupation when providing services through generative artificial intelligence.

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

What already applies in Utah

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

• Utah Judicial Council Interim Rules on the Use of Generative AIUtah Judicial Council

  From 27 October 2025 the Utah Judicial Council operates an allow-list policy for generative AI in court-related work and on court-owned devices. Eight named tools are expressly permitted and any AI tool not expressly permitted is prohibited, giving Utah one of the most restrictive US state judiciary AI postures.

Decisions on the record

• Ferm v. Agritech PropertiesUnited States District Court for the District of Utah · 2026-08-25

  The District of Utah adopts a recommendation dismissing Ferm’s case and addresses signs that his objection was drafted with artificial intelligence. The court confines review to one specific objection, describes the remaining pages as AI slop, and cautions the self-represented plaintiff against possible AI-drafted memoranda.

• Hack v. PrestonUnited States District Court for the District of Utah · 2026-08-07

  The District of Utah addresses Jayne Stephens’s declaration that ChatGPT assisted her filings. The order notes a mischaracterized assertion based on an improperly cited Tenth Circuit case, requires future assistance disclosures, and cautions that GenAI-related Rule 11 violations may be sanctioned.

• Carey v. BreakellUnited States District Court for the District of Utah · 2026-07-30

  The District of Utah grants transfer to Arizona and flags possible improper AI use in plaintiff’s opposition. The order says counsel cited two cases the court could not locate on Westlaw, quotes authority condemning fake opinions, and leaves the matter to the receiving judge.

• Regan Wilkes, et al. v. Canyons School District, et al.United States District Court for the District of Utah · 2026-05-04

  The District of Utah on 2026-05-04 imposed Rule 11 sanctions and ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to pay defendants $7,000 for expenses caused by non-existent case law in Regan Wilkes, et al. v. Canyons School District, et al. Counsel filed an opposition with three fabricated case citations and one mischaracterized case citation, including A.S. v. Norwalk Public Schools.

• Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Daniel Vett Finlayson; Michelle JohnsonUnited States District Court for the District of Utah · 2026-04-22

  The District of Utah on 2026-04-22 warned counsel to verify legal authorities and cautioned that future hallucinated or nonexistent citations may bring sanctions in Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Daniel Vett Finlayson; Michelle Johnson. Counsel filed an opposition with one fabricated case citation and one false case quotation.