NY, US · AI law tracker
S9390 — NY, US
S9390 is an AI governance legislation from NY, currently committee. New York S9390 requires a preliminary showing of inauthenticity before courts inquire into generative AI-fabricated evidence [1]. AIGI tracks 1 primary-source update on this bill; the most recent was published on 2026-03-06.
Status & timeline
- Regulatory stage
- committee
- Bill status
- In Senate Committee
- Authority / governing body
- New York State Senate
- Chamber
- Senate
- Document type
- legislation
Next deadline: No fixed deadline — currently in committee.
Subscriber only
Full obligation matrix
| Actor | Obligation | Deadline | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| agency | The court shall not conduct an inquiry into alleged AI fabrication of evidence solely on the basis of such an allegation. | null | — |
| agency | The court shall conduct an inquiry into alleged AI fabrication of evidence if the contending party makes a showing sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the evidence may not be authentic. | null | — |
| user | A party contending that evidence has been fabricated by generative AI must make a showing sufficient to support a reasonable inference of inauthenticity to trigger a court inquiry. | null | — |
Subscriber only
Enforcement risk score
Hypothetical or aspirational; no enforcement signal yet.
Intelligence briefs (1)
NY S9390: Generative AI Fabricated Evidence Standard in Court Proceedings
New York S9390 requires a preliminary showing of inauthenticity before courts inquire into generative AI-fabricated evidence [1].
This establishes a procedural hurdle for challenging generative AI-fabricated evidence in New York courts, influencing litigation strategy.
Deadline: No fixed deadline — currently in committee.
Primary source →Frequently asked questions
- What is S9390?
- New York Senate Bill S9390 introduces a new evidentiary standard for civil, criminal, and family court proceedings where a party alleges evidence was fabricated by generative artificial intelligence [1]. The bill specifies that courts should not initiate an inquiry into alleged AI fabrication based solely on the allegation, requiring instead a showing sufficient to support a reasonable inference of inauthenticity [1]. Primary source →
- Why does S9390 matter?
- This establishes a procedural hurdle for challenging generative AI-fabricated evidence in New York courts, influencing litigation strategy. Primary source →
- Who does S9390 affect?
- This development affects parties involved in civil, criminal, or family court proceedings within New York State. Organizations engaged in litigation in this jurisdiction, particularly those that produce or rely on digital evidence, or face allegations of fabricated evidence, will need to understand this new evidentiary threshold. Legal teams and compliance officers managing litigation risks related to AI-generated content are directly impacted. Primary source →
- What are the key dates for S9390?
- No fixed deadline — currently in committee. Primary source →
- What is the current status of S9390?
- As of the last published update, S9390 is at the "committee" stage, with bill status "In Senate Committee". Primary source →
- Where can I find the primary source for S9390?
- The primary source for the most recent update is at https://legislation.nysenate.gov/bills/2025/S9390. AIGI publishes the full citation chain plus every approved brief on this bill. Primary source →
Related
Stay informed