Subcommittee Ranking Member Johnson’s Opening Statement at Hearing on Federal Preemption of State AI Laws
Washington, D.C. (September 18, 2025)—Today, Rep. Hank Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, delivered opening remarks during a hearing examining federal preemption of state artificial intelligence (AI) laws.
Below are Ranking Member Johnson’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, at today’s hearing.
WATCH Subcommittee Ranking Member Johnson’s opening statement.
Ranking Member Hank Johnson
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet
Hearing on “AI at a Crossroads: A Nationwide Strategy or Californication?”
September 18, 2025
Thank you, Chairman Issa, and thank you to the witnesses for being with us here today.
When I drive from Georgia to Washington, DC, I pass through three additional states. Each of those states have different speed limits, different levels of enforcement. We all have the experience of crossing state lines and having to figure out what rules govern our behavior. States have different data privacy laws, different environmental laws, different election administration laws, and different common laws holding it all together.
When some suggested earlier this summer that we in Congress should preempt all state AI laws, they would not just have done away with states’ nascent Generative AI consumer protections; they would have preempted common law causes of action against AI companies as well.
When the doctrine of caveat emptor, or buyer beware, ruled American jurisprudence, consumers had minimal protection and were expected to thoroughly inspect products themselves. Judicial interpretation began to change in the early middle 20th Century, as products became less straightforward. Common law developed to better protect consumers in products liability and negligence cases. Today, most Americans can hardly imagine taking apart a toaster, let alone an AI chatbot, to make sure it works correctly.
But caveat emptor is effectively what advocates of a moratorium are suggesting we revert to when we talk about an AI moratorium. When you preempt an entire field of law, you’re preempting the common law right along with it. Supreme Court has repeatedly found, as it did in Reigel v. Medtronic, that a federal law’s “reference to a State’s ‘requirements’ includes its common-law duties.” In plain language, that means if Congress preempts state AI laws, we also preempt state common law unless the legislation explicitly says something else.
Common law cases to protect consumers are already being filed against generative AI platforms. Two days ago, Senator Hawley held a hearing on the harms to children using AI technology, calling witnesses whose children died or were hospitalized after interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. I know some of the parents and families are in the room today. Kristin Bride, Julianna Arnold, Mandi Furniss, and Megan Garcia: I’m so sorry for what you have been through, and I admire your commitment to justice.
Common law is crucial to the protection of Americans, because it exists no matter whether there are comprehensive state laws on the books or no laws governing new technologies on the books. Even when there are no statutes, common law helps us set a floor for a standard of care as society.
When some of my colleagues across the aisle talk about a moratorium, preempting common law is exactly what they’re talking about. Carve outs might be offered for some areas of the law. Others may get a loose regulatory structure. But what many don’t realize is that the glue that holds the law together would be wiped out in almost every scenario.
By protecting common law, we can protect that floor that ensures every person harmed can seek to have their case heard before a court of law. This basic standard of care can spur innovation by preventing a race to the bottom, and it can offer a level of security as the federal government and states determine what the best next steps are for AI in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.