Senate chairman questions whether legislatures have expertise to pass comprehensive regulatory schemes
Jan. 21, 2026…..The head of Greater Boston’s chamber of commerce offered his view of some of the policies percolating on and around Beacon Hill, staking out his organization’s opposition Wednesday to proposed state-level regulation of artificial intelligence technologies.
Massachusetts could undercut one of its greatest strengths if it pursues “hasty overregulation” of AI, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce CEO James Rooney said, by both stifling homegrown innovation and repelling investments Bay State companies might otherwise land.
AI issues “are best addressed through federal regulation, ensuring consistency and clarity across jurisdictions,” he said, but state-level regulations balancing business needs with consumer protections may be possible.
“Unfortunately, several proposals pending in our state Legislature would do the opposite, creating unnecessary burdens without delivering meaningful results. These proposals would disrupt businesses of all sizes and industries, making it difficult to use tools that drive innovation, benefit consumers, enhance the economic strength of our state, and create 21st century jobs right here in Massachusetts,” Rooney said during his 2026 business outlook, without citing specific legislation. “Perhaps more troubling, these proposals would position Massachusetts as a prime target for lawsuits by introducing untested legal standards, ambiguous requirements, and severe financial penalties for normal business functions.”
On Beacon Hill, elected officials have been weighing the potential risks of AI against the economic upsides of a fast-growing industry. Lawmakers and Gov. Maura Healey included $100 million in a 2024 economic development law to create a Massachusetts AI Hub, and Healey said last summer that she is “less focused on regulation of AI” and more focused on “leaning into the investments that we’re making here on AI.”
This week, lawmakers shepherding AI-related bills through the process indicated the House and Senate are unlikely to take up sweeping legislation regulating the technology in the near term. Instead, the Legislature is more likely to pass industry-specific AI regulations that are part of larger bills, said Sen. Michael Moore, co-chair of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity.
“I don’t know if any legislature really has the breadth or knowledge or expertise – or I should say understanding – to really do something that comprehensive,” Moore told the News Service on Tuesday after hosting a panel discussion on AI.
Any sweeping AI legislation would need to establish guardrails in a way that also allows lawmakers to respond quickly as technology changes, he said.
“We need to have some basic guardrails that can be foundational,” he said, adding the legislation could include provisions protecting civil rights and avoiding discrimination. “Those are issues that we need to look at, but they don’t have to change as the technology advances. The technology just needs to incorporate these principles.”
Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, the House co-chair of the committee, said she does not want to limit AI, but wants to ensure it’s regulated properly. Specifically, she recommended requiring notifications when a decision is made with AI – particularly whether or not a job candidate gets hired — and the ability to request a conversation with a real person if someone disagrees with the decision.
“I have no interest in squashing innovation, but I do have an interest in making sure we do it well, because to do it wrong may actually cost us much, much more,” Farley-Bouvier said.
In September, the Senate unanimously passed a data privacy bill (S 2608) that some saw as a precursor to a push for broader AI legislation, and the House version (H 4746) cleared committee and has been before the Ways and Means Committee since mid-November. When the Senate was considering its bill, Rooney sent a letter to senators opposing any amendments that would have stretched the bill’s scope towards AI regulation.
“In particular, restricting the use of artificial intelligence by employers is another complicated and highly technical issue that, if handled carelessly, will put Massachusetts at a disadvantage in competing for and retaining talent in the Commonwealth,” he wrote in September.
In October, the senators on Moore’s committee advanced a package of AI-related bills that he said would represent the first legal guardrails for AI use in Massachusetts, including by narrowing how companies can use electronic monitoring tools to track workers.
Rooney’s 2026 outlook also featured his thoughts on the initiative advancing to November’s ballot seeking to implement statewide rent control (“It does not make financial sense to investors to build the amount of housing we need in Massachusetts under these circumstances. Rent control is a terrible idea,” he said), the Legislature’s division of income surtax revenues between education and transportation causes (“It is time to split those funds 50/50 between education and transportation,” Rooney said), and the worth of a Massachusetts high school diploma in a post-MCAS era (“High school degrees need to mean more than participation trophies. The state must adopt a statewide graduation standard to ensure students receive a high-quality education regardless of which school district they live in,” he said).
