Illinois SB315 (Artificial Intelligence Safety Measures Act)

• Authority: Illinois
• Parent authority: State governments
• Jurisdiction: United States
• Collections: U.S. state and local documents
• Most recent activity: Enacted
• Most recent activity date: 2026-05-29

Risk subdomain coverage

Good coverage — Comprehensive governance measures or mitigations with clear procedures relating to the risk subdomain are explicitly described.

• AI system security vulnerabilities
• Cyberattacks, weapon development or use
• Governance failure
• AI pursuing its own goals
• AI possessing dangerous capabilities
• Lack of capability or robustness
• Lack of transparency or interpretability

Minimal coverage — Brief mention but no specific mitigations, recommendations or governance measures relating to the risk subdomain are described.

• Disinformation, surveillance, and influence at scale
• Fraud, scams, and targeted manipulation
• Competitive dynamics

All other risk subdomains had no coverage in this document.

Risk Coverage Summary

The document has good coverage of approximately 8 subdomains, with strong focus on AI system security (2.2), malicious use for weapons and cyberattacks (4.2), fraud (4.3), governance frameworks (6.5), goal misalignment (7.1), dangerous capabilities (7.2), lack of robustness (7.3), and lack of transparency (7.4). The document is primarily focused on catastrophic risk prevention from frontier AI models.

Sector coverage

Good coverage — Comprehensive governance measures or mitigations with clear procedures relating to the sector are explicitly described.

• Information
• Scientific Research & Development Services

All other sectors had no coverage in this document.

Sectors Summary

The document primarily governs the Information sector and Scientific Research and Development Services sector, where frontier AI developers operate. The regulation targets companies developing large-scale AI models, not specific application sectors. The catastrophic risks mentioned (CBRNE weapons, cyberattacks) reference potential harms across sectors but the regulatory obligations apply to the AI developers themselves.

Legislative Status

Hard Law

Legislative Status Summary

This is a binding state statute enacted by the Illinois General Assembly with mandatory legal obligations, civil penalties up to $3,000,000, and enforcement by the Attorney General through civil actions.

Actors

Proposer

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Summary: The document is a state legislative act enacted by the Illinois General Assembly, as indicated by the formal enactment clause.

Target

• Entity Types: AI_Developer
• Summary: The Act explicitly targets 'large frontier developers' and 'frontier developers' - entities that train frontier AI models using significant computing power (>10^26 FLOPS), with specific obligations for those with revenues over $500M.

Enforcer

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Summary: The Attorney General has exclusive authority to bring civil enforcement actions for violations and collect civil penalties. The Illinois Emergency Management Agency (Agency) establishes reporting mechanisms, reviews incidents, and oversees compliance.

Monitor

• Entity Types: AI_Governance_Actor
• Summary: The Agency and Attorney General review critical safety incident reports, receive annual audits and disclosure statements, and produce annual reports. Third-party auditors conduct annual independent compliance audits.

AI Lifecycle Stages

Lifecycle stages covered by the documents, as defined in the OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems

• Plan and Design
• Build and Use Model
• Verify and Validate
• Deploy
• Operate and Monitor

AI Lifecycle Summary

The document addresses multiple AI lifecycle stages with primary focus on Build and Use Model (compute thresholds, training requirements), Verify and Validate (assessment and evaluation frameworks), Deploy (pre-deployment transparency reports and reviews), and Operate and Monitor (incident reporting, ongoing assessments). It has limited coverage of Plan and Design (framework design) and does not address data collection/processing.

Technical Scope

Terms relating to technical scope that are mentioned or implicitly referenced in the document

• AI Models
• Foundation Models
• Frontier AI
• Compute Threshold
• Generative AI

Technical Scope Summary

The document explicitly defines and regulates frontier models (foundation models trained with >10^26 FLOPS) and foundation models. It does not explicitly mention general purpose AI, task-specific AI, generative AI, or predictive AI by name, though foundation models are defined broadly. The document focuses on compute thresholds and model weights as key technical parameters.