As of July 11, 2026, the Colorado Attorney General’s pre-rulemaking comment period for the ADMT Act remains open at coag.gov/ai, with only two days remaining before the July 13 deadline. Despite the rapid evolution of autonomous agent technology, a review of the public record reveals a striking pattern: not a single filed comment specifically addresses the governance of autonomous agents or multi-agent systems. While industry trade associations, including the BSA, have engaged with the broader ADMT framework, they have conspicuously avoided advocating for agent-specific regulatory guardrails. This silence is not an oversight; it is a calculated strategic posture.
The primary driver of this reticence is the Federal Trade Commission’s recent policy statement regarding the suppression of accuracy in AI systems, released on July 1, 2026, and published in the Federal Register on July 7. By explicitly identifying Colorado’s AI Act as potentially impliedly preempted, the FTC has signaled that state-level attempts to regulate AI outputs may conflict with federal regulatory schemes. For industry operators, engaging with Colorado on agent-specific rules now represents a poor investment of political and legal capital. Why negotiate the fine print of a state-level framework when the federal government has already signaled that the entire structure may be legally untenable?
This strategic withdrawal is compounded by a significant structural gap within SB 26-189 itself. The legislation is designed to capture systems that materially influence consequential decisions, a definition that comfortably encompasses recommendation engines but fails to account for the unique nature of autonomous action. The Colorado AG’s own pre-rulemaking considerations document reflects this blind spot, as it did not pose a single question regarding the distinct challenges posed by autonomous agents. By failing to define the scope of agentic behavior, the current regulatory trajectory risks applying legacy logic to a new class of autonomous systems.
The regulatory landscape is further complicated by a profound federal vacuum. According to the CRS In Focus IF13151, updated July 6, 2026, there is no known official U.S. federal government guidance specifically addressing agentic AI. Executive Order 14409, issued on June 2, 2026, reinforces this hands-off approach by prohibiting mandatory licensing and framing agents primarily as instruments of crime — specifically regarding unlawful data access under 18 USC 1028, 1030, and 1343. By categorizing agents as tools for illicit activity rather than subjects for governance, the federal government has effectively signaled that it views agentic autonomy through a lens of criminal enforcement rather than administrative oversight.
This creates a dangerous accountability gap for consumers. SB 26-189 preserves the right to meaningful human review of adverse automated decisions, a cornerstone of current AI policy. However, as systems move toward true autonomy, this right is rapidly becoming a legal fiction. When an agent operates without direct human oversight, the technical possibility of meaningful review evaporates. If the law requires a human in the loop that the technology has effectively bypassed, the regulatory framework fails to protect the very individuals it was intended to serve.
The industry’s silence during this comment period reveals a clear expectation: operators are betting that federal preemption will render state-level agent governance moot. By withholding comment, they are not merely avoiding regulation; they are waiting for a federal standard that aligns with the innovation-first approach outlined in EO 14409. They are banking on a future where autonomous agents are governed by federal criminal statutes rather than state-level consumer protection mandates.
As the July 13 deadline approaches, the structural evidence points in one direction. Industry has chosen to wait for federal rules rather than shape state-level precedent. The considerations document did not ask about agents. The CRS confirms no federal guidance exists. The FTC signaled preemption. If this silence holds through July 13, the resulting framework will codify a regulatory model built for recommendation engines while autonomous agents operate in the gap between state definitions and federal absence.