Massachusetts Amendment S. 3178 introduces rigid, unworkable mandates—namely, the impossible recurring 120-day audit cycle and vague compliance standards—before the necessary auditing infrastructure or objective metrics even exist.
NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to Massachusetts Amendment S. 3178, Frontier AI Audit Mandates
September 8, 2026
Dear Members of the Conference Committee on S. 3178,
On behalf of NetChoice, a trade association working to make the Internet safe for free enterprise and free expression, we write in opposition to the artificial intelligence regulatory framework within Senate Bill 3178. While NetChoice supports thoughtful approaches to AI governance that foster public trust and operational transparency, S. 3178 introduces rigid, unworkable mandates that will stifle innovation, impose unachievable compliance burdens, and undermine Massachusetts’ status as a leading global technology hub.
The 120 Day Audit Cycle Imposes Unworkable Technical and Operational Friction
The Senate-passed version of S. 3178 was subsequently amended to require large frontier developers to undergo independent third-party evaluations of their frontier models with respect to catastrophic risks at least once every 120 days. The 120-day review cycle would introduce severe operational and technical impossibilities that neither developers nor independent evaluators can reasonably meet. Performing a comprehensive safety assessment on a frontier AI model—which requires rigorous multi-modal testing and catastrophic risk evaluations—takes months to properly design, execute, and verify. Because frontier models are continuously updated with fine-tuned weights, safety patches, and guardrail adjustments, an audit cycle compressed to four months guarantees that by the time a third-party evaluation is completed, the evaluated system has already evolved. Developers are trapped in an endless loop where the audit target shifts faster than an evaluation can physically be performed, forcing companies into permanent code freezes, administrative bottlenecks, and stalled product deployments.
This physical impossibility directly triggers the severe legal traps embedded in the bill. Because S.3178 delegates direct civil enforcement authority to the Massachusetts Attorney General, failing to complete an audit on time—or relying on unaccredited evaluators because no state-sanctioned alternative exists—exposes developers to direct civil litigation, court-ordered injunctions, and operational halts.
By demanding models undergo third-party evaluation every 120 days, while offering no accredited auditors or standardized metrics to perform those evaluations, empowering the Attorney General to penalize companies for non-compliance with an unachievable requirement, and then punishing developers for failing to satisfy an audit cadence that is physically and logistically impossible to perform, the Commonwealth would be creating a legal trap that will paralyze innovation across the Commonwealth, while doing nothing to protect the people the mandate is presumably designed to protect. Thus, If enacted as proposed, Massachusetts would establish one of the most demanding state-level frontier AI oversight regimes in the country, going beyond Illinois’ annual independent audit requirement by requiring additional independent catastrophic-risk evaluations at least every 120 days.
Mandating Audits Before Infrastructure Exists Creates Structural Instability
While this bill would establish a commission to examine third-party auditing mechanisms, setting a statutory expectation for formal auditing fails to recognize a basic operational reality: the necessary auditing ecosystem simply does not exist.
Currently, no credible or standardized ecosystem exists to conduct the type of independent audits envisioned under the legislation. There are no broadly recognized certification standards, no licensing structures, and no established oversight mechanisms for entities seeking to perform AI safety compliance audits. Although the amendment directs the Attorney General to develop an independent-evaluation ecosystem plan, that infrastructure does not yet exist and would have to be developed while developers are simultaneously preparing to comply with the new requirements.
This bill creates a scenario where large frontier developers must make an impossible choice: either attempt to hire non-existent auditors to perform undefined audits against non-existent standards, or risk civil action brought forth by the Attorney General for noncompliance with an unattainable requirement. This serves no legitimate consumer protection purpose and instead creates legal jeopardy that will chill investment and development in Massachusetts.
Vague and Broad Definitions Create Impossible Compliance Obligations
Beyond the lack of auditing infrastructure, the bill imposes compliance obligations based on undefined and extraordinarily broad terms. Companies cannot comply with legal requirements when the requirements themselves are unintelligible or so expansive that ordinary business activities could trigger them, because S.3178 relies heavily on subjective concepts like preventing “critical safety incidents” and managing “residual catastrophic risks” without defining the technical, quantitative, or operational parameters required to satisfy these mandates.
By failing to set clear, objective thresholds—such as acceptable error rates, specific threat vectors, or quantifiable statistical probabilities—the bill forces companies to operate in a legal vacuum. Developers are left to make blind judgment calls regarding whether a model’s risk profile meets statutory expectations, knowing that ordinary, standard business activities could inadvertently trigger regulatory scrutiny.
This ambiguity becomes exceptionally hazardous when paired with the enforcement mechanisms under S.3178. Because the statute delegates civil enforcement directly to the Massachusetts Attorney General, a developer’s good-faith effort to evaluate and mitigate model risk offers no legal protection. If the Attorney General disagrees with a company’s subjective interpretation of what constitutes a “critical safety incident,” the state can initiate direct civil litigation, seek court-ordered injunctions, or compel operational halts.
In effect, S.3178 shifts the entire risk of statutory vagueness onto the model developer. Companies are expected to create the legal standard on their own, facing severe enforcement actions and continuous legal exposure simply for making a technical judgment call that a regulator later disagrees with, without truly giving developers the opportunity to comply with the mandate, even when all good faith attempts to do so are made. The audit requirement becomes theater—creating the appearance of accountability without any real ability to assess compliance. This is not regulation, it is legal chaos.
S. 3178’s Auditing Requirement Will Chill Innovation
Massachusetts has long been a hub for artificial intelligence research, supported by world-class universities, vibrant venture capital, and a dense ecosystem of tech startups. Imposing commonwealth specific regulatory burdens, vague liability rules, and continuous auditing cycles will discourage businesses from launching or expanding frontier AI operations in Massachusetts.
If Massachusetts imposes uncertain, expensive compliance requirements while other states develop clear frameworks or impose none, frontier AI development will move to more hospitable jurisdictions—representing a lost opportunity for Massachusetts to continue to compete for high-value jobs and economic growth in a critical emerging industry.
Conclusion
NetChoice respectfully urges the Conference Committee to remove the frontier AI audit requirements from S. 3178. NetChoice stands ready to work with the General Assembly on workable and effective AI policy solutions that promote genuine consumer protection without creating legal jeopardy or harming innovation. We offer ourselves as a resource to discuss any of these issues with you in further detail, and we appreciate your time and consideration (The views of NetChoice expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of all NetChoice members.).
Sincerely,
Tyler Fields
Government Affairs Associate
NetChoice is a trade association that works to make the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression.