Technologies

A Federal Moratorium on State AI Rules Is Inching Closer to Passing. Why It Matters

Congress is considering a policy that would stop states from having their own regulations around artificial intelligence.

States and local governments would be limited in how they can regulate artificial intelligence under a proposal currently before Congress. AI leaders say the move would ensure the US can lead in innovation, but critics say it could lead to fewer consumer protections for the fast-growing technology.

The proposal, as passed by the House of Representatives, says no state or political subdivision «may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems or automated decision systems» for 10 years. In May, the House added it to the full budget bill, which also includes the extension of the 2017 federal tax cuts and cuts to services like Medicaid and SNAP. The Senate has made some changes, namely that the moratorium would only be required for states that accept funding as part of the $42.5 billion Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment program.

AI developers and some lawmakers have said federal action is necessary to keep states from creating a patchwork of different rules and regulations across the US that could slow the technology’s growth. The rapid growth in generative AI since OpenAI’s ChatGPT exploded on the scene in late 2022 has led companies to wedge the technology in as many spaces as possible. The economic implications are significant, as the US and China race to see which country’s tech will predominate, but generative AI poses privacy, transparency and other risks for consumers that lawmakers have sought to temper.

«[Congress has] not done any meaningful protective legislation for consumers in many, many years,» Ben Winters, director of AI and privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, told me. «If the federal government is failing to act and then they say no one else can act, that’s only benefiting the tech companies.»

Efforts to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence could mean fewer consumer protections around a technology that is increasingly seeping into every aspect of American life. «There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it’s important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels,» said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. «We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level, too. I think we need both.»

Several states have already started regulating AI

The proposed language would bar states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. The exceptions are rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things. These kinds of regulations are already starting to pop up. The biggest focus is not in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has already implemented standards for AI. But states are starting to get in on the action.

Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations that often deal with specific issues such as deepfakes or require AI developers to publish information about their training data. At the local level, some regulations also address potential employment discrimination if AI systems are used in hiring.

«States are all over the map when it comes to what they want to regulate in AI,» said Arsen Kourinian, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the House committee hearing last month, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. «We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead,» he said.

While some states have laws on the books, not all of them have gone into effect or seen any enforcement. That limits the potential short-term impact of a moratorium, said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, managing director in Washington for the International Association of Privacy Professionals. «There isn’t really any enforcement yet.»

A moratorium would likely deter state legislators and policymakers from developing and proposing new regulations, Zweifel-Keegan said. «The federal government would become the primary and potentially sole regulator around AI systems,» he said.

What a moratorium on state AI regulation means

AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined.

«We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be,» Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April hearing. «But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards.»

During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system «would be disastrous» for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards.

Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good, but, «It’s easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences.» (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, parent company of CNET, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.)

Not all AI companies are backing a moratorium, however. In a New York Times op-ed, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called it «far too blunt an instrument,» saying the federal government should create transparency standards for AI companies instead. «Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed.»

Concerns from companies, both the developers that create AI systems and the «deployers» who use them in interactions with consumers, often stem from fears that states will mandate significant work such as impact assessments or transparency notices before a product is released, Kourinian said. Consumer advocates have said more regulations are needed, and hampering the ability of states could hurt the privacy and safety of users.

A moratorium on specific state rules and laws could result in more consumer protection issues being dealt with in court or by state attorneys general, Kourinian said. Existing laws around unfair and deceptive practices that are not specific to AI would still apply. «Time will tell how judges will interpret those issues,» he said.

Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues such as privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on the technology. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. «It has to be some kind of balance between ‘we don’t want to stop innovation,’ but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences,» she said.

Much policy around the governance of AI systems does happen because of those so-called technology-agnostic rules and laws, Zweifel-Keegan said. «It’s worth also remembering that there are a lot of existing laws and there is a potential to make new laws that don’t trigger the moratorium but do apply to AI systems as long as they apply to other systems,» he said.

Will an AI moratorium pass?

With the bill now in the hands of the US Senate — and with more people becoming aware of the proposal — debate over the moratorium has picked up. The proposal did clear a significant procedural hurdle, with the Senate parliamentarian ruling that it does pass the so-called Byrd rule, which states that proposals included in a budget reconciliation package have to actually deal with the federal budget. The move to tie the moratorium to states accepting BEAD funding likely helped, Winters told me.

Whether it passes in its current form is now less a procedural question than a political one, Winters said. Senators of both parties, including Republican Sens. Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, have voiced their concerns about tying the hands of states.

«I do think there’s a strong open question about whether it would be passed as currently written, even though it wasn’t procedurally taken away,» Winters said.

Whatever bill the Senate approves will then also have to be accepted by the House, where it passed by the narrowest of margins. Even some House members who voted for the bill have said they don’t like the moratorium, namely Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a key ally of President Donald Trump. The Georgia Republican posted on X this week that she is «adamantly OPPOSED» to the moratorium and that she would not vote for the bill with the moratorium included.

At the state level, a letter signed by 40 state attorneys general — of both parties — called for Congress to reject the moratorium and instead create that broader regulatory system. «This bill does not propose any regulatory scheme to replace or supplement the laws enacted or currently under consideration by the states, leaving Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI,» they wrote.

Technologies

Your Pixel 10 Might Have Issues With Older Wireless Chargers

You might want to try taking the case off your phone in order to successfully charge it.

When Google introduced the Pixel 10 lineup in August, it became one of the first major Android phones to receive the Qi 2 wireless charging standard, which Google calls Pixelsnap. However, users noticed issues with wireless charging on the Pixel 10 almost immediately after its release.

Some people are having trouble charging their phone with the new Pixelsnap charger, and others are having issues with older wireless chargers, including Google’s own Pixel Stands. The bulk of the problems happen when a case is on the phone — whether it has the magnet array or not.

I own both the first and second generation Pixel Stands and both will charge my Pixel 10 Pro XL without an issue if there’s no case on it. However, when I add a case to my phone, the problems begin.

I have three cases for my phone, the Mous Super Thin Clear Case, the Magnetic Slim Case Fit by Grecazo, and a no-name soft TPU case. If my phone has any of those cases on and I attempt to charge it while it’s vertical, it starts to charge and then stops after a second or two, and keeps doing that.

I can fix this for the first-generation Pixel Stand by turning the phone horizontal, but it will still charge very slowly. I can’t seem to fix it at all for the Pixel Stand 2 — vertical, horizontal, it doesn’t charge.

Not everyone has this issue

The problem doesn’t seem to be universal. CNET editor Patrick Holland said he had no issues charging the Pixel 10 Pro during his time with it.

A Google spokesperson told me the Pixel 10 lineup is not optimized for older Qi wireless charging standards, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the phones won’t work with older wireless chargers.

Qi 2 is backwards-compatible with older standards, but the phone’s height and charging coil placement on both the phone and the charger are still factors. If you’re having problems, you might see if removing the case helps.

The prospect of potentially needing to replace your older wireless chargers with newer ones isn’t ideal, especially if you shelled out $80 for one or both of Google’s own Pixel Stands. Still, if you want the best wireless charging speed for your brand new Pixel 10 phone, it won’t be with wireless chargers that only support older Qi standards.

Technologies

Today’s NYT Connections: Sports Edition Hints and Answers for Sept. 19, #361

Here are hints and the answers for the NYT Connections: Sports Edition puzzle for Sept. 19, No. 361.

Looking for the most recent regular Connections answers? Click here for today’s Connections hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Wordle and Strands puzzles.

The yellow category in Connections: Sports Edition is always easy, but today’s seemed like a no-brainer. The other categories aren’t too tough, either, especially for midwesterners. But if you’re struggling but still want to solve it, read on for hints and the answers.

Connections: Sports Edition is published by The Athletic, the subscription-based sports journalism site owned by the Times. It doesn’t show up in the NYT Games app but appears in The Athletic’s own app. Or you can play it for free online.

Read more: NYT Connections: Sports Edition Puzzle Comes Out of Beta

Hints for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Here are four hints for the groupings in today’s Connections: Sports Edition puzzle, ranked from the easiest yellow group to the tough (and sometimes bizarre) purple group.

Yellow group hint: Spotted on TV.

Green group hint: Unusual team names.

Blue group hint: Air Jordan.

Purple group hint: The Big House is another one.

Answers for today’s Connections: Sports Edition groups

Yellow group: Things seen on an NFL sideline.

Green group: NBA teams with singular nicknames.

Blue group: Teams Michael Jordan played for.

Purple group: Big Ten stadiums.

Read more: Wordle Cheat Sheet: Here Are the Most Popular Letters Used in English Words

What are today’s Connections: Sports Edition answers?

The yellow words in today’s Connections

The theme is things seen on an NFL sideline. The four answers are benches, chains, coaches and medical tent.

The green words in today’s Connections

The theme is NBA teams with singular nicknames. The four answers are Heat, Jazz, Magic and Thunder.

The blue words in today’s Connections

The theme is teams Michael Jordan played for. The four answers are Barons, Bulls, UNC and Wizards.

The purple words in today’s Connections

The theme is Big Ten stadiums. The four answers are Beaver, Camp Randall, Ohio and Spartan.

Technologies

AirPods Pro 3 vs. AirPods Pro 2: Should You Upgrade?

Here’s a look at the key differences between Apple’s latest flagship noise-canceling earbuds compared with their predecessor.

With Apple releasing the AirPods Pro 3, folks who already own the AirPods Pro 2 may be wondering whether it’s worth upgrading.

A good portion of my full review of the AirPods Pro 3 is devoted to discussing the differences between the two models. Here’s how I conclude my review: «Several new features, such as Live Translation, will be available for the AirPods Pro 2, so many AirPods Pro 2 owners won’t feel the need to upgrade right away. But if you’ve been using AirPods Pro 2 for a while, it might be worth passing them on to a friend or relative and upgrading to the Pro 3s.»

Read more: Best wireless earbuds of 2025

AirPods Pro 3 vs. AirPods Pro 2: What’s stayed the same

The AirPods Pro 3’s list price is still $249 (£219, AU$429). That wasn’t a given with all the uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration tariffs, but we’ll see how the price shakes out on Amazon and other retailers, where AirPods models often get discounted.
The AirPods Pro 3 are powered by Apple’s H2 chip, the same one that powers the AirPods Pro 2, AirPods 4 and Beats Powerbeats Pro 2. Rumors pointed to an H3 chip, but that didn’t happen.
No new color options; white is still the only option.
The AirPods Pro 3 stick with Bluetooth 5.3, just like the AirPods Pro 2 (though some true-wireless earbuds have already jumped to Bluetooth 6.0).
The buds still feature a MagSafe charging case with USB-C and wireless charging. However, no USB-C charging cable is included (Apple also left out a charging cable with the AirPods 4, though most people have a USB-C cable).

AirPods Pro 3 vs. AirPods Pro 2: What’s changed

While they look similar to the previous model, the AirPods Pro 3 have been redesigned. Their geometric shape has changed a bit, with the angle of the bud shifted. They’re the same length but slightly smaller width-wise, slightly larger depth-wise and weigh a touch more (5.55 grams vs. 5.3 grams on the AirPods Pro 2).
The AirPods Pro 3 come with new foam-infused silicone eartips in five sizes, including a new extra-extra small size.
The AirPods Pro 3 are equipped with heart-rate sensors like the Beats Powerbeats Pro 2.
2x better noise cancellation compared to the AirPods Pro 2, according to Apple.
While the AirPods Pro 3 have 10.7mm drivers like the AirPods Pro 2, those drivers have been upgraded to take advantage of the buds’ new multiport acoustic architecture, which moves more air through the buds and improves sound quality.
The AirPods Pro 3’s microphones have been upgraded.
The AirPods Pro 3’s Transparency Mode has been enhanced.
New Live Translation feature (also available for the AirPods Pro 2 and AirPods 4 series, but not the Beats Powerbeats Pro 2).
The AirPods Pro 3’s battery life has improved to 8 hours with noise cancellation on and up to 10 hours in Hearing Aid mode with transparency on. The AirPods Pro 2 are rated for up to 6 hours of battery life with noise-canceling on.
Instead of being IPX4 splash-proof like the AirPods Pro 2, the AirPods Pro 3 got an IP57 rating (so did their charging case), which means they can withstand a sustained spray of water. (I poured water on them and they survived just fine.) They’re also dust-resistant.
The AirPods Pro’s case now includes a U2 chip, boosting Precision Finding range in the Find My app by 1.5x (requires an iPhone 17). The AirPods Pro 2’s case has the U1 chip.
Like with the AirPods 4, the AirPods Pro 3’s case no longer has a button for Bluetooth pairing. You simply double-tap on the front of the case to put the buds into Bluetooth pairing mode. The AirPods Pro 2 have a physical button for Bluetooth pairing.

The AirPods Pro 3’s new geometric shape and eartips are among the biggest changes

While the AirPods Pro 3 and AirPods Pro 2 look very similar at first glance, they do feel different in your ears. That’s because the AirPods Pro 3’s new eartips are made of silicone but infused with foam toward the front of the ear tip. Also, the angle of the bud has been adjusted so the eartips point more directly into your ear canals.

If you’re someone who couldn’t quite get a good fit with the original AirPods Pro or Pro 2, the new design could very well help you get a snugger, more secure fit. The fact is that a tight seal is crucial for optimal sound and noise-canceling performance, and Apple redesigned the eartips to make sure users could hear the sound and noise-canceling upgrades with the AirPods Pro 3.

Alas, the new AirPods Pro 3 tips don’t work with earlier AirPods Pro models; they attach differently.

Do you really need the AirPods Pro 3’s heart-rate monitoring?

I personally don’t feel that heart-rate monitoring is a must-have feature, particularly if you already own a smartwatch with the feature. But for some folks, it will be a welcome addition. The heart-rate sensors have been custom-designed for the AirPods Pro 3 (they’re Apple’s smallest heart-rate sensors) and aren’t identical to the ones in the Powerbeats Pro 2, but the experience using the heart-rate monitoring feature is the same.

How much better are the AirPods Pro 3 than the AirPods Pro 2?

It’s always hard to put an exact percentage on how improved one generation of a product is to the next, and there are always some people who will prefer the older model for whatever reason. But for me, the AirPods Pro 3 are about 20-25% better.

While they both use the H2 chip, the newest AirPods have been redesigned on the outside and inside, and most people should notice the improvements to sound quality, noise cancellation and fit.

If you own the original AirPods Pro, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend upgrading, especially if your battery life has decreased.

If you’re happy with your AirPods Pro 2, there’s no hurry to upgrade unless your battery life has become an issue (some people have the older AirPods Pro 2 with a Lightning connector for charging instead of USB-C). The previous generation supports most of the same features as the AirPods Pro 3 (aside from heart-monitoring), including Live Translation and Hearing Aid mode.

It’s worth pointing out that the AirPods Pro 3 offer slightly better speech clarity for Hearing Aid mode (with Automatic Conversation Boost) and better battery life — up to 10 hours with Transparency and Hearing Aid mode. That makes the AirPods 3 the better choice if you have small to moderate hearing loss and plan to use your AirPods as hearing aids.

AirPods Pro 2 vs. AirPods Pro 3 vs. AirPods 4 with ANC spec comparison

	AirPods Pro 2	AirPods Pro 3	AirPods 4 with ANC
Weight (each earbud)	0.19 ounce (5.13 grams)	0.20 ounce (5.5 grams)	0.15 ounce (4.3 grams)
Weight (case)	1.79 ounces (50.8 grams)	1.55 ounces (43.99 grams)	1.22 ounces (34.7 grams)
Water resistant	IPX4	IP57	IP54
Sensors	Skin-detect sensor, Optical in-ear sensor, Motion-detecting accelerometer, Speech-detecting accelerometer, Force sensor	Skin-detect sensor, Optical in-ear sensor, Motion-detecting accelerometer, Speech-detecting accelerometer, Force sensor, heart-rate sensor	Optical in-ear sensor, Motion-detecting accelerometer, Speech-detecting accelerometer, Force sensor
Microphones	Dual beamforming microphones, inward-facing microphone	Dual beamforming microphones, inward-facing microphone	Dual beamforming microphones, inward-facing microphone
Chip	H2	H2	H2
Conectivity	Bluetooth 5.3	Bluetooth 5.3	Bluetooth 5.3
Active Noise Cancelation, Transparency mode	Yes	Yes	Yes
Conversation Awareness, Adaptive Audio	Yes	Yes	Yes
Voice Isolation, Personalized volume	Yes	Yes	Yes
Battery life	Up to 6 hours +30 hours with case	Up to 8 hours +24 hours with case	Up to 5 hours +30 hours with case
Wire in box	Yes	No	No
Launch Price	$249	$249	$179