Regulon — US-S-5152 · US S 5152 (AI Civil Rights)

WHAT THIS BILL REGULATES · 8 REQUIREMENT TYPES

How Is This Bill Enforced

Enforcement Authority

Federal Trade Commission enforces under FTC Act framework. State attorneys general and state data protection authorities may bring parens patriae civil actions in federal court. Private right of action for any individual or class of individuals alleging a violation; plaintiff must notify the FTC and state attorney general 60 days before filing, and both may intervene. Pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers are invalid and unenforceable.

Private Right of Action

may bring parens patriae civil actions in federal court.

Penalties

Private action: treble damages or $15,000 per violation, whichever is greater; nominal damages; punitive damages; reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs; equitable or declaratory relief. State AG action: civil penalties of $15,000 per violation or 4% of defendant's average gross annual revenue over the preceding 3 years, whichever is greater; damages, restitution, or other compensation; injunctive relief; reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. FTC enforcement carries all penalties available under the FTC Act.

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

Sec. 101

Discrimination

DeployerDeveloper

(a) 1 A developer or deployer shall not offer, license, promote, sell, or use a covered algorithm in a manner that— (1) causes or contributes to a disparate impact in; (2) otherwise discriminates in; or (3) otherwise makes unavailable, the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities, related to a consequential action, on the basis of a protected characteristic.

(b) 1 This section shall not apply to— (1) the offer, licensing, or use of a covered algorithm for the sole purpose of— (A) a developer's or deployer's self-testing (or auditing by an independent auditor at a developer's or deployer's request) to identify, prevent, or mitigate discrimination, or otherwise to ensure compliance with obligations, under Federal law; or (B) expanding an applicant, participant, or customer pool to raise the likelihood of increasing diversity or redressing historic discrimination; or (2) any private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, as described in section 201(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a(e)).

Section 101 establishes the bill's core non-discrimination mandate. Developers and deployers are prohibited from offering, licensing, promoting, selling, or using a covered algorithm in a manner that causes or contributes to disparate impact, otherwise discriminates in, or otherwise makes unavailable the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities related to a consequential action on the basis of a protected characteristic. The prohibition applies broadly across all consequential action domains defined in the bill.

Narrow exceptions exist for self-testing to identify, prevent, or mitigate discrimination (including independent auditing), for expanding applicant pools to increase diversity or redress historic discrimination, and for private clubs as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Compliance actions 1 item

Developers and deployers must not offer, license, promote, sell, or use a covered algorithm in a manner that causes or contributes to disparate impact, otherwise discriminates in, or makes unavailable the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or opportunities related to a consequential action on the basis of a protected characteristic. Exceptions apply for self-testing to identify or mitigate discrimination and for expanding applicant pools to increase diversity.

H-02.1

Sec. 102

Pre-deployment evaluations and post-deployment impact assessments

DeployerDeveloper

(a)(1) 2 Prior to deploying, licensing, or offering a covered algorithm (including deploying a material change to a previously-deployed covered algorithm or a material change made prior to deployment) for a consequential action, a developer or deployer shall conduct a pre-deployment evaluation in accordance with the following: (1) PRELIMINARY EVALUATION.— (A) PLAUSIBILITY OF HARM.— (i) DEVELOPERS.—The developer shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the plausibility that any expected use of the covered algorithm may result in a harm. (ii) DEPLOYERS.—The deployer shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the plausibility that any intended use of the covered algorithm may result in a harm. (B) RESULTS.—Based on the results of the preliminary evaluation, the developer or deployer shall— (i) in the event that a harm is not plausible, record a finding of no plausible harm, including a description of the developer's expected use or the deployer's intended use of the covered algorithm, how the preliminary evaluation was conducted, and an explanation for the finding, and submit such record to the Commission; and (ii) in the event that a harm is plausible, conduct a full pre-deployment evaluation as described in paragraph (2).

(a)(2)(A) 3 FOR DEVELOPERS.— (i) INDEPENDENT AUDITOR EVALUATION.—If a developer determines a harm is plausible during the preliminary evaluation described in paragraph (1), the developer shall engage an independent auditor to conduct a pre-deployment evaluation. (ii) PRE-DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS.—The evaluation required under clause (i) shall include a detailed review and description, sufficient for an individual having ordinary skill in the art to understand the functioning, risks, uses, benefits, limitations, and other pertinent attributes of the covered algorithm, including— (I) the covered algorithm's design and methodology, including the inputs the covered algorithm is designed to use to produce an output and the outputs the covered algorithm is designed to produce; (II) how the covered algorithm was created, trained, and tested, including— (aa) any metric used to test the performance of the covered algorithm; (bb) defined benchmarks and goals that correspond to such metrics, including whether there was sufficient representation of demographic groups that are reasonably likely to use or be affected by the covered algorithm in the data used to create or train the algorithm, and whether there was sufficient testing across such demographic groups; (cc) the outputs the covered algorithm actually produces in testing; (dd) a description of any consultation with relevant stakeholders, including any communities that will be impacted by the covered algorithm, regarding the development of the covered algorithm, or a disclosure that no such consultation occurred; (ee) a description of which protected characteristics, if any, were used for testing and evaluation, and how and why such characteristics were used, including— (AA) whether the testing occurred in comparable contextual conditions to the conditions in which the covered algorithm is expected to be used; and (BB) if protected characteristics were not available to conduct such testing, a description of alternative methods the developer used to conduct the required assessment; (ff) any other computational algorithm incorporated into the development of the covered algorithm, regardless of whether such precursor computational algorithm involves a consequential action; and (gg) a description of the data and information used to develop, test, maintain, or update the covered algorithm, including— (AA) each type of personal data used, each source from which the personal data was collected, and how the each type of personal data was inferred and processed; (BB) the legal authorization for collecting and processing the personal data; and (CC) an explanation of how the data (including personal data) used is representative, proportional, and appropriate to the development and intended uses of the covered algorithm; (III) the potential for the covered algorithm to produce a harm or to have a disparate impact in the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities, and a description of such potential harm or disparate impact; (IV) alternative practices and recommendations to prevent or mitigate harm and recommendations for how the developer could monitor for harm after offering, licensing, or deploying the covered algorithm; and (V) any other information the Commission deems pertinent.

(a)(2)(B) 3 FOR DEPLOYERS.— (i) INDEPENDENT AUDITOR EVALUATION.—If a deployer determines a harm is plausible during the preliminary evaluation described in paragraph (1), the deployer shall engage an independent auditor to conduct a pre-deployment evaluation. (ii) PRE-DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS.—The evaluation required under clause (i) shall include a detailed review and description, sufficient for an individual having ordinary skill in the art to understand the functioning, risks, uses, benefits, limitations, and other pertinent attributes of the covered algorithm, including— (I) the manner in which the covered algorithm makes or contributes to a consequential action and the purpose for which the covered algorithm will be deployed; (II) the necessity and proportionality of the covered algorithm in relation to its planned use; (III) the inputs that the deployer plans to use to produce an output; (IV) the outputs the covered algorithm is expected to produce and the outputs the covered algorithm actually produces in testing; (V) a description of any additional testing or training completed by the deployer; (VI) a description of any consultation with relevant stakeholders; (VII) the potential for the covered algorithm to produce a harm or to have a disparate impact; (VIII) alternative practices and recommendations to prevent or mitigate harm; and (IX) any other information the Commission deems pertinent.

(b) 4 DEPLOYER ANNUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.—After the deployment of a covered algorithm, a deployer shall, on an annual basis, conduct an impact assessment in accordance with the following: (1) PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT.—The deployer shall conduct a preliminary impact assessment of the covered algorithm to identify any harm that resulted from the covered algorithm during the reporting period and— (A) if no resulting harm is identified by such assessment, shall record a finding of no harm, including a description of the developer's expected use or the deployer's intended use of the covered algorithm, how the preliminary evaluation was conducted, and an explanation for such finding, and submit such finding to the Commission; and (B) if a resulting harm is identified by such assessment, shall conduct a full impact assessment as described in paragraph (2). (2) FULL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.—In the event that the covered algorithm resulted in harm during the reporting period, the deployer shall engage an independent auditor to conduct a full impact assessment with respect to the reporting period, including— (A) an assessment of the harm that resulted or was reasonably likely to have been produced during the reporting period; (B) a description of the extent to which the covered algorithm produced a disparate impact; (C) a description of the types of data input into the covered algorithm during the reporting period; (D) whether and to what extent the covered algorithm produced the outputs it was expected to produce; (E) a detailed description of how the covered algorithm was used to make a consequential action; (F) any action taken to prevent or mitigate harms; and (G) any other information the Commission deems pertinent.

(c) 5 DEVELOPER ANNUAL REVIEW OF ASSESSMENTS.—A developer shall, on an annual basis, review each impact assessment summary submitted by a deployer of its covered algorithm under subsection (b)(3)(B) for the following purposes: (1) To assess how the deployer is using the covered algorithm, including the methodology for assessing such use. (2) To assess the type of data the deployer is inputting into the covered algorithm to produce an output and the types of outputs the covered algorithm is producing. (3) To assess whether the deployer is complying with any relevant contractual agreement with the developer and whether any remedial action is necessary. (4) To compare the covered algorithm's performance in real-world conditions versus pre-deployment testing, including the methodology used to evaluate such performance. (5) To assess whether the covered algorithm is causing harm or is reasonably likely to be causing harm. (6) To assess whether the covered algorithm is causing, or is reasonably likely to be causing, a disparate impact in the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities, and, if so, how and with respect to which protected characteristic. (7) To determine whether the covered algorithm needs modification. (8) To determine whether any other action is appropriate to ensure that the covered algorithm remains safe and effective. (9) To undertake any other assessment or responsive action the Commission deems pertinent.

(e) 6 REPORTING AND RETENTION REQUIREMENTS.— (1) REPORTING.—A developer or deployer that conducts a full pre-deployment evaluation, full impact assessment, or developer annual review of assessments shall— (A) not later than 30 days after completion, submit the evaluation, assessment, or review to the Commission; (B) upon request, make the evaluation, assessment, or review available to Congress; and (C) not later than 30 days after completion— (i) publish a summary of the evaluation, assessment, or review on the website of the developer or deployer in a manner that is easily accessible to individuals; and (ii) submit such summary to the Commission. (2) RETENTION.—A developer or deployer shall retain all evaluations, assessments, and reviews described in this section for a period of not fewer than 5 years. (3) TRADE SECRETS AND PRIVACY.—A developer or deployer— (A) may redact and segregate any trade secret from public disclosure under this subsection; and (B) shall redact and segregate personal data from public disclosure under this subsection.

Section 102 establishes a tiered evaluation regime for covered algorithms used in consequential actions. Both developers and deployers must conduct a preliminary evaluation of the plausibility of harm before deployment. If harm is not plausible, they record a finding and submit it to the FTC. If harm is plausible, they must engage an independent auditor for a full pre-deployment evaluation covering design, methodology, training data, testing across demographic groups, potential for disparate impact, and mitigation recommendations.

Post-deployment, deployers must conduct annual impact assessments: a preliminary assessment to identify any resulting harm, escalating to a full independent auditor assessment if harm is identified. Developers must annually review deployer assessment summaries. All full evaluations and assessments must be submitted to the FTC within 30 days, published in summary on the entity's website, and retained for at least 5 years. Trade secret redactions are permitted; personal data must be redacted from public disclosures.

Compliance actions 5 items

Developers and deployers must conduct a preliminary evaluation of the plausibility that any expected or intended use of a covered algorithm may result in harm before deploying, licensing, or offering the algorithm for a consequential action. If no harm is plausible, they must record and submit the finding to the FTC; if harm is plausible, they must proceed to a full pre-deployment evaluation.

H-02.3

Developers and deployers must engage an independent auditor to conduct a full pre-deployment evaluation when harm is plausible, covering the algorithm's design, methodology, training and testing data, demographic representation, testing across protected characteristics, potential for disparate impact, and mitigation recommendations. The independent auditor must submit a report to the developer or deployer.

H-02.3

Deployers must conduct annual post-deployment impact assessments of each covered algorithm, beginning with a preliminary assessment; if harm is identified, they must engage an independent auditor to conduct a full impact assessment covering resulting harms, disparate impact, data inputs, output accuracy, and mitigation actions. The independent auditor must submit a report to the deployer, who must forward a summary to the developer within 30 days.

H-02.8

Developers must annually review each deployer's impact assessment summary to assess deployer use, data inputs and outputs, contractual compliance, real-world vs. pre-deployment performance, whether harm or disparate impact is occurring, and whether the algorithm needs modification or other remedial action.

H-02.8

Developers and deployers must (1) submit all full pre-deployment evaluations, full impact assessments, and developer annual reviews to the FTC within 30 days of completion, (2) publish a summary on their website within 30 days, (3) submit the summary to the FTC, (4) make evaluations available to Congress upon request, and (5) retain all evaluations, assessments, and reviews for at least 5 years. Trade secrets may be redacted; personal data must be redacted from public disclosures.

R-02.1

Sec. 201

Covered algorithm standards

DeployerDeveloper

(a)(1)–(7) 7 A developer or deployer shall do the following: (1) Take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate any harm identified by a pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a) or an impact assessment described in section 102(b). (2) Take reasonable measures to ensure that an independent auditor has all necessary information to complete an accurate and effective pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a) or an impact assessment described in section 102(b). (3) With respect to a covered algorithm, consult stakeholders, including any communities that will be impacted by the covered algorithm, regarding the development or deployment of the covered algorithm prior to the deploying, licensing, or offering the covered algorithm. (4) With respect to a covered algorithm, certify that, based on the results of a pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a) or an impact assessment described in section 102(b)— (A) use of the covered algorithm is not likely to result in harm or disparate impact in the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities; (B) the benefits from the use of the covered algorithm to individuals affected by the covered algorithm likely outweigh the harms from the use of the covered algorithm to such individuals; and (C) use of the covered algorithm is not likely to result in deceptive practices. (5) Ensure that any covered algorithm of the developer or deployer functions— (A) at a level that would be considered reasonable performance by an individual with ordinary skill in the art; and (B) in a manner that is consistent with its expected and publicly-advertised performance, purpose, or use. (6) Ensure any data used in the design, development, deployment, or use of the covered algorithm is relevant and appropriate to the deployment context and the publicly-advertised purpose or use. (7) Ensure use of the covered algorithm as intended is not likely to result in a violation of this Act.

(b) 8 DECEPTIVE MARKETING OF A PRODUCT OR SERVICE.—It shall be unlawful for a developer or deployer to engage in false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, marketing, or publicizing of a covered algorithm of the developer or deployer.

(c) 9 OFF-LABEL USE.— (1) DEVELOPERS.—It shall be unlawful for a developer to knowingly offer or license a covered algorithm for any consequential action other than those evaluated in the pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a). (2) DEPLOYERS.—It shall be unlawful for a deployer to knowingly use a covered algorithm for any consequential action other than a use evaluated in the pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a), unless the deployer agrees to assume the responsibilities of a developer required by this Act.

Section 201 establishes affirmative performance and safety standards for covered algorithms. Developers and deployers must take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate identified harms, ensure independent auditors have necessary information, consult impacted stakeholders before deployment, and certify that the algorithm is not likely to result in harm, disparate impact, or deceptive practices. Covered algorithms must perform at a reasonable professional standard and consistent with publicly-advertised capabilities, and data used must be relevant and appropriate to the deployment context.

The section also prohibits deceptive marketing of covered algorithms and bars off-label use — developers may not knowingly offer algorithms for unevaluated consequential actions, and deployers may not use algorithms for unevaluated purposes unless they assume full developer responsibilities.

Compliance actions 3 items

Developers and deployers must (1) take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate harms identified in evaluations and assessments, (2) ensure independent auditors have all necessary information, (3) consult impacted communities before deployment, (4) certify that the algorithm is not likely to result in harm, disparate impact, or deceptive practices and that benefits outweigh harms, (5) ensure the algorithm performs at a reasonable professional standard and consistent with advertised capabilities, (6) ensure data used is relevant and appropriate, and (7) ensure intended use is not likely to violate the Act.

S-01.1

Developers and deployers must not engage in false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, marketing, or publicizing of a covered algorithm.

CP-01

Developers must not knowingly offer or license a covered algorithm for any consequential action beyond those evaluated in the pre-deployment evaluation. Deployers must not knowingly use a covered algorithm for unevaluated consequential actions unless they assume full developer responsibilities under the Act.

S-01

Sec. 202

Relationships between developers and deployers

Developer

(a) 10 DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES.—A developer shall do the following: (1) Upon the reasonable request of the deployer, make available to the deployer information necessary to demonstrate the compliance of the deployer with the requirements of this Act, including— (A) making available a report of the pre-deployment evaluation described in section 102(a) or the annual review of assessments conducted by the developer under section 102(c); and (B) providing information necessary to enable the deployer to conduct and document a pre-deployment evaluation under section 102(a) or an impact assessment under section 102(b). (2) Either— (A) allow and cooperate with reasonable assessments conducted by the deployer or the deployer's designated independent auditor; or (B) arrange for an independent auditor to conduct an assessment of the developer's policies and practices in support of the obligations under this Act using an appropriate and accepted control standard or framework and assessment procedure for such assessments, and provide a report of such assessment to the deployer upon request.

(b) 11 CONTRACTS BETWEEN DEVELOPERS AND DEPLOYERS.— (1) REQUIREMENTS.—A developer may offer or license a covered algorithm to a deployer pursuant to a written contract between the developer and deployer, provided that the contract— (A) clearly sets forth the data processing procedures of the developer with respect to any collection, processing, or transfer of data performed on behalf of the deployer; (B) clearly sets forth— (i) instructions for collecting, processing, or transferring data by the developer or deployer in the context of the use of the covered algorithm; (ii) instructions for deploying the covered algorithm as intended; (iii) the nature and purpose of any collection, processing, or transferring of data; (iv) the type of data subject to such collection, processing, or transferring; (v) the duration of such processing of data; and (vi) the rights and obligations of both parties, including a method by which the developer shall notify the deployer of material changes to its covered algorithm; (C) shall not relieve a developer or deployer of any requirement or liability imposed on such developer or deployer under this Act; (D) prohibits both the developer and deployer from combining data received from or collected on behalf of the other party with data the developer or deployer received from or collected on behalf of another party; and (E) shall not prohibit a developer or deployer from raising concerns to any relevant enforcement agency with respect to the other party. (2) RETENTION OF CONTRACT.—Each developer shall retain for a period of 10 years a copy of each contract entered into with a deployer to which it provides requested products or services.

Section 202 governs the informational and contractual obligations between developers and deployers. Developers must make compliance-related information available to deployers upon reasonable request, including pre-deployment evaluation reports and annual reviews, and must either permit deployer-conducted assessments or arrange for an independent auditor assessment of the developer's practices. Written contracts between developers and deployers must specify data processing procedures, deployment instructions, data types, processing duration, rights and obligations, material change notification, and a prohibition on cross-party data combination. Contracts may not relieve either party of liability under the Act and may not prohibit reporting violations to enforcement agencies. Developers must retain contracts for 10 years.

Compliance actions 2 items

Developers must, upon reasonable deployer request, make available compliance information including pre-deployment evaluation reports and annual reviews, and must either cooperate with deployer-conducted assessments or arrange for an independent auditor assessment of the developer's practices and provide that report to the deployer.

G-01.4

Developers must enter into written contracts with deployers that specify data processing procedures, deployment instructions, data types, processing duration, rights and obligations including material-change notification, and must prohibit cross-party data combination. Contracts may not relieve either party of Act liability or prohibit reporting to enforcement agencies. Developers must retain each deployer contract for 10 years.

G-01.3

Sec. 203

Human alternatives and other protections

DeployerDeveloper

(a) 12 RIGHT TO HUMAN ALTERNATIVES.— (1) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate regulations in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, to identify the circumstances and manner in which a deployer shall provide to an individual a means to opt-out of the use of a covered algorithm for a consequential action and to elect to have the consequential action concerning the individual undertaken by a human without the use of a covered algorithm.

(b) 13 INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY.—A developer or deployer may not condition, effectively condition, attempt to condition, or attempt to effectively condition the exercise of any individual right under this Act or individual choice through— (1) the use of any false, fictitious, fraudulent, or materially misleading statement or representation; or (2) the design, modification, or manipulation of any user interface with the purpose or substantial effect of obscuring, subverting, or impairing a reasonable individual's autonomy, decision making, or choice to exercise any such right.

(c) 14 RIGHT TO APPEAL.— (1) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate regulations in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, to identify the circumstances and manner in which a deployer shall provide to an individual a mechanism to appeal to a human a consequential action resulting from the deployer's use of a covered algorithm.

(d) 15 PROHIBITION ON RETALIATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A developer or deployer may not discriminate or retaliate against an individual (including by denying or threatening to deny the equal enjoyment of goods, services, or other activities or opportunities in relation to a consequential action) because the individual exercised any right under this Act or refused to waive any such right.

(e) 16 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.—A developer or deployer may not, directly or indirectly, discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an individual for reporting or attempting to report a violation of this Act.

Section 203 establishes individual rights vis-à-vis covered algorithms, to be defined in detail through FTC rulemaking within 2 years. Deployers must provide a right to opt out of the use of a covered algorithm for consequential actions and elect a human alternative (subject to FTC regulations). Deployers must also provide a mechanism to appeal automated consequential actions to a human. Developers and deployers may not condition or impair individual rights through deceptive design, dark patterns, or misleading representations. The section prohibits retaliation against individuals exercising their rights and provides whistleblower protection for employees reporting violations.

Compliance actions 5 items

Deployers must provide individuals a means to opt out of the use of a covered algorithm for a consequential action and elect to have the action undertaken by a human, in circumstances and manner to be specified by FTC rulemaking within 2 years of enactment.

H-01.4

Developers and deployers must not condition or impair the exercise of individual rights under the Act through false or misleading statements, or through design, modification, or manipulation of user interfaces that obscure, subvert, or impair individual autonomy, decision-making, or choice.

CP-01.3

Deployers must provide individuals a mechanism to appeal to a human any consequential action resulting from the deployer's use of a covered algorithm, in circumstances and manner to be specified by FTC rulemaking within 2 years of enactment. The appeal mechanism must be clear, conspicuous, accessible to individuals with disabilities, and at no cost.

H-01.5

Developers and deployers must not discriminate or retaliate against any individual for exercising rights under the Act or refusing to waive such rights, including by denying or threatening to deny equal enjoyment of goods, services, or opportunities related to a consequential action.

CP-01

Developers and deployers must not directly or indirectly discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against any individual for reporting or attempting to report a violation of the Act.

G-03.3

Sec. 301

Notice and disclosure

DeployerDeveloper

(a)–(b) 17 Each developer or deployer shall make publicly available, in plain language and in a clear, conspicuous, not misleading, easy-to-read, and readily accessible manner, a disclosure that provides a detailed and accurate representation of the developer or deployer's practices regarding the requirements under this Act. The disclosure required under subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1) The identity and the contact information of— (A) the developer or deployer to which the disclosure applies; and (B) any other entity within the same corporate structure as the developer or deployer to which personal data is transferred by the developer or deployer. (2) A link to the website containing the developer or deployer's summaries of pre-deployment evaluations, impact assessments, and annual review of assessments, as applicable. (3) The categories of personal data the developer or deployer collects or processes in the development or deployment of a covered algorithm and the processing purpose for each such category. (4) Whether the developer or deployer transfers personal data, and, if so, each third party to which the developer or deployer transfers such data and the purpose for which such data is transferred. (5) A prominent description of how an individual can exercise the rights described in this Act. (6) A general description of the developer or deployer's practices for compliance with the requirements described in sections 102 and 201. (7) The following disclosure: "The audit of this algorithm was conducted to comply with the Artificial Intelligence Civil Rights Act of 2024, which seeks to avoid the use of any algorithm that has a disparate impact on certain protected classes of individuals. The audit does not guarantee that this algorithm is safe or in compliance with all applicable laws." (8) The effective date of the disclosure.

(f) 18 SHORT-FORM NOTICE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A deployer shall provide a short-form notice regarding a covered algorithm it develops, offers, licenses, or uses in a manner that— (A) is concise, clear, conspicuous, in plain language, and not misleading; (B) is readily accessible to individuals with disabilities; (C) is based on what is reasonably anticipated within the context of the relationship between the individual and the deployer; (D) includes an overview of each applicable individual right and disclosure in a manner that draws attention to any practice that may be unexpected to a reasonable individual or that involves a consequential action; and (E) is not more than 500 words in length. (2) TIMING OF NOTICE.— (A) EXISTING RELATIONSHIP.—If a deployer has a relationship with an individual, the deployer shall provide an electronic version of the short-form notice directly to the individual upon the individual's first interaction with the covered algorithm. (B) NO RELATIONSHIP.—If a deployer does not have a relationship with an individual, the deployer shall provide the short-form notice in a clear, conspicuous, accessible, and not misleading manner on their website.

(g) 19 REPORTING MECHANISM.—Each developer or deployer shall make publicly available, in a clear, conspicuous, and readily accessible manner, a mechanism for an individual impacted by a covered algorithm to report to the developer or deployer potential violations of this Act.

Section 301 establishes detailed public transparency obligations. Developers and deployers must publish a comprehensive disclosure covering their identity and contact information, links to evaluation summaries, categories of personal data collected or processed, third-party data transfers, a description of how individuals can exercise their rights, general compliance practices, a mandated disclaimer about the audit, and the effective date. Disclosures must be available in all covered languages and accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Material changes must be notified to affected individuals before implementation, with a 10-year version retention requirement and a public change log. Deployers must also provide a short-form notice of no more than 500 words at the individual's first interaction with the algorithm (or on their website if no prior relationship exists). Each developer and deployer must maintain a publicly accessible violation-reporting mechanism.

Compliance actions 3 items

Developers and deployers must publish a comprehensive public disclosure covering their identity and contact information, links to evaluation and assessment summaries, categories of personal data collected or processed and processing purposes, third-party data transfers, a description of individual rights, general compliance practices, a mandated statutory disclaimer, and the effective date. Disclosures must be in plain language, available in all covered languages, and accessible to individuals with disabilities. Material changes require prior notification to affected individuals and a 10-year public version log.

G-02.1

Deployers must provide a short-form notice of no more than 500 words regarding each covered algorithm, including an overview of individual rights and practices involving consequential actions. For individuals with an existing relationship, the notice must be delivered electronically upon first interaction with the algorithm; for others, it must be posted on the deployer's website.

H-01.3

Developers and deployers must make publicly available a clear, conspicuous, and readily accessible mechanism for individuals impacted by a covered algorithm to report potential violations of the Act.

G-02

Sec. 302

Study on explanations regarding the use of covered algorithms

(a)–(b) The Commission shall conduct a study, with notice and public comment, on the feasibility of requiring deployers to provide a clear, conspicuous, easy-to-use, no-cost mechanism that is accessible for individuals with disabilities and allows an individual to receive an explanation as to whether and how a covered algorithm used by the deployer affects or affected an individual. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report that includes the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations for such legislation and administrative action as the Commission determines appropriate.

Section 302 directs the FTC to conduct a study, with notice and public comment, on the feasibility of requiring deployers to provide individuals a mechanism to receive explanations of whether and how a covered algorithm affected them. The study must assess how explanations can be provided accessibly, the feasibility of requiring explanation mechanisms, what information developers must provide deployers, technical capabilities, identity verification, and recommendations for Congress. The FTC must report findings and recommendations to the Senate Commerce Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee within 18 months of enactment. This section creates no direct compliance obligation on developers or deployers.

Sec. 303

Consumer awareness

(a)–(c) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall publish, on the internet website of the Commission, a web page that describes each provision, right, obligation, and requirement of this Act. Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commission shall publish on the internet website of the Commission a report that describes and summarizes the information contained in any pre-deployment evaluation, impact assessment, and developer review submitted to the Commission. Not later than 180 days after the Commission publishes the first annual report, the Commission shall develop a publicly accessible repository to publish each pre-deployment evaluation, impact assessment, and developer review submitted to the Commission in accordance with section 102.

Section 303 imposes obligations on the FTC itself rather than on developers or deployers. The FTC must publish a consumer-facing web page describing the Act's provisions, rights, and remedies within 90 days of enactment, updated quarterly. Beginning 2 years after enactment, the FTC must publish annual reports summarizing evaluations and assessments submitted under the Act. The FTC must also establish a publicly accessible, searchable, downloadable repository of all pre-deployment evaluations, impact assessments, and developer reviews, with trade secret and personal data redactions. These are government obligations, not private-sector compliance duties.

Sec. 401

Enforcement by the Commission

(a)–(c) A violation of title I, II, or III or a regulation promulgated thereunder shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Commission shall enforce this Act and the regulations promulgated under this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act. Notwithstanding section 4, 5(a)(2), or 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act or any jurisdictional limitation of the Commission, the Commission shall also enforce this Act with respect to— (1) organizations not organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members; (2) common carriers subject to the Communications Act of 1934; (3) a bank, savings and loan institution, or Federal credit union; (4) an air carrier or foreign air carrier; or (5) a person, partnership, or corporation subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921.

Section 401 establishes FTC enforcement authority. Violations of Titles I, II, or III are treated as violations of an FTC Act unfair or deceptive acts or practices rule. The FTC enforces using its full existing powers, penalties, and jurisdiction, expanded to cover nonprofits, common carriers, banks, air carriers, and entities subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act — overriding the traditional FTC Act jurisdictional carve-outs. This section creates no new private-sector compliance obligation; it is an enforcement mechanism provision.

Sec. 402

Enforcement by States

(a)–(c) In any case in which the attorney general of a State or a State data protection authority has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of the State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of a person in a practice that violates title I, II, or III, or a regulation promulgated thereunder, the attorney general may, as parens patriae, bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate Federal district court to— (1) enjoin any such violation by the person; (2) enforce compliance with the requirements of this Act; (3) obtain a permanent, temporary, or preliminary injunction or other appropriate equitable relief; (4) obtain civil penalties in the amount of $15,000 per violation, or 4 percent of the defendant's average gross annual revenue over the preceding 3 years, whichever is greater; (5) obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of such State; (6) obtain reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs; and (7) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to be appropriate.

Section 402 authorizes state attorneys general and state data protection authorities to bring parens patriae civil actions in federal district court on behalf of state residents for violations of Titles I, II, or III. Available remedies include injunctive relief, civil penalties of $15,000 per violation or 4% of the defendant's average gross annual revenue over the preceding 3 years (whichever is greater), damages, restitution, and attorney's fees. State AGs must notify the FTC before filing (unless infeasible), and the FTC has a right to intervene. This section creates no new private-sector compliance obligation.

Sec. 403

Private right of action

(a)–(b) Any individual or class of individuals alleging a violation of title I, II, or III, or a regulation promulgated thereunder, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. In a civil action brought under paragraph (1) in which the plaintiff prevails, the court may award— (A) treble damages or $15,000 per violation, whichever is greater; (B) nominal damages; (C) punitive damages; (D) reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs; and (E) any other relief, including equitable or declaratory relief, that the court determines appropriate. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no pre-dispute arbitration agreement or pre-dispute joint action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with regard to a dispute arising under this Act.

Section 403 creates a private right of action for any individual or class of individuals alleging a violation of Titles I, II, or III. Prevailing plaintiffs may recover treble damages or $15,000 per violation (whichever is greater), nominal damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and equitable or declaratory relief. Plaintiffs must notify the FTC and their state attorney general 60 days before filing; both may intervene. Pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers are declared invalid and unenforceable. This section creates no new private-sector compliance obligation.

Sec. 404

Severability

If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of such provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other circumstances, shall not be affected by the invalidation.

Standard severability clause providing that if any provision is held invalid, the remainder of the Act is not affected.

Sec. 405

Rules of construction

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to— (1) waive or otherwise limit any requirement under the National Labor Relations Act for an employer to bargain collectively regarding the deployment or effects of a covered algorithm; (2) absolve an employer of any obligation to ensure a covered algorithm and its effects comply with health and safety laws; (3) allow an employer to deploy a covered algorithm that interferes with the rights of employees under any Federal, State, or local law; or (4) absolve any other duty or requirement under any other Federal, State, or local law.

Section 405 contains savings clauses preserving employers' collective bargaining obligations under the NLRA, health and safety compliance duties, employee rights under federal, state, or local law, and all other duties under existing law. These are rules of construction that create no new obligations.

Sec. 501

Occupational series relating to algorithm auditing

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall exercise the authority of the Director under section 5105 of title 5, United States Code, to establish a new occupational series and associated policies covering Federal Government positions in the field of algorithm auditing.

Section 501 directs the Director of OPM to establish a new federal occupational series for algorithm auditing positions within 270 days of enactment. This is a directive to a federal agency, not a private-sector compliance obligation.

Sec. 502

United States Digital Service algorithm auditors

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the United States Digital Service shall— (1) establish a track for algorithm auditing; and (2) hire algorithm audit practitioners.

Section 502 directs the US Digital Service to establish an algorithm auditing track and hire practitioners within 180 days, prioritizing FTC needs. This is a directive to a federal agency, not a private-sector compliance obligation.

Sec. 503

Additional Federal resources

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Commission and other Federal agencies enumerated in this Act such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission may hire not more than 500 additional personnel to accomplish the work of the Commission with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices relating to the development or deployment of covered algorithms in accordance with this Act.

Section 503 authorizes appropriations and permits the FTC to hire up to 500 additional personnel for AI-related enforcement. This is a federal resource provision, not a private-sector compliance obligation.

Safety Harmful content prevention · self-harm escalation

2 items

S-01.1

S-01

Deceptive Conduct AI-generated likeness · consent requirements

3 items

CP-01

Developers and deployers must not engage in false, deceptive, or misleading advertising, marketing, or publicizing of a covered algorithm.

CP-01.3

CP-01

Human Oversight Decision review · appeal pathways

8 items

H-02.1

H-02.3

H-02.8

H-01.4

H-01.5

H-01.3

Governance Risk management · accountability programs

5 items

G-01.4

G-01.3

G-03.3

G-02.1

G-02

Developers and deployers must make publicly available a clear, conspicuous, and readily accessible mechanism for individuals impacted by a covered algorithm to report potential violations of the Act.

Regulatory Reporting · disclosure · audit

1 item

R-02.1

Passage Likelihood

Failed

Status Failed

Final action Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Legislative History

2024-09-24 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Sources

Full Text ↗

Entry Last Reviewed

2026-05-16

AI generated