Regulon — CA-AB-2930 · CA AB 2930 (Automated Decision Tools)

WHAT THIS BILL REGULATES · 6 REQUIREMENT TYPES

How Is This Bill Enforced

Enforcement Authority

Public enforcement only. The Attorney General, district attorneys, county counsel, city attorneys, city prosecutors (with DA consent), and the Civil Rights Department may bring civil actions. The Civil Rights Department may also bring administrative enforcement actions for failure to produce impact assessments. No private right of action. Before commencing an action for injunctive relief, a public attorney must provide 45 days' written notice and allow a cure opportunity supported by a sworn written statement.

Private Right of Action

No private right of action. Enforcement is exclusive to the designated authority.

Penalties

Civil penalty of $25,000 per violation available only for violations involving algorithmic discrimination. Administrative fine of up to $10,000 per violation for failure to produce impact assessments to the Civil Rights Department upon request; each day of noncompliance constitutes a separate violation. Courts may also award injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs.

Verbatim statutory text on the left; plain-language analysis and a per-section checklist on the right. Numbered markers cross-link to the matching checklist row.

Statutory Text

Analysis & Obligations

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756

Definitions

(a) "Algorithmic discrimination" means the condition in which an automated decision tool contributes to unjustified differential treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, national origin, limited English proficiency, disability, veteran status, genetic information, reproductive health, or any other classification protected by state law.

(b) "Artificial intelligence" means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.

(c) "Automated decision tool" means a system or service that uses artificial intelligence and has been specifically developed to, or specifically modified to, make, or be a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions.

(d) "Consequential decision" means a decision or judgment that has a legal, material, or similarly significant effect on an individual's life relating to access to government benefits or services, assignments of penalties by government, or the impact of, or the cost, terms, or availability of, any of the following: (1) Employment with respect to all of the following: (A) Pay or promotion. (B) Hiring or termination. (C) Automated task allocation that limits, segregates, or classifies employees for the purpose of assigning or determining material terms or conditions of employment. (2) Education and vocational training as it relates to all of the following: (A) Assessment. (B) Detecting student cheating or plagiarism. (C) Accreditation. (D) Certification. (E) Admissions. (F) Financial aid or scholarships. (3) Housing or lodging, including rental or short-term housing or lodging. (4) All of the following essential utilities: (A) Electricity. (B) Heat. (C) Water. (D) Internet or telecommunications access. (E) Transportation. (5) Family planning. (6) Adoption services, reproductive services, or assessments related to child protective services. (7) Health care or health insurance, including mental health care, dental, or vision. (8) Financial services, including a financial service provided by a mortgage company, mortgage broker, or creditor. (9) All of the following aspects of the criminal justice system: (A) Risk assessments for pretrial hearings. (B) Sentencing. (C) Parole. (10) Legal services. (11) Private arbitration. (12) Mediation. (13) Voting.

(e) "Deployer" means a person, partnership, state or local government agency, developer, or corporation that uses an automated decision tool to make a consequential decision.

(f) "Developer" means a person, partnership, state or local government agency, or corporation that designs, codes, or produces an automated decision tool, or substantially modifies an artificial intelligence system or service for the intended purpose of making, or being a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions, whether for its own use or for use by a third party.

(g) "Impact assessment" means a documented risk-based evaluation of an automated decision tool that meets the criteria of Section 22756.1.

(h) "Sex" includes pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions, gender identity, intersex status, and sexual orientation.

(i) "Significant update" means a new version, new release, or other update to an automated decision tool that materially changes its principal use, principal intended use, or outcome.

Section 22756 establishes the definitional framework for the chapter. The key operative terms are automated decision tool — an AI system specifically developed or modified to make, or be a substantial factor in making, consequential decisions — and consequential decision, which covers an exceptionally broad range of domains including employment, education, housing, utilities, healthcare, financial services, criminal justice, legal services, family planning, and voting. Deployer encompasses any entity that uses such a tool for consequential decisions, while developer covers any entity that designs, codes, produces, or substantially modifies one.

The definition of algorithmic discrimination is notably broad, covering unjustified differential treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on any classification protected by state law — not limited to an enumerated list.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.1

Impact assessments for deployers and developers

DeployerDeveloper

(a)(1)–(2) 1 Subject to paragraph (2), a deployer shall perform an impact assessment on any automated decision tool before first using it and annually thereafter. (2) With respect to an automated decision tool that a deployer first used before January 1, 2025, the deployer shall perform an impact assessment on that automated decision tool before January 1, 2026, and annually thereafter.

(b)(1)–(8) 1 A deployer shall ensure that an impact assessment prepared pursuant to subdivision (a) includes all of the following: (1) A statement of the purpose of the automated decision tool and its intended benefits, uses, and deployment contexts. (2) A description of the automated decision tool's outputs and how they are used to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision. (3) A summary of the categories of information collected from natural persons and processed by the automated decision tool when it is used to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (A) Each category of personal information identified by reference to the applicable subparagraph enumerated under paragraph (1) of subdivision (v) of Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code. (B) Each category of sensitive personal information identified by reference to the applicable paragraph and subparagraph enumerated under subdivision (ae) of Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code. (C) Each category of information related to a natural person's receipt of sensitive services, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, identified by reference to the specific category of sensitive service enumerated in the definition. (4) A statement of the extent to which the deployer's use of the automated decision tool is consistent with or varies from the statement required of the developer by Section 22756.3. (5) An analysis of potential adverse impacts on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, religion, age, national origin, limited English proficiency, disability, veteran status, or genetic information from the deployer's use of the automated decision tool. (6) A description of the safeguards implemented, or that will be implemented, by the deployer to address any reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from the use of the automated decision tool known to the deployer at the time of the impact assessment. (7) A description of how the automated decision tool will be used by a natural person, or monitored when it is used, to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision. (8) A description of how the automated decision tool has been or will be evaluated for validity or relevance.

(c)(1)–(2) 2 Subject to paragraph (2), a developer, before making an automated decision tool that it designs, codes, or produces available to potential deployers, shall perform an impact assessment on the automated decision tool and annually thereafter. (2) With respect to an automated decision tool that a developer first made available to potential deployers before January 1, 2025, the developer shall perform an impact assessment on the automated decision tool before January 1, 2026, and annually thereafter.

(d)(1)–(6) 2 A developer shall ensure that an impact assessment prepared pursuant to subdivision (c) includes all of the following: (1) A statement of the purpose of the automated decision tool and its intended benefits, uses, and deployment contexts. (2) A description of the automated decision tool's outputs and how they are used to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision. (3) A summary of the categories of information collected from natural persons and processed by the automated decision tool when it is used to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (A) Each category of personal information identified by reference to the applicable subparagraph enumerated under paragraph (1) of subdivision (v) of Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code. (B) Each category of sensitive personal information identified by reference to the applicable paragraph and subparagraph enumerated under subdivision (ae) of Section 1798.140 of the Civil Code. (C) Each category of information related to a natural person's receipt of sensitive services, as defined in Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, identified by reference to the specific category of sensitive service enumerated in the definition. (4) An analysis of a potential adverse impact on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, religion, age, national origin, limited English proficiency, disability, veteran status, or genetic information from the deployer's use of the automated decision tool. (5) A description of the measures taken by the developer to mitigate the risk known to the developer of algorithmic discrimination arising from the use of the automated decision tool. (6) A description of how the automated decision tool can be used by a natural person, or monitored when it is used, to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision.

(e) 3 A deployer or developer shall, in addition to the impact assessment required by subdivisions (a) and (b), perform, as soon as feasible, an impact assessment with respect to any significant update.

(f) This section does not apply to a deployer with fewer than 25 employees unless, as of the end of the prior calendar year, the deployer deployed an automated decision tool that impacted more than 999 people per year.

Section 22756.1 establishes the core impact assessment requirement. Deployers must perform an impact assessment before first using any automated decision tool and annually thereafter; for tools already in use before January 1, 2025, the initial assessment must be completed before January 1, 2026. Developers face parallel timing: they must assess a tool before making it available to potential deployers, with the same legacy-tool deadline. Both must also perform new assessments following any significant update.

The deployer assessment (subdivision (b)) covers eight required elements: purpose and intended use, outputs and decision role, data categories collected (mapped explicitly to CCPA personal information and sensitive personal information categories and sensitive services), consistency with the developer's intended-use statement, adverse-impact analysis across protected classes, safeguards against algorithmic discrimination, human-in-the-loop or monitoring description, and validity or relevance evaluation. The developer assessment (subdivision (d)) covers six similar elements but from the developer's perspective, including mitigation measures taken. Both assessments must address the same protected classes.

A small-deployer exemption applies to deployers with fewer than 25 employees unless their tool impacted more than 999 people in the prior calendar year.

Compliance actions 3 items

Deployers must perform a documented impact assessment on each automated decision tool before first using it and annually thereafter, covering the tool's purpose, outputs, data categories collected (mapped to CCPA categories), consistency with the developer's intended-use statement, adverse-impact analysis across protected classes, safeguards against algorithmic discrimination, human oversight description, and validity evaluation. For tools already in use before January 1, 2025, the initial assessment must be completed before January 1, 2026.

H-02.3

Developers must perform a documented impact assessment on each automated decision tool before making it available to potential deployers and annually thereafter, covering the tool's purpose, outputs, data categories collected, adverse-impact analysis across protected classes, mitigation measures against algorithmic discrimination, and human oversight capabilities. For tools first made available before January 1, 2025, the initial assessment must be completed before January 1, 2026.

H-02.3

Deployers and developers must perform an additional impact assessment as soon as feasible following any significant update to an automated decision tool.

H-02.3

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.2

Notice and opt-out rights for individuals

Deployer

(a)(1)–(2) 4 A deployer shall, at or before the time an automated decision tool is used to make a consequential decision, notify any natural person that is the subject of the consequential decision that an automated decision tool is being used. (2) A deployer shall provide to a natural person notified pursuant to this subdivision all of the following: (A) A statement of the purpose of the automated decision tool. (B) Contact information for the deployer. (C) A plain language description of the automated decision tool that includes a description of any human components and how any automated component is used to inform a consequential decision. (D) Information sufficient to enable the natural person to request to be subject to an alternative selection process or accommodation, as applicable, in lieu of the automated decision tool, as provided in subdivision (b).

(b)(1)–(2) 5 If a consequential decision is made solely based on the output of an automated decision tool, a deployer shall, if technically feasible, accommodate a natural person's request to not be subject to the automated decision tool and to be subject to an alternative selection process or accommodation. (2) After a request pursuant to paragraph (1), a deployer may reasonably request, collect, and process information from a natural person for the purposes of identifying the person and the associated consequential decision. If the person does not provide that information, the deployer shall not be obligated to provide an alternative selection process or accommodation.

Section 22756.2 imposes two distinct individual-facing obligations on deployers. First, at or before the time an automated decision tool is used for a consequential decision, the deployer must notify the affected individual and provide specified information: the tool's purpose, deployer contact information, a plain-language description of the tool (including human and automated components), and information about how to request an alternative process.

Second, when a consequential decision is made solely by the automated decision tool, the deployer must — if technically feasible — accommodate the individual's request to opt out and be subject to an alternative selection process. The deployer may request identifying information to process the opt-out but loses the accommodation obligation if the individual does not cooperate.

Compliance actions 2 items

Deployers must notify each individual subject to a consequential decision, at or before the time the automated decision tool is used, that the tool is being used, and must provide: the tool's purpose, deployer contact information, a plain-language description of the tool including its human and automated components, and information on how to request an alternative process.

H-01.3

Deployers must, when a consequential decision is made solely based on the output of an automated decision tool and if technically feasible, accommodate an individual's request to opt out and be subject to an alternative selection process or accommodation.

H-01.4

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.3

Developer documentation obligations to deployers

Developer

(a)(1)–(4) 6 A developer shall provide a deployer with a statement regarding the intended uses of the automated decision tool and documentation regarding all of the following: (1) The known limitations of the automated decision tool, including any reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from its intended use. (2) A description of the type of data used to program or train the automated decision tool. (3) A description of how the automated decision tool was evaluated for validity and explainability before sale or licensing. (4) A description of the deployer's responsibilities under this chapter.

(b) This section does not require the disclosure of trade secrets, as defined in Section 3426.1 of the Civil Code.

Section 22756.3 requires developers to provide deployers with documentation about the automated decision tool, including its intended uses, known limitations, foreseeable algorithmic discrimination risks, training data descriptions, pre-sale validity and explainability evaluations, and a description of the deployer's responsibilities under the chapter. A trade-secret carve-out explicitly protects developers from having to disclose trade secrets.

Compliance actions 1 item

Developers must provide each deployer with documentation covering the automated decision tool's intended uses, known limitations (including foreseeable algorithmic discrimination risks), the type of training data used, the tool's pre-sale validity and explainability evaluation, and the deployer's responsibilities under the chapter. Trade secrets need not be disclosed.

G-02.1

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.4

Governance program requirements

DeployerDeveloper

(a)(1)–(2) 7 A deployer or developer shall establish, document, implement, and maintain a governance program that contains reasonable administrative and technical safeguards to map, measure, manage, and govern the reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination associated with the use or intended use of an automated decision tool. (2) The safeguards required by this subdivision shall be appropriate to all of the following: (A) The use or intended use of the automated decision tool. (B) The deployer's or developer's role as a deployer or developer. (C) The size, complexity, and resources of the deployer or developer. (D) The nature, context, and scope of the activities of the deployer or developer in connection with the automated decision tool. (E) The technical feasibility and cost of available tools, assessments, and other means used by a deployer or developer to map, measure, manage, and govern the risks associated with an automated decision tool.

(b)(1)–(7) 7 The governance program required by this section shall be designed to do all of the following: (1) (A) Designate at least one employee to be responsible for overseeing and maintaining the governance program and compliance with this chapter. (B) (i) An employee designated pursuant to this paragraph shall have the authority to assert to the employee's employer a good faith belief that the design, production, or use of an automated decision tool fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter. (ii) An employer of an employee designated pursuant to this paragraph shall conduct a prompt and complete assessment of any compliance issue raised by that employee. (2) Identify and implement safeguards to address reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination resulting from the use or intended use of an automated decision tool. (3) If established by a deployer, provide for the performance of impact assessments as required by Section 22756.1. (4) If established by a developer, provide for compliance with Sections 22756.2 and 22756.3. (5) Conduct an annual and comprehensive review of policies, practices, and procedures to ensure compliance with this chapter. (6) Maintain for five years after completion the results of an impact assessment. (7) Evaluate and make reasonable adjustments to administrative and technical safeguards in light of material changes in technology, the risks associated with the automated decision tool, the state of technical standards, and changes in business arrangements or operations of the deployer or developer.

(c) This section does not apply to a deployer with fewer than 25 employees unless, as of the end of the prior calendar year, the deployer deployed an automated decision tool that impacted more than 999 people per year.

Section 22756.4 requires deployers and developers to establish, document, implement, and maintain a governance program with reasonable administrative and technical safeguards to address the risks of algorithmic discrimination. The program must be proportionate to the tool's use, the entity's role and resources, and the technical feasibility and cost of available safeguards.

The program must designate at least one employee with compliance oversight responsibility and the authority to raise compliance issues, triggering a prompt internal assessment. The program must also provide for impact assessments (for deployers) and compliance with notice and documentation obligations (for developers), conduct annual comprehensive reviews, retain impact assessments for five years after completion, and make reasonable adjustments to safeguards as technology and risks evolve. The same small-deployer exemption applies.

Compliance actions 1 item

Deployers and developers must establish, document, implement, and maintain a governance program with reasonable safeguards to manage algorithmic discrimination risks, proportionate to the tool's use and the entity's role and resources. The program must (1) designate at least one employee responsible for compliance oversight with authority to raise compliance concerns, (2) identify and implement anti-discrimination safeguards, (3) conduct annual comprehensive compliance reviews, (4) retain impact assessment results for five years after completion, and (5) adjust safeguards in light of material changes in technology, risk, or operations.

G-01.1

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.5

Public transparency policy

DeployerDeveloper

8 A deployer or developer shall make publicly available, in a readily accessible manner, a clear policy that provides a summary of both of the following: (a) The types of automated decision tools currently in use or made available to others by the deployer or developer. (b) How the deployer or developer manages the reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination that may arise from the use of the automated decision tools it currently uses or makes available to others.

Section 22756.5 requires both deployers and developers to publish a readily accessible public policy summarizing the types of automated decision tools they currently use or make available and how they manage the reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from those tools. This is a standing public-disclosure obligation distinct from the regulator-facing impact assessment production requirement in § 22756.7.

Compliance actions 1 item

Deployers and developers must publish a clear, readily accessible public policy summarizing the types of automated decision tools they use or make available and how they manage the foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from those tools.

G-02.4

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.6

Prohibition on algorithmic discrimination

DeployerDeveloper

(a) 9 A deployer shall not use an automated decision tool that results in algorithmic discrimination.

(b) 10 A developer shall not make available to potential deployers an automated decision tool that results in algorithmic discrimination.

Section 22756.6 establishes the chapter's core anti-discrimination prohibition. Deployers may not use an automated decision tool that results in algorithmic discrimination. Developers may not make available to potential deployers an automated decision tool that results in algorithmic discrimination. This is a results-based prohibition — it does not require intent, only that the tool's use or availability results in the defined unjustified differential treatment or impact.

Compliance actions 2 items

Deployers must not use an automated decision tool that results in algorithmic discrimination — unjustified differential treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on any protected classification under California law.

H-02.1

Developers must not make available to potential deployers an automated decision tool that results in algorithmic discrimination.

H-02.1

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.7

Civil Rights Department investigation and impact assessment production

DeployerDeveloper

(a) The Civil Rights Department may investigate a report of algorithmic discrimination or any other violation of this chapter.

(b)(1)–(5) 11 Upon the request of the Civil Rights Department, a deployer or a developer shall, within seven days of the request, provide any impact assessment that it performed pursuant to this chapter to the Civil Rights Department. (2) The disclosure of an impact assessment pursuant to this subdivision does not constitute a waiver of any attorney-client privilege or work-product protection that might otherwise exist with respect to the impact assessment and any information contained in the impact assessment. (3) (A) A trade secret, as defined in Section 3426.1 of the Civil Code, contained in an impact assessment disclosed to the Civil Rights Department pursuant to this subdivision is exempt from the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code). (B) In complying with a request pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code), the Civil Rights Department, or an entity with which an impact assessment was shared pursuant to subdivision (d), shall redact any trade secret, as defined in Section 3426.1 of the Civil Code, from the impact assessment. (4) A deployer or developer who violates this subdivision shall be liable for an administrative fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation in an administrative enforcement action brought by the Civil Rights Department. (5) Each day on which an automated decision tool is used for which an impact assessment has not been submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall give rise to a distinct violation of this subdivision.

(c) The Civil Rights Department may provide an impact assessment it receives to a public prosecutor listed in subdivision (a) of Section 22756.8 to assist that public prosecutor in initiating or litigating a civil action under that section.

Section 22756.7 establishes the Civil Rights Department's investigative authority and the deployer/developer obligation to produce impact assessments on request. Upon request, impact assessments must be produced within seven days. Failure to produce triggers an administrative fine of up to $10,000 per violation, with each day of noncompliance constituting a separate violation. The section preserves attorney-client privilege and work-product protections and exempts trade secrets from public records disclosure. The Department may also share impact assessments with public prosecutors for enforcement purposes.

Compliance actions 1 item

Deployers and developers must produce any impact assessment to the Civil Rights Department within seven days of request. Failure to comply subjects the entity to an administrative fine of up to $10,000 per violation, with each day of continued noncompliance constituting a separate violation. Attorney-client privilege and work-product protections are preserved; trade secrets are exempt from public records disclosure.

R-02.2

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.8

Civil enforcement and cure period

(a)(1)–(2) Any of the following public entities may bring a civil action against a deployer or developer for a violation of this chapter: (A) The Attorney General in the name of the people of the State of California. (B) A district attorney, county counsel, or city attorney for the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred. (C) A city prosecutor in any city having a full-time city prosecutor, with the consent of the district attorney. (D) The Civil Rights Department. (2) A court may award in an action brought pursuant to this subdivision all of the following: (A) Injunctive relief. (B) Declaratory relief. (C) Reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. (D) Only in an action for a violation involving algorithmic discrimination, a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per violation.

(b)(1)–(2) A public attorney, before commencing an action pursuant to this section for injunctive relief, shall provide 45 days' written notice to a deployer or developer of the alleged violations of this chapter. (2) (A) The developer or deployer may cure, within 45 days of receiving the written notice described in paragraph (1), the noticed violation and provide the person who gave the notice an express written statement, made under penalty of perjury, that the violation has been cured. (B) If the developer or deployer cures the noticed violation and provides the express written statement pursuant to subparagraph (A), a claim for injunctive relief shall not be maintained for the noticed violation.

Section 22756.8 authorizes public enforcement actions by the Attorney General, district attorneys, county counsel, city attorneys, city prosecutors (with DA consent), and the Civil Rights Department. Available remedies include injunctive relief, declaratory relief, reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs, and — for algorithmic discrimination violations only — a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation. Before commencing an action for injunctive relief, a public attorney must provide 45 days' written notice. The deployer or developer may cure the noticed violation within that 45-day window by providing a sworn written statement that the violation has been cured and no further violations will occur, which forecloses the injunctive-relief claim for that noticed violation.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.9

Anti-retaliation protection

DeployerDeveloper

12 It shall be unlawful for a deployer or developer to retaliate against a natural person for that person's exercise of rights provided for under this chapter.

Section 22756.9 prohibits deployers and developers from retaliating against any natural person for exercising rights provided under the chapter — including, by implication, individuals who request notice, seek alternative processes, or file complaints.

Compliance actions 1 item

Deployers and developers must not retaliate against any individual for exercising rights provided under this chapter.

G-03.3

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.10

Cybersecurity technology exemption

This chapter does not apply to cybersecurity-related technology.

Section 22756.10 exempts cybersecurity-related technology from the chapter's requirements. The exemption is categorical and unqualified — no obligations under the chapter apply to such technology.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.11

Cumulative remedies savings clause

The rights, remedies, and penalties established by this chapter are cumulative and shall not be construed to supersede the rights, remedies, or penalties established under other laws including, but not limited to, Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 12940) of Part 2.8 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code and Section 51 of the Civil Code.

Section 22756.11 is a savings clause confirming that the chapter's rights, remedies, and penalties are cumulative and do not supersede existing law, specifically preserving FEHA (Government Code § 12940 et seq.) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51).

Human Oversight Decision review · appeal pathways

7 items

H-02.3

Deployers and developers must perform an additional impact assessment as soon as feasible following any significant update to an automated decision tool.

H-01.3

H-01.4

H-02.1

Developers must not make available to potential deployers an automated decision tool that results in algorithmic discrimination.

Governance Risk management · accountability programs

4 items

G-02.1

G-01.1

G-02.4

G-03.3

Deployers and developers must not retaliate against any individual for exercising rights provided under this chapter.

Regulatory Reporting · disclosure · audit

1 item

R-02.2

Passage Likelihood

Failed

Status Failed

Final action Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Umberg.

Legislative History

2024-02-15 Read first time. To print.

2024-02-16 From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.

2024-03-21 Referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and JUD.

2024-04-18 Assembly Rule 56 suspended.

2024-04-18 (Pending re-refer to Com. on JUD.)

2024-04-18 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 8. Noes 3.) (April 16).

2024-04-22 Read second time and amended.

2024-04-23 Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

2024-04-23 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (April 23).

2024-04-24 Read second time and amended.

2024-04-25 Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

2024-05-08 In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

2024-05-16 Assembly Rule 63 suspended.

2024-05-16 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (May 16).

2024-05-16 Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

2024-05-20 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

2024-05-21 Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 50. Noes 14. Page 5394.)

2024-05-22 In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

2024-05-29 Referred to Com. on JUD.

2024-06-03 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

2024-06-24 From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

2024-07-03 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (July 2).

2024-07-03 Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

2024-08-05 In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file.

2024-08-15 From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (August 15).

2024-08-15 Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

2024-08-19 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

2024-08-28 Joint Rule 61 suspended. (Ayes 31. Noes 9.)

2024-08-28 Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

2024-08-29 Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

2024-08-31 Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Umberg.

Sources

Full Text ↗

Entry Last Reviewed

2026-05-15

AI generated