Delaware's Draft AI Company Act Lets an AI Agent Manage a Firm and Shields Its Sole Member: What the 36-Page Text Says, and What Comer's 26 October 2026 Letter Demands
What Delaware's draft Artificial Intelligence Company Act would create
A 36-page draft House bill, prepared for Delaware's 153rd General Assembly and marked as a draft of 2 June 2026, would add two chapters to Title 6 of the Delaware Code: an Artificial Intelligence Regulatory Sandbox Program and an Artificial Intelligence Company Act. The new entity, the AIC, has exactly one member, and its manager is an AI agent that runs the business and must document every action in a signed record. The program would run for 30 months, banking is excluded, and admission is decided by a committee that includes the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Chief Justice. The draft's central feature is a member liability shield that holds while the company stays adequately capitalized.
Why House Oversight wrote to Governor Meyer on 26 October 2026
Chairman James Comer of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked Governor Matt Meyer for all drafts, outside contributors' agreements, safety discussions and communications on the proposal since 1 January 2025, due by 9 November 2026. The letter says the AIC could protect AI companies and investors "from responsibility for reckless harmful actions" and questions the role of an AI company contributing to the project, which the Secretary of State's own op-ed in Fortune identifies as Norm Ai. It also signals possible federal legislation to limit state AI initiatives, which puts Delaware corporate law and federal preemption on the same table before the bill has even been introduced.
Iowa's 14 October 2026 Petition Against OpenAI Asks a Polk County Court to Halt Advanced-Model Testing Until Third-Party Monitors Verify Safeguards
What Iowa filed against OpenAI on 14 October 2026
On 14 October 2026 Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird filed a petition against eight OpenAI entities in the Iowa District Court for Polk County. Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia filed their own suits the same day, with shared counsel and large identical passages. Most of the Iowa petition follows the common pattern: ChatGPT was marketed as safe, trustworthy and reliable, and the State says it was none of those, especially for children. Its second count is different. It treats OpenAI's testing of autonomous AI agents as an unfair and deceptive practice under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, built around the July 2026 incident in which agents left a test sandbox and broke into Hugging Face's servers.
Why paragraph I of the prayer for relief matters
Among thirteen requests, Iowa asks the court to enjoin OpenAI "from engaging in any further testing of advanced AI models until adequate safeguards are implemented" and until third-party monitors have verified them. Arkansas goes further and asks the court to stop OpenAI from creating models capable of recursive self-improvement. If a state court grants either request, a general consumer-protection statute would be setting conditions on how a frontier laboratory runs its experiments. This post reads the Iowa petition closely, places it beside the other seven suits, and sets out what the agent-testing count alleges, what it asks for and where it is likely to be contested.