State vs. Federal AI Regulation: How U.S. AI Laws Impact Outbound Marketers

Early 2025 marked a turning point in U.S. artificial intelligence policy. Federal discussions quickly escalated from sector-specific AI guidance to a sweeping proposal: sidelining most state AI regulation for up to a decade. The stated goal was to prevent a fragmented regulatory landscape and give Washington room to establish a unified national AI framework.

State officials widely disagreed. In November, a bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general urged Congress to reject any moratorium that would bar states from regulating AI. Their message was clear: AI-related scams, manipulation, and consumer harm are already occurring, and states need the flexibility to respond quickly. Their pushback ultimately killed the proposed 10-year freeze, but it did not end the federal push for centralization.

From Moratorium to Litigation: A New Federal Playbook

By late November, Congress had decisively rejected an explicit moratorium on state AI laws. However, the administration pivoted to a more incremental strategy: challenging state AI statutes individually using existing federal authority. Commentators noted an emerging focus on dormant Commerce Clause arguments and federal preemption theories aimed at invalidating “burdensome” state AI requirements.

For outbound telemarketing operations, this signaled that compliance would not be simplified overnight. Instead, companies entered a period of legal uncertainty, with federal agencies and state attorneys general positioning for a prolonged tug-of-war over AI oversight.

The December 11 Executive Order: One National AI Standard

That shift became formalized on December 11, when President Trump signed the executive order titled “Eliminating State Law Obstruction of National Artificial Intelligence Policy.” The order emphasizes the need for a “minimally burdensome national standard” and frames state-level AI laws as potential obstacles to U.S. competitiveness and innovation.

Key elements of the EO include:

• DOJ AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws on preemption and constitutional grounds.
• Commerce Department review of state AI measures that conflict with federal policy preferences, with referrals to DOJ.
• Use of federal funding leverage, conditioning certain grants on state alignment with federal AI priorities.
• A legislative roadmap for a uniform federal AI framework that would formally preempt conflicting state laws.

While widely viewed as a win for large technology firms seeking regulatory uniformity, the order is also expected to trigger significant legal challenges from states and consumer advocates.

State AGs Push Back

State attorneys general quickly responded, reiterating their position that federal AI rules should establish baseline protections, not eliminate state authority. They emphasized that many state privacy and consumer protection laws already address high-risk automated decision-making through opt-outs, impact assessments, and transparency obligations.

For compliance teams, this is a critical point: even if the DOJ successfully challenges certain AI-specific statutes, state AGs retain broad enforcement powers under unfair and deceptive acts laws, as well as sector-specific regulations covering telecommunications, finance, healthcare, and marketing.

Practical Implications for Telemarketing and AI-Enabled Call Centers

For outbound marketers, large-scale texting operations, and AI-driven call centers, several themes stand out:

• A federal “one rulebook” is a goal, not a reality. Preemption will be litigated state by state, and companies should not assume state AI laws are invalid until courts say so.
• Core telemarketing rules remain unchanged. The EO does not affect the TCPA, state telemarketing statutes, or general consumer protection laws. AI-enabled dialing, scripting, and routing will continue to be evaluated under existing frameworks.
• AI increases enforcement risk through scale. Automation can magnify compliance failures, making documentation, testing, and governance more important, not less.
• Explainability and documentation matter. Companies should be prepared to explain how AI systems function, what data they use, and how they avoid deceptive or manipulative outcomes, both to federal agencies and state regulators.

Bottom Line

The failure of a 10-year moratorium did not end the federal push to centralize AI policy. It simply changed tactics. The December executive order sets the stage for a contested regulatory period, where federal agencies seek to narrow state AI authority while state attorneys general continue aggressive enforcement under existing telemarketing, privacy, and consumer protection laws.

For outbound marketing and call center compliance teams, the safest path forward is cautious optimism: monitor federal developments closely and design AI programs that can withstand scrutiny under today’s state and federal rules.

At CompliancePoint, we leverage our cybersecurity, data privacy, and regulatory compliance expertise to provide AI Risk Management Services that allow organizations to mitigate AI risks while still benefiting from its capabilities. We also specialize in Marketing Compliance, helping businesses comply with all marketing regulations, including the TCPA, TSR, Do Not Call lists, and all state telemarketing laws.  To learn more about our services, reach out to us at connect@compliancepoint.com.