Govern AI to the Utah AI Policy Act, documented and current.
Generative-AI consumer disclosure, regulated-occupation up-front notice, and the mental-health chatbot rules under HB 452 — derived from the record, current.
What the Act demands.
The Act disciplines who must disclose generative AI to whom, when. In a UCSPA consumer transaction, disclosure is on request; in a regulated-occupation interaction, it is up front.
Use of generative AI is not a defence. The operator remains liable for the act, statement or omission as if a human had performed it.
Three things Hael does for the Utah Act.
The same record. Utah alongside everywhere else.
The operator-side acceptable-use and disclosure layer that satisfies Utah also feeds Colorado SB 26-189 pre-use notice, California ADMT, EU AI Act Article 50 transparency and Texas RAIGA — written once, rendered to each jurisdiction's surface.
The consumer disclosure pack, sourced.
Every disclosure surface, response procedure and operator-liability acknowledgement is tied back to the record — and the mental-health chatbot section is held open until HB 452 implementation is complete.
Govern this alongside everything else.
One system, one record, governed against every framework at the same time. Map an obligation once; satisfy it everywhere it recurs.
See where you stand on Utah AI Policy Act, free.
Answer a few questions and get an indicative view of what Utah AI Policy Act expects of your AI systems and where you stand today — no sign-up to see your result.