← back to table

NAIC AI Model Bulletin

Model bulletin adopted by the NAIC in December 2023 that establishes expectations for insurers' use of AI and external consumer data, including governance frameworks, accountability, documented AI inventories, and consumer-protection obligations. The bulletin is non-binding until a state issues a 'substantially similar' version; once it does, the bulletin becomes operationally binding in that state.

Not legal advice. This dataset is an aggregation of public regulatory text for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for counsel. Verify against the linked primary sources before relying on any row.
Issuer
National Association of Insurance Commissioners
Sector
Insurance
Primary source
Primary source ↗
Row count
51 jurisdictions covered

Rows

JurisdictionStatusEffectiveLast verifiedSummarySource
AlaskaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08As of the most recent NAIC implementation map, Alaska has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin. The NAIC bulletin itself has no fixed effective date; state adoption triggers the obligations. The bulletin establishes expectations for insurers' use of AI / external consumer data, including governance, accountability, and documented AI system inventories.Primary source ↗
AlabamaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Alabama has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking. The bulletin remains a non-binding model until a state issues its own substantially similar guidance or regulation.Primary source ↗
ArkansasPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Arkansas has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
ArizonaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Arizona is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Insurers operating in Arizona should treat the bulletin as the operational floor for AI governance, third-party data, and accountability expectations, layered onto Arizona Department of Insurance guidance.Primary source ↗
CaliforniaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08California is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. California also runs additional, more granular insurance AI guidance (CDI) and participates in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026). Federal/state interaction with CFPB and California Privacy Agency rulemaking continues to evolve.Primary source ↗
ColoradoAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Colorado is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin, and also runs Colorado-specific insurance AI rules under the Division of Insurance that go further than the bulletin baseline. Colorado is the lead pilot state for the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
ConnecticutAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Connecticut is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Connecticut is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
DelawareAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Delaware is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
FloridaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Florida is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Florida is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026). Florida Office of Insurance Regulation may layer additional consumer-protection requirements on top of the bulletin.Primary source ↗
GeorgiaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Georgia is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
HawaiiPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Hawaii has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
IowaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Iowa is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Iowa is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
IdahoPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Idaho has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
IllinoisAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Illinois is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
IndianaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Indiana is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
KansasAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Kansas is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
KentuckyAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Kentucky is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
LouisianaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Louisiana is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Louisiana is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
MassachusettsAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Massachusetts is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
MarylandAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Maryland is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Maryland is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
MainePending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Maine has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
MichiganAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Michigan is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
MinnesotaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Minnesota is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Minnesota also runs its own consumer-protection framework (including a broader state AI law) that may layer additional requirements on insurance carriers operating in the state.Primary source ↗
MissouriPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Missouri has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
MississippiPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Mississippi has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
MontanaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Montana has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
North CarolinaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08North Carolina is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
North DakotaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08North Dakota has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
NebraskaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Nebraska is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
New HampshireAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08New Hampshire is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
New JerseyAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08New Jersey is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. New Jersey also operates its own separate AI- and algorithmic-accountability framework (DOBI/DCA), and the state AG has been active on AI in insurance.Primary source ↗
New MexicoPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08New Mexico has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
NevadaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Nevada is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
New YorkAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08New York is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin, but New York also operates one of the most prescriptive state-specific insurance AI frameworks in the US via NYDFS Circular Letter No. 7 (2024), which goes materially further than the NAIC baseline. Insurers should treat Circular Letter 7 as the operational floor in New York.Primary source ↗
OhioAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Ohio is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
OklahomaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Oklahoma has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
OregonAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Oregon is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin.Primary source ↗
PennsylvaniaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Pennsylvania is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Pennsylvania is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
Rhode IslandAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Rhode Island is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Rhode Island is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
South CarolinaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08South Carolina has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
South DakotaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08South Dakota has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
TennesseeAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Tennessee is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Tennessee also passed the ELVIS Act / Tennessee Code Title 47 updates addressing AI in music/voice — not insurance-specific, but the state's broader AI posture is in motion.Primary source ↗
TexasAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Texas is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Texas TDI has also issued its own AI-related guidance layered on top of the bulletin, particularly around underwriting and consumer-data use.Primary source ↗
UtahAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Utah is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Utah also operates an AI-specific state law (the Utah AI Policy Act) that provides a disclosure-based framework — insurers should reconcile both layers.Primary source ↗
VirginiaAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Virginia is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Virginia is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
VermontAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Vermont is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Vermont is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026). Vermont also operates a broader state AI law (H.114 / Act 132) that may layer additional obligations on insurance use cases.Primary source ↗
WashingtonAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Washington is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Washington also operates the My Health My Data Act and has been active on algorithmic accountability via the Office of the Insurance Commissioner.Primary source ↗
WisconsinAdoptedno set effective date2026-07-08Wisconsin is listed by NAIC as having adopted a substantially similar version of the AI Model Bulletin. Wisconsin is also participating in the 12-state NAIC AI Systems Evaluation Tool pilot (Jan–Sep 2026).Primary source ↗
West VirginiaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08West Virginia has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
WyomingPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08Wyoming has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking.Primary source ↗
District of ColumbiaPending adoptionno set effective date2026-07-08The District of Columbia has not yet adopted a substantially similar version of the NAIC AI Model Bulletin per the NAIC's own implementation tracking. DC also operates a separate algorithmic accountability / AI bias law (the DC Stop Discrimination by Algorithms Act) that applies to insurance and other consumer-facing AI use.Primary source ↗