Followup on the Mass AI Bill, Russel has 180'd on it:
https://russwilcoxdata.substack.com/p/93a-the-three-characters-that-should
Buried in the penalty clause, the part of the bill that nobody reads, is a single reference: violations “shall be punishable in the same manner as provided in Chapter 93A of the General Laws.”
For those outside Massachusetts: Chapter 93A is the state’s consumer protection statute. It is, by most accounts, the most aggressive consumer protection law in America.
Here’s what 93A unlocks. Anyone can sue, not just the government. Class actions are on the table. If the court finds a violation was willful or knowing, damages get tripled. And the bar for what counts as “unfair or deceptive” is lower than in almost any other state.
Now bolt 93A onto all of that. What do you get?
You get a bill that doesn’t need a single regulator to lift a finger. You get a bill that funds its own enforcement through plaintiff attorneys who can file class actions, collect treble damages, and recover legal fees. You get the ADA website-accessibility litigation playbook, where lawyers systematically identify technical violations and file suits at scale, applied to every piece of AI-generated content touching Massachusetts.
Private right of action, fuck yeah. Turns grok into a legal fees dispenser.
The bill doesn’t need to be well-drafted to be dangerous. It needs to be vague, broad, and connected to 93A.
lol
https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/02/chatgpt-uninstalls-surged-by-295-after-dod-deal/
Some of my faculty have called for a campus wide boycott. Relatedly, the Scott Galloway scoreboard is up to $250m hit to tech market cap: https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/