Last year, states introduced more than 1,200 AI-related feeswith at least 145 becoming law, creating conflicting requirements that multiply compliance burdens. Each jurisdiction defines “artificial intelligence,” “high-risk systems,” and “resulting decisions” differently, forcing companies to analyze the same technology under multiple incompatible frameworks. A satisfying hiring tool California’s four-year recordkeeping and anti-bias testing requirements must also meet Colorado’s separate impact assessment mandates and New York City’s independent bias audit regime with different notice requirements. Each jurisdiction defines core terms differently, forcing companies to analyze similar systems under multiple incompatible frameworks.

Industry estimates suggest that compliance costs increase approx 17 percent overhead of AI system costs. For small businesses, California’s privacy and cybersecurity requirements alone impose almost $16,000 in annual compliance costs. But these numbers understate the true burden because they treat compliance as a variable cost that scales with company size. The truth is worse.

Researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School have identified what they call “compliance trap“where regulatory costs consume resources faster than startups generate revenue. Their analysis found that a 200 percent increase in fixed compliance costs can change a startup’s operating margin from a positive 13 percent to a negative 7 percent. That’s not a rounding error, it’s the difference between survival and bankruptcy. but without the revenue base or legal infrastructure to absorb the costs.

This dynamic gives a huge competitive advantage to the companies state regulations are meant to suppress. Incumbent tech giants maintain compliance departments that shut down entire startups. They can handle multi-jurisdictional legal teams, custom bias auditing frameworks, and the political relationships needed to shape emerging requirements. For them, state AI fragmentation represents a manageable cost of doing business. For startups, however, this represents an insurmountable barrier to entry.

The strategic implications are staggering. While American entrepreneurs waste engineering talent in conflicting compliance regimes, Chinese AI companies operate under a unified national framework. Beijing’s approach is not a model of light-touch regulation, but offers what America’s patchwork cannot: uniform rules that cannot be changed across state lines. When compliance costs exceed development budgets, innovation doesn’t slow down—it stops altogether or moves to a foreign jurisdiction where the rules are clear.

The White House recognizes this competitive danger in a December 2025 executive order criticized the “patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes” and directed the US Department of Justice to establish an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state laws that impede national AI policy. The order represents a necessary first step, but executive action alone will not solve a problem rooted in legislative fragmentation. Congress must act.

The federal preemption legislation would establish uniform national standards for AI systems while preserving states’ ability to enforce general consumer protection laws. This is not a radical concept. Federal agencies already govern aviation safety, pharmaceutical approval, and telecommunications—industries where state-to-state variation can create equal chaos. Safe harbor provisions can protect companies that implement reasonable bias testing and impact assessments from liability, creating incentives for responsible development without imposing conflicting mandates.

The current trajectory is unsustainable. Every month that passes with this regulatory chaos unabated represents another month of American innovation being handed over to better organized competitors. State lawmakers designed their AI frameworks to curb the power of Big Tech. Instead, they build a moat around incumbents while crushing startups that might challenge them. The compliance trap does not protect consumers. It protects monopolies and gives a competitive advantage to foreign enemies. That’s not regulation, that’s self-sabotage.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of luck.