A-00768
NY · State · USA
NY
USA
● Pending
Proposed Effective Date
2027-01-01
New York Assembly Bill A00768 — An Act to amend the general business law, in relation to preventing the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to discriminate against protected classes (New York Artificial Intelligence Consumer Protection Act)
Establishes comprehensive obligations for developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems — those that make or substantially factor into consequential decisions in education, employment, financial services, government services, healthcare, housing, insurance, or legal services — to protect New York consumers from algorithmic discrimination. Developers must provide downstream deployers with documentation on foreseeable uses, training data, bias risks, and mitigation measures, and must publish public summaries of their high-risk AI systems. Deployers must implement risk management programs guided by NIST AI RMF or ISO/IEC 42001, conduct and retain impact assessments (initially and at least annually), perform annual non-discrimination reviews, notify consumers before consequential automated decisions, and provide adverse decision explanations with appeal rights. Developers of general-purpose AI models must maintain and share technical documentation. A rebuttable presumption of reasonable care is available when an AG-identified independent auditor completes bias and governance audits. Enforcement is exclusively by the Attorney General under an unfair trade practices theory; no private right of action is created.
Summary

Establishes comprehensive obligations for developers and deployers of high-risk AI decision systems — those that make or substantially factor into consequential decisions in education, employment, financial services, government services, healthcare, housing, insurance, or legal services — to protect New York consumers from algorithmic discrimination. Developers must provide downstream deployers with documentation on foreseeable uses, training data, bias risks, and mitigation measures, and must publish public summaries of their high-risk AI systems. Deployers must implement risk management programs guided by NIST AI RMF or ISO/IEC 42001, conduct and retain impact assessments (initially and at least annually), perform annual non-discrimination reviews, notify consumers before consequential automated decisions, and provide adverse decision explanations with appeal rights. Developers of general-purpose AI models must maintain and share technical documentation. A rebuttable presumption of reasonable care is available when an AG-identified independent auditor completes bias and governance audits. Enforcement is exclusively by the Attorney General under an unfair trade practices theory; no private right of action is created.

Enforcement & Penalties
Enforcement Authority
The Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority. During the first year (January 1, 2027 through January 1, 2028), the AG must issue a notice of violation and provide a 60-day cure period before initiating an action, if the violation is curable. After January 1, 2028, the AG has discretion whether to offer a cure opportunity, considering factors such as number of violations, entity size, likelihood of public injury, and whether the violation was caused by human or technical error. Violations constitute unfair trade practices under GBL § 349 and are enforced solely by the AG; GBL § 349(h) (private right of action) is expressly excluded. An affirmative defense is available if a violation is discovered through red-teaming, cured within 60 days, the AG is notified with evidence of mitigation, and the entity is otherwise in compliance with NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, or a substantially equivalent framework. No private right of action is provided.
Penalties
Violations are enforced as unfair trade practices under GBL § 349 (excluding subdivision (h)), giving the AG access to civil penalties, injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement available under that section. No statutory minimum per-violation amount is specified in this article. No private damages are available — GBL § 349(h) is expressly excluded.
Who Is Covered
"Deployer" shall mean any person doing business in this state that deploys a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system.
"Developer" shall mean any person doing business in this state that develops, or intentionally and substantially modifies, an artificial intelligence decision system.
"Person" shall mean any individual, association, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, trust or other legal entity authorized to do business in this state.
What Is Covered
"Artificial intelligence decision system" shall mean any computational process, derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence, that issues simplified output, including any content, decision, prediction, or recommendation, that is used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making for making consequential decisions that impact consumers.
"High-risk artificial intelligence decision system": (a) shall mean any artificial intelligence decision system that, when deployed, makes, or is a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision; and (b) shall not include: (i) any artificial intelligence decision system that is intended to: (A) perform any narrow procedural task; or (B) detect decision-making patterns, or deviations from decision-making patterns, unless such artificial intelligence decision system is intended to replace or influence any assessment previously completed by an individual without sufficient human review; or (ii) unless the technology, when deployed, makes, or is a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision: (A) any anti-fraud technology that does not make use of facial recognition technology; (B) any artificial intelligence-enabled video game technology; (C) any anti-malware, anti-virus, calculator, cybersecurity, database, data storage, firewall, Internet domain registration, Internet-web-site loading, networking, robocall-filtering, spam-filtering, spellchecking, spreadsheet, web-caching, web-hosting, or similar technology; (D) any technology that performs tasks exclusively related to an entity's internal management affairs, including, but not limited to, ordering office supplies or processing payments; or (E) any technology that communicates with consumers in natural language for the purpose of providing consumers with information, making referrals or recommendations, and answering questions, and is subject to an accepted use policy that prohibits generating content that is discriminatory or harmful.
"General-purpose artificial intelligence model": (a) shall mean any form of artificial intelligence decision system that: (i) displays significant generality; (ii) is capable of competently performing a wide range of distinct tasks; and (iii) can be integrated into a variety of downstream applications or systems; and (b) shall not include any artificial intelligence model that is used for development, prototyping, and research activities before such artificial intelligence model is released on the market.
Compliance Obligations 22 obligations · click obligation ID to open requirement page
H-02 Non-Discrimination & Bias Assessment · H-02.1H-02.2H-02.3H-02.6H-02.7 · Developer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1551(1)(a)-(b)
Plain Language
Developers of high-risk AI decision systems must exercise reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable algorithmic discrimination risks. To earn a rebuttable presumption of compliance in an AG enforcement action, a developer must (1) comply with the documentation requirements of § 1551 and (2) retain an independent third-party auditor from a list published annually by the AG to complete bias and governance audits. The AG must publish the first list of qualified auditors by January 1, 2026. Self-testing and diversity-expansion uses of high-risk systems are expressly excluded from the definition of algorithmic discrimination.
Statutory Text
(a) Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, each developer of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended and contracted uses of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. In any enforcement action brought on or after such date by the attorney general pursuant to this article, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a developer used reasonable care as required pursuant to this subdivision if: (i) the developer complied with the provisions of this section; and (ii) an independent third party identified by the attorney general pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subdivision and retained by the developer completed bias and governance audits for the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. (b) No later than January first, two thousand twenty-six, and at least annually thereafter, the attorney general shall: (i) identify independent third parties who, in the attorney general's opinion, are qualified to complete bias and governance audits for the purposes of subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of this subdivision; and (ii) publish a list of such independent third parties available on the attorney general's website.
G-02 Public Transparency & Documentation · G-02.1 · Developer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1551(2)(a)-(d)
Plain Language
Developers must provide downstream deployers and other developers with comprehensive documentation covering: foreseeable and harmful uses; training data summaries; known limitations and discrimination risks; system purpose and intended benefits; pre-deployment evaluation methods for performance and bias; data governance measures; intended outputs; discrimination mitigation measures; usage and monitoring guidance; and any additional documentation reasonably necessary for deployers to understand outputs and monitor discrimination risk. Trade secrets and security-sensitive information are exempt from disclosure under § 1551(5). This documentation is distinct from the public-facing summary required under § 1551(4) — this obligation runs to downstream business recipients, not the public.
Statutory Text
Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, and except as provided in subdivision five of this section, a developer of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system shall make available to each deployer or other developer the following information: (a) A general statement describing the reasonably foreseeable uses, and the known harmful or inappropriate uses, of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (b) Documentation disclosing: (i) high-level summaries of the type of data used to train such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (ii) the known or reasonably foreseeable limitations of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system, including, but not limited to, the known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended uses of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (iii) the purpose of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (iv) the intended benefits and uses of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; and (v) any other information necessary to enable such deployer or other developer to comply with the provisions of this article; (c) Documentation describing: (i) how such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system was evaluated for performance, and mitigation of algorithmic discrimination, before such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system was offered, sold, leased, licensed, given, or otherwise made available to such deployer or other developer; (ii) the data governance measures used to cover the training datasets and examine the suitability of data sources, possible biases, and appropriate mitigation; (iii) the intended outputs of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (iv) the measures such deployer or other developer has taken to mitigate any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination that may arise from deployment of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; and (v) how such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system should be used, not be used, and be monitored by an individual when such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system is used to make, or as a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision; and (d) Any additional documentation that is reasonably necessary to assist a deployer or other developer to: (i) understand the outputs of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; and (ii) monitor the performance of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system for risks of algorithmic discrimination.
R-02 Regulatory Disclosure & Submissions · R-02.2 · Developer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1551(3)(a)-(b)
Plain Language
Developers providing high-risk AI decision systems to deployers must, to the extent feasible, furnish documentation sufficient for deployers to complete their impact assessments — delivered through model cards, dataset cards, or similar artifacts. A developer that is also itself the sole deployer need not generate this documentation unless the system is provided to an unaffiliated deployer. This is a deployer-enablement obligation: the developer must provide enough information for downstream compliance, not merely describe its own system.
Statutory Text
(a) Except as provided in subdivision five of this section, any developer that, on or after January first, two thousand twenty-seven, offers, sells, leases, licenses, gives, or otherwise makes available to a deployer or other developer a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system shall, to the extent feasible, make available to such deployers and other developers the documentation and information relating to such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system necessary for a deployer, or the third party contracted by a deployer, to complete an impact assessment pursuant to this article. The developer shall make such documentation and information available through artifacts such as model cards, dataset cards, or other impact assessments. (b) A developer that also serves as a deployer for any high-risk artificial intelligence decision system shall not be required to generate the documentation and information required pursuant to this section unless such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system is provided to an unaffiliated entity acting as a deployer.
G-02 Public Transparency & Documentation · G-02.4 · Developer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1551(4)(a)-(b)
Plain Language
Developers must publish and maintain on their website or a public use case inventory a clear summary of the types of high-risk AI decision systems they offer, along with a description of how they manage algorithmic discrimination risks. The summary must be updated whenever accuracy requires and within 90 days of any intentional and substantial modification. Trade secrets and security-sensitive information are exempt under § 1551(5).
Statutory Text
(a) Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, each developer shall publish, in a manner that is clear and readily available, on such developer's website, or a public use case inventory, a statement summarizing: (i) the types of high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems that such developer: (A) has developed or intentionally and substantially modified; and (B) currently makes available to a deployer or other developer; and (ii) how such developer manages any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination that may arise from the development or intentional and substantial modification of the types of high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems described in subparagraph (i) of this subdivision. (b) Each developer shall update the statement described in paragraph (a) of this subdivision: (i) as necessary to ensure that such statement remains accurate; and (ii) no later than ninety days after the developer intentionally and substantially modifies any high-risk artificial intelligence decision system described in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of this subdivision.
R-02 Regulatory Disclosure & Submissions · R-02.2 · Developer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1551(6)
Plain Language
The AG may require developers to produce the documentation described in § 1551(2) as part of an investigation. Developers may designate trade secrets, FOIL-exempt information, and attorney-client privileged materials as confidential, and such designations are respected — disclosure to the AG does not waive privilege. No fixed production timeline is specified for this subsection (compare § 1552(9) which provides 90 days). This is a reactive disclosure obligation triggered by AG investigation, not a proactive filing requirement.
Statutory Text
Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, the attorney general may require that a developer disclose to the attorney general, as part of an investigation conducted by the attorney general and in a form and manner prescribed by the attorney general, the general statement or documentation described in subdivision two of this section. The attorney general may evaluate such general statement or documentation to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section. In disclosing such general statement or documentation to the attorney general pursuant to this subdivision, the developer may designate such general statement or documentation as including any information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to subdivision five of this section or article six of the public officers law. To the extent such general statement or documentation includes such information, such general statement or documentation shall be exempt from disclosure. To the extent any information contained in such general statement or documentation is subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, such disclosure shall not constitute a waiver of such privilege or protection.
H-02 Non-Discrimination & Bias Assessment · H-02.1H-02.3H-02.6H-02.7 · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(1)(a)-(b)
Plain Language
Deployers of high-risk AI decision systems must exercise reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable algorithmic discrimination. A rebuttable presumption of compliance in AG enforcement actions is available if the deployer (1) complies with all § 1552 obligations and (2) retains an AG-identified independent auditor to complete bias and governance audits. The AG must publish and maintain the qualified auditor list beginning January 1, 2027. This mirrors the developer reasonable care obligation in § 1551(1) but applies to deployers.
Statutory Text
(a) Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, each deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system shall use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. In any enforcement action brought on or after said date by the attorney general pursuant to this article, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system used reasonable care as required pursuant to this subdivision if: (i) the deployer complied with the provisions of this section; and (ii) an independent third party identified by the attorney general pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subdivision and retained by the deployer completed bias and governance audits for the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. (b) No later than January first, two thousand twenty-seven, and at least annually thereafter, the attorney general shall: (i) identify the independent third parties who, in the attorney general's opinion, are qualified to complete bias and governance audits for the purposes of subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of this subdivision; and (ii) make a list of such independent third parties available on the attorney general's web site.
G-01 AI Governance Program & Documentation · G-01.1G-01.2 · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(2)(a)-(b)
Plain Language
Deployers must implement and maintain a risk management policy and program governing their high-risk AI system deployments. The program must specify the principles, processes, and personnel used to identify, document, and mitigate algorithmic discrimination risks. Both the policy and program must be iterative and regularly reviewed and updated over the system lifecycle. Reasonableness is assessed against NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, or a substantially equivalent framework, considering the deployer's size, complexity, system scope, and data sensitivity. A single program may cover multiple high-risk systems. Deployers may be exempt under § 1552(7) if the developer contractually assumes these duties and certain other conditions are met.
Statutory Text
(a) Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, and except as provided in subdivision seven of this section, each deployer of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system shall implement and maintain a risk management policy and program to govern such deployer's deployment of the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. The risk management policy and program shall specify and incorporate the principles, processes, and personnel that the deployer shall use to identify, document, and mitigate any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. The risk management policy shall be the product of an iterative process, the risk management program shall be an iterative process and both the risk management policy and program shall be planned, implemented, and regularly and systematically reviewed and updated over the lifecycle of the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. Each risk management policy and program implemented and maintained pursuant to this subdivision shall be reasonable, considering: (i) the guidance and standards set forth in the latest version of: (A) the "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework" published by the national institute of standards and technology; (B) ISO or IEC 42001 of the international organization for standardization; or (C) a nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence decision systems, other than the guidance and standards specified in clauses (A) and (B) of this subparagraph, that imposes requirements that are substantially equivalent to, and at least as stringent as, the requirements established pursuant to this section for risk management policies and programs; (ii) the size and complexity of the deployer; (iii) the nature and scope of the high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems deployed by the deployer, including, but not limited to, the intended uses of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems; and (iv) the sensitivity and volume of data processed in connection with the high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems deployed by the deployer. (b) A risk management policy and program implemented and maintained pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision may cover multiple high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems deployed by the deployer.
H-02 Non-Discrimination & Bias Assessment · H-02.3H-02.10 · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(3)(a)-(e)
Plain Language
Deployers must complete impact assessments of high-risk AI decision systems before deployment, at least annually thereafter, and within 90 days of any intentional and substantial modification. Each assessment must cover: system purpose and benefits; algorithmic discrimination risks and mitigation; data inputs and outputs; customization data; performance metrics and limitations; transparency measures; and post-deployment monitoring and safeguards. Post-modification assessments must additionally disclose whether actual use deviated from developer-intended uses. A single assessment may cover comparable systems, and assessments completed under other laws may satisfy this requirement if reasonably similar in scope. All impact assessments and related records must be retained for at least three years after final deployment. Predetermined learning changes documented in the initial assessment are excluded from the 'intentional and substantial modification' trigger.
Statutory Text
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this subdivision and subdivision seven of this section: (i) a deployer that deploys a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system on or after January first, two thousand twenty-seven, or a third party contracted by the deployer, shall complete an impact assessment of the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; and (ii) beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, a deployer, or a third party contracted by the deployer, shall complete an impact assessment of a deployed high-risk artificial intelligence decision system: (A) at least annually; and (B) no later than ninety days after an intentional and substantial modification to such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system is made available. (b) (i) Each impact assessment completed pursuant to this subdivision shall include, at a minimum and to the extent reasonably known by, or available to, the deployer: (A) a statement by the deployer disclosing the purpose, intended use cases and deployment context of, and benefits afforded by, the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (B) an analysis of whether the deployment of the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system poses any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination and, if so, the nature of such algorithmic discrimination and the steps that have been taken to mitigate such risks; (C) A description of: (I) the categories of data the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system processes as inputs; and (II) the outputs such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system produces; (D) if the deployer used data to customize the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system, an overview of the categories of data the deployer used to customize such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (E) any metrics used to evaluate the performance and known limitations of the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (F) a description of any transparency measures taken concerning the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system, including, but not limited to, any measures taken to disclose to a consumer that such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system is in use when such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system is in use; and (G) a description of the post-deployment monitoring and user safeguards provided concerning such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system, including, but not limited to, the oversight, use, and learning process established by the deployer to address issues arising from deployment of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. (ii) In addition to the statement, analysis, descriptions, overview, and metrics required pursuant to subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, an impact assessment completed pursuant to this subdivision following an intentional and substantial modification made to a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system on or after January first, two thousand twenty-seven, shall include a statement disclosing the extent to which the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system was used in a manner that was consistent with, or varied from, the developer's intended uses of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. (c) A single impact assessment may address a comparable set of high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems deployed by a deployer. (d) If a deployer, or a third party contracted by the deployer, completes an impact assessment for the purpose of complying with another applicable law or regulation, such impact assessment shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements established in this subdivision if such impact assessment is reasonably similar in scope and effect to the impact assessment that would otherwise be completed pursuant to this subdivision. (e) A deployer shall maintain the most recently completed impact assessment of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system as required pursuant to this subdivision, all records concerning each such impact assessment and all prior impact assessments, if any, for a period of at least three years following the final deployment of the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system.
H-02 Non-Discrimination & Bias Assessment · H-02.8 · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(4)
Plain Language
Deployers must conduct at least annual reviews of each deployed high-risk AI decision system to affirmatively verify it is not causing algorithmic discrimination. This is a distinct obligation from the impact assessment — it focuses on operational performance monitoring rather than forward-looking risk assessment. Reviews may be performed by the deployer directly or by a contracted third party. The § 1552(7) developer-assumption exemption may apply.
Statutory Text
Except as provided in subdivision seven of this section, a deployer, or a third party contracted by the deployer, shall review, no later than January first, two thousand twenty-seven, and at least annually thereafter, the deployment of each high-risk artificial intelligence decision system deployed by the deployer to ensure that such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system is not causing algorithmic discrimination.
H-01 Human Oversight of Automated Decisions · H-01.1H-01.2H-01.3H-01.5 · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(5)(a)-(c)
Plain Language
Before using a high-risk AI system to make or substantially factor into a consequential decision about a consumer, deployers must provide pre-decision notice including: notice that AI is being used, the system's purpose, the nature of the decision, deployer contact information, a plain-language system description, and instructions for accessing the deployer's public summary. If the decision is adverse, the deployer must additionally provide: the principal reasons for the decision (including how the AI contributed, what data types were used, and data sources), the opportunity to correct incorrect personal data, and an appeal process with human review where technically feasible — unless delay would endanger the consumer. All notices must be provided directly to the consumer, in plain language, in all languages the deployer uses in its business, and in formats accessible to consumers with disabilities.
Statutory Text
(a) Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, and before a deployer deploys a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision concerning a consumer, the deployer shall: (i) notify the consumer that the deployer has deployed a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, such consequential decision; and (ii) provide to the consumer: (A) a statement disclosing: (I) the purpose of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; and (II) the nature of such consequential decision; (B) contact information for such deployer; (C) a description, in plain language, of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; and (D) instructions on how to access the statement made available pursuant to paragraph (a) of subdivision six of this section. (b) Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, a deployer that has deployed a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system to make, or as a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision concerning a consumer shall, if such consequential decision is adverse to the consumer, provide to such consumer: (i) a statement disclosing the principal reason or reasons for such adverse consequential decision, including, but not limited to: (A) the degree to which, and manner in which, the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system contributed to such adverse consequential decision; (B) the type of data that was processed by such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system in making such adverse consequential decision; and (C) the source of such data; and (ii) an opportunity to: (A) correct any incorrect personal data that the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system processed in making, or as a substantial factor in making, such adverse consequential decision; and (B) appeal such adverse consequential decision, which shall, if technically feasible, allow for human review unless providing such opportunity is not in the best interest of such consumer, including, but not limited to, in instances in which any delay might pose a risk to the life or safety of such consumer. (c) The deployer shall provide the notice, statements, information, description, and instructions required pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subdivision: (i) directly to the consumer; (ii) in plain language; (iii) in all languages in which such deployer, in the ordinary course of such deployer's business, provides contracts, disclaimers, sale announcements, and other information to consumers; and (iv) in a format that is accessible to consumers with disabilities.
G-02 Public Transparency & Documentation · G-02.4 · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(6)(a)-(b)
Plain Language
Deployers must publish and maintain on their website a clear summary describing: the types of high-risk AI decision systems they deploy, how they manage algorithmic discrimination risks from each system, and the nature, source, and extent of data collected and used. This statement must be periodically updated. The § 1552(7) developer-assumption exemption may apply. Trade secrets are protected under § 1552(8), but deployers withholding information must notify consumers that information is being withheld and explain the basis.
Statutory Text
(a) Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, and except as provided in subdivision seven of this section, each deployer shall make available, in a manner that is clear and readily available on such deployer's website, a statement summarizing: (i) the types of high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems that are currently deployed by such deployer; (ii) how such deployer manages any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination that may arise from deployment of each high-risk artificial intelligence decision system described in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph; and (iii) in detail, the nature, source and extent of the information collected and used by such deployer. (b) Each deployer shall periodically update the statement required pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision.
Other · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(7)(a)-(c)
Plain Language
A deployer may be exempt from the risk management program, impact assessment, annual review, and public summary requirements if all of the following conditions are continuously met: (1) the developer contractually assumes those duties; (2) the deployer does not exclusively use its own data to train the system; (3) the system is used for the developer's disclosed intended purposes; (4) the system learns from a broad range of data sources, not solely the deployer's data; and (5) the deployer makes the developer's impact assessment — with substantially similar content to the required deployer impact assessment — available to consumers. This creates no new obligation but rather defines conditions under which existing deployer obligations may be contractually transferred.
Statutory Text
The provisions of subdivisions two, three, four, and six of this section shall not apply to a deployer if, at the time the deployer deploys a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system, and at all times while the high-risk artificial intelligence decision system is deployed: (a) the deployer: (i) has entered into a contract with the developer in which the developer has agreed to assume the deployer's duties pursuant to subdivisions two, three, four, or six of this section; and (ii) does not exclusively use such deployer's own data to train such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system; (b) such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system: (i) is used for the intended uses that are disclosed to such deployer pursuant to subparagraph (iv) of paragraph (b) of subdivision two of section one thousand five hundred fifty-one of this article; and (ii) continues learning based on a broad range of data sources and not solely based on the deployer's own data; and (c) such deployer makes available to consumers any impact assessment that: (i) the developer of such high-risk artificial intelligence decision system has completed and provided to such deployer; and (ii) includes information that is substantially similar to the information included in the statement, analysis, descriptions, overview, and metrics required pursuant to subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subdivision three of this section.
R-02 Regulatory Disclosure & Submissions · R-02.2 · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(9)
Plain Language
The AG may require deployers (or their contracted third parties) to produce their risk management policy, impact assessments, and retained records within 90 days of a request, as part of an AG investigation. Deployers may designate trade secrets, FOIL-exempt materials, and privileged information, which will be protected from public disclosure. Production to the AG does not waive attorney-client privilege or work product protection. This is a reactive production obligation — deployers must maintain documentation in a form that can be assembled and produced within the 90-day window.
Statutory Text
Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, the attorney general may require that a deployer, or a third party contracted by the deployer pursuant to subdivision three of this section, as applicable, disclose to the attorney general, as part of an investigation conducted by the attorney general, no later than ninety days after a request by the attorney general, and in a form and manner prescribed by the attorney general, the risk management policy implemented pursuant to subdivision two of this section, the impact assessment completed pursuant to subdivision three of this section; or records maintained pursuant to paragraph (e) of subdivision three of this section. The attorney general may evaluate such risk management policy, impact assessment or records to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section. In disclosing such risk management policy, impact assessment or records to the attorney general pursuant to this subdivision, the deployer or third-party contractor, as applicable, may designate such risk management policy, impact assessment or records as including any information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to subdivision eight of this section or article six of the public officers law. To the extent such risk management policy, impact assessment, or records include such information, such risk management policy, impact assessment, or records shall be exempt from disclosure. To the extent any information contained in such risk management policy, impact assessment, or record is subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, such disclosure shall not constitute a waiver of such privilege or protection.
G-01 AI Governance Program & Documentation · G-01.1G-01.2G-01.3 · Developer · Automated DecisionmakingGeneral-Purpose AI
GBL § 1553(1)(a)
Plain Language
Developers of general-purpose AI models must create, maintain, and annually review technical documentation covering: training and testing processes, compliance evaluation results, intended tasks, intended downstream integration contexts, acceptable use policies, release date, distribution methods, and input/output modalities and formats. Documentation depth should be proportionate to the model's size and risk profile. This is a continuing obligation — documentation must be kept current. Open-source models released under qualifying free licenses may be partially exempt under § 1553(2)(a), and models used exclusively for internal purposes are fully exempt under § 1553(2)(b). Trade secrets are protected under § 1553(3).
Statutory Text
Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, each developer of a general-purpose artificial intelligence model shall, except as provided in subdivision two of this section: (a) create and maintain technical documentation for the general-purpose artificial intelligence model, which shall: (i) include: (A) the training and testing processes for such general-purpose artificial intelligence model; and (B) the results of an evaluation of such general-purpose artificial intelligence model performed to determine whether such general-purpose artificial intelligence model is in compliance with the provisions of this article; (ii) include, as appropriate, considering the size and risk profile of such general-purpose artificial intelligence model, at least: (A) the tasks such general-purpose artificial intelligence model is intended to perform; (B) the type and nature of artificial intelligence decision systems in which such general-purpose artificial intelligence model is intended to be integrated; (C) acceptable use policies for such general-purpose artificial intelligence model; (D) the date such general-purpose artificial intelligence model is released; (E) the methods by which such general-purpose artificial intelligence model is distributed; and (F) the modality and format of inputs and outputs for such general-purpose artificial intelligence model; and (iii) be reviewed and revised at least annually, or more frequently, as necessary to maintain the accuracy of such technical documentation;
G-02 Public Transparency & Documentation · G-02.1 · Developer · Automated DecisionmakingGeneral-Purpose AI
GBL § 1553(1)(b)
Plain Language
Developers of general-purpose AI models must create, maintain, and make available to downstream integrators documentation enabling those integrators to understand the model's capabilities and limitations and to comply with their own obligations under this article. At minimum, the documentation must disclose the technical integration requirements and the model information specified in § 1553(1)(a)(ii) (intended tasks, downstream systems, acceptable use policies, release date, distribution methods, and I/O formats). Documentation must be reviewed and revised at least annually. This is the GPAI equivalent of the high-risk system deployer-facing documentation in § 1551(2).
Statutory Text
(b) create, implement, maintain and make available to persons that intend to integrate such general-purpose artificial intelligence model into such persons' artificial intelligence decision systems documentation and information that: (i) enables such persons to: (A) understand the capabilities and limitations of such general-purpose artificial intelligence model; and (B) comply with such persons' obligations pursuant to this article; (ii) discloses, at a minimum: (A) the technical means required for such general-purpose artificial intelligence model to be integrated into such persons' artificial intelligence decision systems; (B) the information listed in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of this subdivision; and (iii) except as provided in subdivision two of this section, is reviewed and revised at least annually, or more frequently, as necessary to maintain the accuracy of such documentation and information.
G-01 AI Governance Program & Documentation · G-01.1 · Developer · Automated DecisionmakingGeneral-Purpose AI
GBL § 1553(2)(a)-(d)
Plain Language
Developers of general-purpose AI models may be exempt from the technical documentation creation/maintenance and annual downstream documentation review requirements if: (1) the model is released under a qualifying open-source license with publicly available parameters (unless deployed as high-risk), or (2) the model is not offered commercially, not consumer-facing, and used solely for internal purposes. Internal management models (office supplies, payments) are fully exempt. However, developers claiming the internal-use-only exemption under (a)(ii) must still establish and maintain an AI risk management framework with governance, risk mapping, risk management, and risk measurement functions. All exemptions carry a burden of proof on the developer. This provision creates a conditional governance obligation for internal-use GPAI developers even while exempting them from the full technical documentation requirements.
Statutory Text
(a) The provisions of paragraph (a) and subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of subdivision one of this section shall not apply to a developer that develops, or intentionally and substantially modifies, a general-purpose artificial intelligence model on or after January first, two thousand twenty-seven, if: (i) (A) the developer releases such general-purpose artificial intelligence model under a free and open-source license that allows for: (I) access to, and modification, distribution, and usage of, such general-purpose artificial intelligence model; and (II) the parameters of such general-purpose artificial intelligence model to be made publicly available pursuant to clause (B) of this subparagraph; and (B) unless such general-purpose artificial intelligence model is deployed as a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system, the parameters of such general-purpose artificial intelligence model, including, but not limited to, the weights and information concerning the model architecture and model usage for such general-purpose artificial intelligence model, are made publicly available; or (ii) the general-purpose artificial intelligence model is: (A) not offered for sale in the market; (B) not intended to interact with consumers; and (C) solely utilized: (I) for an entity's internal purposes; or (II) pursuant to an agreement between multiple entities for such entities' internal purposes. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a developer that develops, or intentionally and substantially modifies, a general-purpose artificial intelligence model on or after January first, two thousand twenty-seven, if such general purpose artificial intelligence model performs tasks exclusively related to an entity's internal management affairs, including, but not limited to, ordering office supplies or processing payments. (c) A developer that takes any action under an exemption pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this subdivision shall bear the burden of demonstrating that such action qualifies for such exemption. (d) A developer that is exempt pursuant to subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of this subdivision shall establish and maintain an artificial intelligence risk management framework, which shall: (i) be the product of an iterative process and ongoing efforts; and (ii) include, at a minimum: (A) an internal governance function; (B) a map function that shall establish the context to frame risks; (C) a risk management function; and (D) a function to measure identified risks by assessing, analyzing and tracking such risks.
R-02 Regulatory Disclosure & Submissions · R-02.2 · Developer · Automated DecisionmakingGeneral-Purpose AI
GBL § 1553(4)
Plain Language
The AG may require GPAI model developers to produce their technical documentation within 90 days of a request as part of an investigation. Developers may designate trade secrets, FOIL-exempt materials, and privileged information for protection. Production does not waive attorney-client privilege. This parallels the developer and deployer production obligations under §§ 1551(6) and 1552(9), extending the AG's investigative reach to GPAI-specific technical documentation.
Statutory Text
Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, the attorney general may require that a developer disclose to the attorney general, as part of an investigation conducted by the attorney general, no later than ninety days after a request by the attorney general and in a form and manner prescribed by the attorney general, any documentation maintained pursuant to this section. The attorney general may evaluate such documentation to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section. In disclosing any documentation to the attorney general pursuant to this subdivision, the developer may designate such documentation as including any information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to subdivision three of this section or article six of the public officers law. To the extent such documentation includes such information, such documentation shall be exempt from disclosure. To the extent any information contained in such documentation is subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, such disclosure shall not constitute a waiver of such privilege or protection.
T-01 AI Identity Disclosure · T-01.1 · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1554(1)-(2)
Plain Language
Any person doing business in New York that makes available an AI decision system intended to interact with consumers must disclose to each interacting consumer that they are interacting with an AI system. This applies broadly to all AI decision systems — not just high-risk ones — and to any person, not just developers and deployers. The disclosure is excused only where a reasonable person would obviously recognize they are interacting with an AI system. This is a conditional disclosure: it applies unless the AI nature is already obvious.
Statutory Text
1. Beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, and except as provided in subdivision two of this section, each person doing business in this state, including, but not limited to, each deployer that deploys, offers, sells, leases, licenses, gives, or otherwise makes available, as applicable, any artificial intelligence decision system that is intended to interact with consumers shall ensure that it is disclosed to each consumer who interacts with such artificial intelligence decision system that such consumer is interacting with an artificial intelligence decision system. 2. No disclosure shall be required pursuant to subdivision one of this section under circumstances in which a reasonable person would deem it obvious that such person is interacting with an artificial intelligence decision system.
Other · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1556(1)-(5)
Plain Language
The AG has exclusive enforcement authority. During the first year (2027), the AG must issue a notice and 60-day cure period before bringing an action for curable violations. After 2028, the AG has discretion on whether to offer cure opportunities based on enumerated factors. No private right of action exists. Violations are unfair trade practices under GBL § 349 but the § 349(h) private action provision is expressly excluded. This provision establishes enforcement mechanics and creates no independent compliance obligation.
Statutory Text
1. The attorney general shall have exclusive authority to enforce the provisions of this article. 2. Except as provided in subdivision six of this section, during the period beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-seven, and ending on January first, two thousand twenty-eight, the attorney general shall, prior to initiating any action for a violation of this section, issue a notice of violation to the developer, deployer, or other person if the attorney general determines that it is possible to cure such violation. If the developer, deployer, or other person fails to cure such violation within sixty days after receipt of such notice of violation, the attorney general may bring an action pursuant to this section. 3. Except as provided in subdivision six of this section, beginning on January first, two thousand twenty-eight, the attorney general may, in determining whether to grant a developer, deployer, or other person the opportunity to cure a violation described in subdivision two of this section, consider: (a) the number of violations; (b) the size and complexity of the developer, deployer, or other person; (c) the nature and extent of the developer's, deployer's, or other person's business; (d) the substantial likelihood of injury to the public; (e) the safety of persons or property; and (f) whether such violation was likely caused by human or technical error. 4. Nothing in this article shall be construed as providing the basis for a private right of action for violations of the provisions of this article. 5. Except as provided in subdivisions one, two, three, four, and six of this section, a violation of the requirements established in this article shall constitute an unfair trade practice for purposes of section three hundred forty-nine of this chapter and shall be enforced solely by the attorney general; provided, however, that subdivision (h) of section three hundred forty-nine of this chapter shall not apply to any such violation.
Other · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1556(6)(a)-(c)
Plain Language
An affirmative defense is available in AG enforcement actions if the entity: (1) discovered the violation through red-teaming, (2) cured the violation within 60 days, (3) notified the AG with cure evidence and harm mitigation, and (4) is otherwise in compliance with NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, or a substantially equivalent framework. The burden of proof is on the entity. This defense applies only to AG enforcement actions under this article — it does not affect any other legal claims, remedies, or defenses available at law or equity. The savings clause in (c) confirms that existing common-law and statutory causes of action remain unaffected by the article's enforcement provisions. This creates no new compliance obligation — it is an enforcement safe harbor that incentivizes red-teaming and rapid remediation.
Statutory Text
(a) In any action commenced by the attorney general for any violation of this article, it shall be an affirmative defense that the developer, deployer, or other person: (i) discovers a violation of any provision of this article through red-teaming; (ii) no later than sixty days after discovering such violation through red-teaming: (A) cures such violation; and (B) provides to the attorney general, in a form and manner prescribed by the attorney general, notice that such violation has been cured and evidence that any harm caused by such violation has been mitigated; and (iii) is otherwise in compliance with the latest version of: (A) the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework published by the national institute of standards and technology; (B) ISO/IEC 42001 of the international organization for standardization and the international electrotechnical commission; (C) a nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence decision systems, other than the risk management frameworks described in clauses (A) and (B) of this subparagraph, that imposes requirements that are substantially equivalent to, and at least as stringent as, the requirements established pursuant to this article; or (D) any risk management framework for artificial intelligence decision systems that is substantially equivalent to, and at least as stringent as, the risk management frameworks described in clauses (A), (B), and (C) of this subparagraph. (b) The developer, deployer, or other person bears the burden of demonstrating to the attorney general that the requirements established pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision have been satisfied. (c) Nothing in this article, including, but not limited to, the enforcement authority granted to the attorney general pursuant to this section, shall be construed to preempt or otherwise affect any right, claim, remedy, presumption, or defense available at law or in equity. Any rebuttable presumption or affirmative defense established pursuant to this article shall apply only to an enforcement action brought by the attorney general pursuant to this section and shall not apply to any right, claim, remedy, presumption, or defense available at law or in equity.
Other · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1555(1)-(8)
Plain Language
Section 1555 contains extensive exemptions and safe harbors. Key provisions: (1) the article does not restrict compliance with other laws, law enforcement cooperation, legal claims, life-safety measures, security operations (excluding facial recognition), public interest research, pre-market R&D, product recalls, or technical error repair; (2) obligations do not apply where compliance would violate evidentiary privilege; (3) the article may not be construed to restrict First Amendment, NY constitutional speech/press, or shield law rights; (4) FDA/FAA-approved systems, federal housing finance-regulated systems, federal contractor work (except employment/housing AI), and HIPAA-covered entities providing non-high-risk healthcare recommendations are exempt; (5) AI systems acquired for the federal government are exempt (except employment/housing); (6) insurers complying with DFS requirements are deemed fully compliant; (7) banks and credit unions subject to substantially equivalent prudential regulator guidance with audit and mitigation requirements are deemed fully compliant. All exemptions carry a burden of proof on the claiming party. These provisions create no new obligations — they narrow the article's scope.
Statutory Text
1. Nothing in this article shall be construed to restrict a developer's, deployer's, or other person's ability to: (a) comply with federal, state or municipal law; (b) comply with a civil, criminal or regulatory inquiry, investigation, subpoena, or summons by a federal, state, municipal, or other governmental authority; (c) cooperate with a law enforcement agency concerning conduct or activity that the developer, deployer, or other person reasonably and in good faith believes may violate federal, state, or municipal law; (d) investigate, establish, exercise, prepare for, or defend a legal claim; (e) take immediate steps to protect an interest that is essential for the life or physical safety of a consumer or another individual; (f) (i) by any means other than facial recognition technology, prevent, detect, protect against, or respond to: (A) a security incident; (B) a malicious or deceptive activity; or (C) identity theft, fraud, harassment or any other illegal activity; (ii) investigate, report, or prosecute the persons responsible for any action described in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph; or (iii) preserve the integrity or security of systems; (g) engage in public or peer-reviewed scientific or statistical research in the public interest that: (i) adheres to all other applicable ethics and privacy laws; and (ii) is conducted in accordance with: (A) part forty-six of title forty-five of the code of federal regulations, as amended; or (B) relevant requirements established by the federal food and drug administration; (h) conduct research, testing, and development activities regarding an artificial intelligence decision system or model, other than testing conducted pursuant to real world conditions, before such artificial intelligence decision system or model is placed on the market, deployed, or put into service, as applicable; (i) effectuate a product recall; (j) identify and repair technical errors that impair existing or intended functionality; or (k) assist another developer, deployer, or person with any of the obligations imposed pursuant to this article. 2. The obligations imposed on developers, deployers, or other persons pursuant to this article shall not apply where compliance by the developer, deployer, or other person with the provisions of this article would violate an evidentiary privilege pursuant to state law. 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to impose any obligation on a developer, deployer, or other person that adversely affects the rights or freedoms of any person, including, but not limited to, the rights of any person: (a) to freedom of speech or freedom of the press guaranteed in: (i) the first amendment to the United States constitution; and (ii) section eight of the New York state constitution; or (b) pursuant to section seventy-nine-h of the civil rights law. 4. Nothing in this article shall be construed to apply to any developer, deployer, or other person: (a) insofar as such developer, deployer or other person develops, deploys, puts into service, or intentionally and substantially modifies, as applicable, a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system: (i) that has been approved, authorized, certified, cleared, developed, or granted by: (A) a federal agency, including, but not limited to, the federal food and drug administration or the federal aviation administration, acting within the scope of such federal agency's authority; or (B) a regulated entity subject to supervision and regulation by the federal housing finance agency; or (ii) in compliance with standards that are: (A) established by: (I) any federal agency, including, but not limited to, the federal office of the national coordinator for health information technology; or (II) a regulated entity subject to supervision and regulation by the federal housing finance agency; and (B) substantially equivalent to, and at least as stringent as, the standards established pursuant to this article; (b) conducting research to support an application: (i) for approval or certification from any federal agency, including, but not limited to, the federal food and drug administration, the federal aviation administration, or the federal communications commission; or (ii) that is otherwise subject to review by any federal agency; (c) performing work pursuant to, or in connection with, a contract with the federal department of commerce, the federal department of defense, or the national aeronautics and space administration, unless such developer, deployer, or other person is performing such work on a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system that is used to make, or as a substantial factor in making, a decision concerning employment or housing; or (d) that is a covered entity, as defined by the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended, and providing health care recommendations that: (i) are generated by an artificial intelligence decision system; (ii) require a health care provider to take action to implement such recommendations; and (iii) are not considered to be high risk. 5. Nothing in this article shall be construed to apply to any artificial intelligence decision system that is acquired by or for the federal government or any federal agency or department, including, but not limited to, the federal department of commerce, the federal department of defense, or the national aeronautics and space administration, unless such artificial intelligence decision system is a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system that is used to make, or as a substantial factor in making, a decision concerning employment or housing. 6. Any insurer, as defined by section five hundred one of the insurance law, or fraternal benefit society, as defined by section four thousand five hundred one of the insurance law, shall be deemed to be in full compliance with the provisions of this article if such insurer or fraternal benefit society has implemented and maintains a written artificial intelligence decision systems program in accordance with all requirements established by the superintendent of financial services. 7. (a) Any bank, out-of-state bank, New York credit union, federal credit union, or out-of-state credit union, or any affiliate or subsidiary thereof, shall be deemed to be in full compliance with the provisions of this article if such bank, out-of-state bank, New York credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union, affiliate, or subsidiary is subject to examination by any state or federal prudential regulator pursuant to any published guidance or regulations that apply to the use of high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems, and such guidance or regulations: (i) impose requirements that are substantially equivalent to, and at least as stringent as, the requirements of this article; and (ii) at a minimum, require such bank, out-of-state bank, New York credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union, affiliate, or subsidiary to: (A) regularly audit such bank's, out-of-state bank's, New York credit union's, federal credit union's, out-of-state credit union's, affiliate's, or subsidiary's use of high-risk artificial intelligence decision systems for compliance with state and federal anti-discrimination laws and regulations applicable to such bank, out-of-state bank, New York credit union, federal credit union, out-of-state credit union, affiliate, or subsidiary; and (B) mitigate any algorithmic discrimination caused by the use of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system, or any risk of algorithmic discrimination that is reasonably foreseeable as a result of the use of a high-risk artificial intelligence decision system. 8. If a developer, deployer, or other person engages in any action under an exemption pursuant to subdivisions one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven of this section, the developer, deployer, or other person bears the burden of demonstrating that such action qualifies for such exemption.
Other · Deployer · Automated Decisionmaking
GBL § 1552(8)
Plain Language
Deployers are not required to disclose trade secrets or legally protected information to consumers. However, when a deployer withholds information from a consumer under this protection, the deployer must notify the consumer that information is being withheld and explain the legal basis for withholding. This is an unusual consumer notification requirement that creates procedural transparency around the trade secret exemption — consumers will at least know they are not receiving complete information and why.
Statutory Text
Nothing in this subdivision or subdivisions two, three, four, five, or six of this section shall be construed to require a deployer to disclose any information that is a trade secret or otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to state or federal law. If a deployer withholds any information from a consumer pursuant this subdivision, the deployer shall send notice to such consumer disclosing: (a) that the deployer is withholding such information from such consumer; and (b) the basis for the deployer's decision to withhold such information from such consumer.