Regulon.AI — H-01 · Human Oversight of Automated Decisions

Data disclosure right The specific data inputs used in making the decision about this individual must be disclosed, including the right to know what data was used and to correct inaccurate data.

31 proposed

H-01.2

0 enacted

16 proposed

H-01.3

Pre-decision notice The individual must be notified before a consequential automated decision is made — informing them that an automated system will be used and what categories of decisions it can make.

Right to request human review The individual must have a clear, accessible mechanism to request human review of an automated decision. The right must be disclosed at or near the time of the decision. Human review must be available but the individual must invoke it.

37 proposed

H-01.4

Appeal and contestation right A defined process must exist for the individual to formally contest an automated decision and receive a substantive response explaining the outcome. The process must be accessible without unreasonable burden.

27 proposed

H-01.5

Mandatory pre-action human sign-off Before action is taken on an AI recommendation in defined high-stakes contexts, a qualified human reviewer must affirmatively review and authorize the decision. The human must have authority and practical ability to override — not merely ratify — the AI output.

22 proposed

H-01.6

0 enacted

22 proposed

Bills That Map This Requirement 55 bills

Bill

Status

Sub-Obligations

Section

CA AB 1609 (Customer Service Chatbots) CA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.4

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22627(a)

Plain Language

During business hours (8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily), operators of large private businesses must make human customer service available and must connect any consumer interacting with a chatbot or automated system to a live customer service agent within five minutes of the consumer's request. The five-minute clock starts when the request for human assistance is made, not when the initial interaction began. This obligation applies daily — not just business days — suggesting weekend and holiday coverage is required. Outside of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., the five-minute human escalation requirement does not apply.

(a) During the business hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily, an operator of a large private business who provide goods and services to consumers in California shall provide consumers with human customer service support and communications. During these times, an operator shall connect a person interacting with a customer service chatbot, or automated customer support system, to a customer service agent within five minutes after a request for human customer service is made.

CA AB 1609 (Customer Service Chatbots) CA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.4

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22627(b)

Plain Language

For telephonic customer service platforms specifically, operators must ensure three things: (1) customer calls are answered quickly; (2) after the call is answered, the customer is never placed on hold for more than 5 minutes at any single point, and cumulative hold time for the call does not exceed 10 minutes total; and (3) if a chatbot initially answers the call, human assistance must be provided within five minutes of the call being placed. The five-minute-from-call-placement timer for chatbot-answered calls is stricter than the general five-minute-from-request timer in § 22627(a) because it runs from when the call is made, not from when the consumer requests a human.

(b) For telephonic customer service platforms, the business shall ensure all of the following: (1) That a customer call be answered quickly and, after the call is answered, that a customer is not placed on hold for more than 5 minutes at any point after the call is answered, and that cumulative hold times for a call not exceed more than 10 minutes total. (2) If a call is answered by a customer service chatbot, the operator of the telephonic platform shall provide human assistance within five minutes after the call is made.

CA AB 1609 (Customer Service Chatbots) CA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.4

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22627(c)

Plain Language

For online customer service platforms, operators must give customers the option to request assistance from a human being — this means the option must be affirmatively presented, not buried or hidden. Once the customer makes the request, human assistance must be provided within five minutes. This parallels the general requirement in § 22627(a) but applies specifically to the online channel.

(c) For online customer service platforms, the business shall ensure that a customer is given option to request customer service assistance from a human being and, upon that request, the operator of the online platform shall provide human assistance within five minutes after the request is made.

CA AB 2575 (Healthcare AI Worker Rights & Disclosure) CA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.6

Labor Code § 2821(a), (c)

Plain Language

Employers may not use or deploy AI, clinical decision support systems, or other healthcare technology in a way that replaces or limits a direct patient care worker's ability to exercise professional judgment within their scope of practice. This is an affirmative prohibition — the employer cannot design workflows, policies, or system configurations that effectively override or constrain the clinician's independent judgment. The policy declaration in subdivision (a) provides interpretive context: the legislature's intent is that clinicians retain autonomy over patient care decisions even when AI tools are deployed. This effectively requires that any AI tool used in patient care operate in an advisory capacity, with the clinician retaining final decision-making authority.

(a) It is the public policy of the State of California that a worker providing direct patient care be free to use their professional judgment to make assessments and decisions within their scope of practice as appropriate for their patients. (c) An employer shall not use or deploy technology to replace or limit a worker's use of professional judgment in patient care.

CA SB 420 (Automated Decision Systems) CA

Pending 2026-01-01

H-01.1H-01.3

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.2(a)

Plain Language

When a deployer uses a high-risk automated decision system to make a decision about an individual, the deployer must notify that person and disclose: the system's purpose and the specific decision made, how the system was used in the decision, the types of data the system used, the deployer's contact information, and a link to the deployer's public website statement about its automated decision systems. This is a post-decision notification and explanation obligation — the statute does not explicitly require pre-decision notice, but it does require disclosure of the specific decision made.

(a) If a deployer uses a high-risk automated decision system to make a decision regarding a natural person, the deployer shall notify the natural person of that fact and disclose to that natural person all of the following: (1) The purpose of the high-risk automated decision system and the specific decision it was used to make. (2) How the high-risk automated decision system was used to make the decision. (3) The type of data used by the high-risk automated decision system. (4) Contact information for the deployer. (5) A link to the statement required by subdivision (b).

CA SB 420 (Automated Decision Systems) CA

Pending 2026-01-01

H-01.4

Bus. & Prof. Code § 22756.2(c)

Plain Language

Deployers must provide individuals who are subject to a decision made by a high-risk automated decision system with an opportunity to appeal the decision for human review. This obligation is conditioned on technical feasibility, which provides some flexibility but does not eliminate the requirement where human review is practicable. The statute does not specify a timeframe for the appeal or the qualifications of the human reviewer.

(c) A deployer shall provide, as technically feasible, a natural person that is the subject of a decision made by a high-risk automated decision system an opportunity to appeal that decision for review by a natural person.

Passed 2026-01-01

H-01.3

Lab. Code § 1522(a)-(c), (e)

Plain Language

Employers must provide a written pre-use notice to workers (or their authorized representatives) before deploying an ADS for non-hiring employment-related decisions. The notice must be issued at least 30 days before first deployment, by April 1, 2026 for systems already in use, and within 30 days for new hires. The notice must be plain-language, stand-alone, in the worker's routine communication language, and must describe the types of affected decisions, data categories and sources, key parameters that disproportionately affect output, the ADS vendor, any quotas, and the worker's data access and correction rights. Employers must also maintain an updated list of all ADS currently in use.

(a) An employer shall provide a written notice that an ADS, for the purpose of making employment-related decisions, not including hiring, is in use at the workplace to a worker who will foreseeably be directly affected by the ADS, or their authorized representative, according to the following: (1) At least 30 days before an ADS is first deployed by the employer. (2) If the employer is using an ADS to assist in making employment-related decisions at the time this title takes effect, no later than April 1, 2026. (3) To a new worker within 30 days of hiring the worker. (b) An employer shall maintain an updated list of all ADS currently in use. (c) A written notice required by this section shall be all of the following: (1) Written in plain language as a separate, stand-alone communication. (2) In the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to workers. (3) Provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, including, but not limited to, an email, hyperlink, or other written format. (e) A notice issued pursuant to subdivision (a) shall contain the following information: (1) The type of employment-related decisions potentially affected by the ADS. (2) A general description of the categories of worker input data the ADS will use, the sources of worker input data, and how worker input data will be collected. (3) Any key parameters known to disproportionately affect the output of the ADS. (4) The individuals, vendors, or entities that created the ADS. (5) If applicable, a description of each quota set or measured by an ADS to which the worker is subject, including the quantified number of tasks to be performed or products to be produced, and any potential adverse employment action that could result from failure to meet the quota, as well as whether those quotas are subject to change and if any notice is given of changes in quotas. (6) A description of the worker's right to access and correct the worker's data used by the ADS. (7) That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against workers for exercising their rights described in paragraph (6).

Passed 2026-01-01

H-01.3

Lab. Code § 1522(d)

Plain Language

When an employer uses an ADS to make hiring decisions for a particular position, the employer must notify each job applicant upon receipt of their application. This is a simpler notice than the pre-use worker notice — it may be delivered via an automatic reply mechanism or included in the job posting itself. Unlike the worker notice, no specific content requirements are enumerated; the employer must simply inform the applicant that an ADS is used in hiring decisions for that position.

(d) An employer shall notify a job applicant upon receiving the application that the employer utilizes an ADS when making hiring decisions, if the employer will use the ADS in making decisions for that position. Notifications may be made using an automatic reply mechanism or on a job posting.

Passed 2026-01-01

H-01.6

Lab. Code § 1524(c)

Plain Language

Employers face a two-tier restriction on ADS use in discipline, termination, and deactivation decisions. First, an employer may never rely solely on an ADS for such decisions — there must always be a human in the loop. Second, when the ADS output is the primary basis for the decision, a human reviewer must affirmatively review the ADS output and also compile and review other relevant information (supervisory evaluations, personnel files, work product, peer reviews, witness interviews). The human reviewer must have actual supplementary information to consider — not merely rubber-stamp the ADS output.

(c) (1) An employer shall not rely solely on an ADS when making a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision. (2) When an employer relies primarily on ADS output to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, the employer shall use a human reviewer to review the ADS output and compile and review other information that is relevant to the decision, if any. For purposes of this paragraph, "other information" may include, but is not limited to, any of the following: (A) Supervisory or managerial evaluations. (B) Personnel files. (C) Work product of workers. (D) Peer reviews. (E) Witness interviews, that may include relevant online customer reviews.

Passed 2026-01-01

H-01.1H-01.3

Lab. Code § 1526(a)-(b)

Plain Language

When an employer primarily relied on an ADS to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, it must provide the affected worker with a post-decision written notice at the time the worker is informed of the decision. The notice must be plain-language, stand-alone, in the worker's routine communication language, and must identify: a human contact for further information, the fact that an ADS was used, the worker's right to request their data, and the prohibition on retaliation. This is a post-action notice obligation — distinct from the pre-deployment notice under Section 1522.

(a) An employer that primarily relied on an ADS to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision shall provide the affected worker with a written notice at the time the employer informs the worker of the decision. The notice shall be all of the following: (1) Written in plain language as a separate, stand-alone communication. (2) In the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to workers. (3) Provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, including an email, hyperlink, or other written format. (b) A notice issued pursuant to subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following information: (1) The human to contact for more information about the decision and the ability to request a copy of the worker's own worker data relied on in the decision. (2) That the employer used an ADS to assist the employer in one or more discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions with respect to the worker. (3) That the worker has the right to request a copy of the worker's data used by the ADS. (4) That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the worker for exercising their rights under this part.

CA SB 947 (Workplace ADS) CA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.6

Lab. Code § 1522(b)-(c)

Plain Language

Employers may never rely solely on an ADS for discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions. When ADS output assists such a decision, the employer must assign a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation and compile corroborating evidence — which may include supervisory evaluations, personnel files, work product, peer reviews, or witness interviews. Critically, if the human reviewer cannot corroborate the ADS output, or concludes it is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer is prohibited from using that output for the decision. This goes beyond a human-in-the-loop requirement: the human must have genuine override authority and the ADS output is disqualified absent independent corroboration.

(b) (1) An employer shall not rely solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision.
(2) If an employer uses an ADS output to assist in making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, the employer shall direct a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation and compile corroborating or supporting information for the decision. For purposes of this paragraph, "other information" may include, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(A) Supervisory or managerial evaluations.
(B) Personnel files.
(C) Work product of workers.
(D) Peer reviews.
(E) Witness interviews, that may include relevant online customer reviews.
(c) If an employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, or the human reviewer has concluded that the ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer shall not use the ADS output to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker.

CA SB 947 (Workplace ADS) CA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.1H-01.2H-01.3

Lab. Code § 1524(a)-(c)

Plain Language

When an employer uses ADS to assist in a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, the employer must provide the affected worker a written postuse notice at the time the worker is informed of the decision. The notice must be a separate, stand-alone, plain-language communication in the worker's routine language, disclosing: (1) that ADS was used, (2) that a human reviewer independently investigated and corroborated the ADS output, (3) contact information for a human the worker can reach for more information and to exercise data access rights, and (4) anti-retaliation protections. If the worker then requests their data, the employer must provide — in a document accessible outside the workplace — the specific decision, the specific ADS inputs and outputs, corroborating evidence, the ADS vendor name and product name, and any completed impact assessments for that ADS. This is a two-stage obligation: the initial notice is automatic at the time of the decision, and the detailed data disclosure is triggered by worker request.

(a) An employer that uses an ADS to assist in making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision shall provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice at the time the employer informs the worker of the decision. The notice shall comply with all of the following:
(1) It shall be written in plain language as a separate, stand-alone communication.
(2) It shall be in the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to workers.
(3) It shall be provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, including an email, hyperlink, or other written format.
(b) The post-use notice shall contain all of the following information:
(1) That the employer used an ADS to assist the employer in the disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision with respect to the worker.
(2) That a human reviewer conducted an independent investigation and compiled evidence to corroborate the ADS output.
(3) Contact information for the human that the worker may contact for more information about the decision and the worker's right to access a copy of their own data and corroborating evidence that was used in the decision.
(4) That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the worker for exercising their rights under this part.
(c) When responding to a data access request pursuant to this section, an employer shall provide to the worker a written, plain language document using a simple and easy-to-use method that is accessible away from the workplace containing all of the following:
(1) The specific decision for which the employer used the ADS.
(2) The specific worker input data that the ADS used, and the specific worker output produced by the ADS.
(3) Any additional corroborating or supporting information used in addition to the ADS output in making the decision.
(4) The name of the vender or entity that created the ADS and the product name of the ADS.
(5) A copy of any completed impact assessments regarding the ADS in question.

CO SB 25B-004 (AI Transparency Amendments) CO

Enacted 2026-06-30

H-01.1H-01.3

C.R.S. § 6-1-1703(4)(a)

Plain Language

Deployers must, no later than the time the high-risk AI system is deployed to make or substantially factor in a consequential decision about a consumer, provide certain disclosures. The specific disclosures required are enumerated in the original SB 205 § 6-1-1703(4)(a) (e.g., that an AI system is being used, categories of decisions it makes, contact information for the deployer, a description of the purpose). This is a pre-decision or at-decision timing requirement — the deployer cannot make the consequential decision and disclose later.

(4) (a) On and after June 30, 2026, and no later than the time that a deployer deploys a high-risk artificial intelligence system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision concerning a consumer, the deployer shall:

CO SB 25B-004 (AI Transparency Amendments) CO

Enacted 2026-06-30

H-01.1H-01.4H-01.5

C.R.S. § 6-1-1703(4)(b)

Plain Language

When a high-risk AI system makes or substantially factors into a consequential decision that is adverse to a consumer, the deployer must provide the consumer with specific information. The original SB 205 § 6-1-1703(4)(b) requires: a statement that an AI system was used, contact information for the deployer, a description of the purpose of the AI system, information about the consumer's right to opt out and to appeal, and other relevant details. This post-adverse-decision disclosure obligation gives affected consumers the information they need to exercise appeal rights.

(b) On and after June 30, 2026, a deployer that has deployed a high-risk artificial intelligence system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision concerning a consumer shall, if the consequential decision is adverse to the consumer, provide to the consumer:

Pending 2026-10-01

H-01.3

Sec. 5

Plain Language

Before making any employment-related decision in which an automated process is used as the decision-maker or a substantial factor, the deployer must provide the affected applicant or employee a detailed written pre-decision notice. The notice must cover eight required elements: that an automated system is being used, its purpose, opt-out rights under CT data privacy law, deployer contact information, availability of human review, how to request reevaluation, a link to the most recent bias audit summary, and how to request additional documentation. This is distinct from the Section 4 data-collection notice — Section 5 is triggered by impending decision-making, not data collection.

Except as provided in subsection (b) of section 2 of this act, a deployer who has deployed an automated employment-related decision process to make, or be a substantial factor in making, an employment-related decision concerning an applicant for employment or employee in the state shall, before such employment-related decision is made, provide to such applicant or employee a written notice disclosing: (1) That the deployer has deployed an automated employment-related decision process; (2) The purpose of the automated employment-related decision process and the nature of such employment-related decision; (3) Information concerning the right, under subparagraph (C) of subdivision (5) of subsection (a) of section 42-518 of the general statutes, to opt out of the processing of personal data for the purposes set forth in said subparagraph; (4) Contact information for the deployer; (5) The availability of human review pursuant to section 7 of this act; (6) Information concerning how such applicant or employee may request a revaluation of any employment-related decision made in whole or in part by such automated employment-related decision process; (7) A link to the summary of the most recent bias audit required pursuant to section 8 of this act; and (8) Information concerning how to request additional documentation or information about such automated employment-related decision process.

Pending 2026-10-01

H-01.1H-01.2H-01.4H-01.5

Sec. 6(a)-(b)

Plain Language

When an automated employment decision process makes or substantially contributes to an adverse employment decision, the deployer must provide the affected individual three things: (1) a high-level explanation of the principal reasons for the adverse decision — including how the automated system contributed, what data types were processed, and data sources; (2) an opportunity to examine the data used, correct inaccuracies, and appeal based on incorrect data with human review; and (3) upon request, a copy of the most recent bias audit. The explanation must be delivered directly, in plain language, in all languages the deployer ordinarily uses for business communications in the state, and in disability-accessible format.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of section 2 of this act, a deployer who has deployed an automated employment-related decision process to make, or be a substantial factor in making, an employment-related decision concerning an applicant for employment or employee in the state shall, if such employment-related decision is adverse to such applicant or employee, provide to such applicant or employee: (1) A high-level statement disclosing the principal reason or reasons for such adverse employment-related decision, including, but not limited to, (A) the degree to which, and manner in which, the automated employment-related decision process contributed to such adverse employment-related decision, (B) the type of data that were processed by such automated employment-related decision process in making, or as a substantial factor in making, such adverse employment-related decision, and (C) the source of the data described in subparagraph (B) of this subdivision; (2) An opportunity to (A) examine the data the automated employment-related decision process processed in making, or as a substantial factor in making, such adverse employment-related decision, (B) correct any incorrect data described in subparagraph (A) of this subdivision, and (C) appeal such adverse employment-related decision if such adverse employment-related decision is based upon any incorrect data described in subparagraph (A) of this subdivision. Such appeal shall allow for human review; and (3) Upon request by such applicant or employee, or such applicant or employee's representative, a copy of the most recent bias audit required pursuant to section 8 of this act. (b) A deployer who is required to provide a high-level statement to an applicant for employment or employee in the state pursuant to subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section shall provide such statement: (1) Directly to such applicant or employee; (2) In plain language; (3) In all languages in which such deployer, in the ordinary course of such deployer's business, provides contracts, disclaimers, sales announcements and other information to persons in the state; and (4) In a format that is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Pending 2026-10-01

H-01.6

Sec. 7(a)-(c)

Plain Language

Deployers must implement meaningful human review over every automated employment-related decision process. The human reviewer must have authority to change decisions, understand the system's limitations including bias risks, and not rely solely on the automated output. Specifically, the reviewer must confirm data accuracy and may modify or veto automated recommendations before any adverse decision. Deployers must also establish procedures to pause, correct, or reverse erroneous outputs, and must maintain logs of all human review reports and interventions. Critically, Section 7(c) imposes an absolute prohibition: no automated system may make a final or determinative employment decision without human review.

(a) For the purposes of this section "human review" means a review conducted by a qualified individual who (1) has the authority to make or change an employment-related decision, (2) understands the capabilities, limitations and risks of the automated employment-related decision process, including, but not limited to, patterns of bias, disparate impact and data quality issues, and (3) does not rely solely on the content, decision, prediction or recommendation generated by the automated employment-related decision process in making a final or determinative employment-related decision. (b) (1) A deployer who has deployed an automated employment-related decision process in making, or as a substantial factor in making, an employment-related decision concerning an applicant for employment or employee in the state shall implement human review over such automated employment-related decision process by providing for review of the content, decisions, predictions or recommendations generated by the automated employment-related decision process and any other information relevant to such content, decision, prediction or recommendation in order to confirm the accuracy of data processed by such automated employment-related decision process and, when appropriate, modify or veto any such content, decision, prediction or recommendation generated by such automated decision-making process prior to any adverse employment-related decision. (2) A deployer shall (A) establish procedures necessary to pause, correct or reverse erroneous or harmful content, decision, prediction or recommendation generated by an automated employment-related decision process, and (B) establish and maintain logs listing all human review reports and any intervention taken by an individual conducting such human review. (c) No automated employment-related decision process shall be used by a deployer in making a final or determinative employment-related decision without human review over such final or determinative employment-related decision.

IA SF 2414 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IA

Pending 2026-10-01

H-01.3

Sec. 18 (amending § 46a-60(b)(1)(B))

Plain Language

Under the amended anti-discrimination statute, it is a discriminatory practice for employers to fail to provide advance written notice that an automated employment-related decision process will be used in employment decisions affecting an individual. The notice must at minimum disclose the trade name of the automated system and the types and sources of personal information the system will process. This creates a separate notice obligation within Connecticut's anti-discrimination framework — enforced by CHRO — in addition to the deployer notice obligations in Sections 4 and 5.

(B) For an employer, by the employer or the employer's agent, to fail to provide to any individual advance written notice disclosing, at a minimum, that an automated employment-related decision process will be used to make, to assist in making or in the course of making a decision to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment, or concerning the compensation or terms, conditions or privileges of employment, of such individual. Such notice shall, at a minimum, disclose the trade name of the automated employment-related decision process and the types and sources of personal information concerning the individual that the automated employment-related decision process will process or analyze.

GA SB 167 (Automated Decision Systems) GA

Pending 2025-07-01

H-01.3H-01.1

O.C.G.A. § 10-16-4(a)

Plain Language

Before or at the time a deployer uses an automated decision system to make or assist in a consequential decision about a consumer, the deployer must notify the consumer and provide: the system's purpose and the nature of the consequential decision, deployer contact information, a plain-language description of what personal characteristics the system assesses and how, identification of human and automated components, a link to a public webpage with the system's logic, parameters, outputs, data sources, and latest impact assessment results, and instructions for accessing the deployer's public statement under § 10-16-5. This is a pre-decision disclosure obligation — not a post-hoc notice.

(a) No later than the time that a deployer deploys an automated decision system to make, or assist in making, a consequential decision concerning a consumer, the deployer shall: (1) Notify the consumer that the deployer has deployed an automated decision system to make, or assist in making, a consequential decision; and (2) Provide to the consumer: (A) A statement disclosing the purpose of the automated decision system and the nature of the consequential decision; (B) The contact information for the deployer; (C) A description, in plain language, of the automated decision system, which description shall, at a minimum, include: (i) A description of the personal characteristics or attributes that the system will measure or assess; (ii) The method by which the system measures or assesses those attributes or characteristics; (iii) How those attributes or characteristics are relevant to the consequential decisions for which the system should be used; (iv) Any human components of such system; (v) How any automated components of such system are used to inform such consequential decision; and (vi) A direct link to a publicly accessible page on the deployer's public website that contains a plain-language description of the logic used in the system, including the key parameters that affect the output of the system; the system's outputs; the types and sources of data collected from natural persons and processed by the system when it is used to make, or assists in making, a consequential decision; and the results of the most recent impact assessment, or an active link to a web page where a consumer can review those results; and (D) Instructions on how to access the statement required by Code Section 10-16-5.

GA SB 167 (Automated Decision Systems) GA

Pending 2025-07-01

H-01.1H-01.2H-01.4H-01.5

O.C.G.A. § 10-16-4(b)-(d)

Plain Language

Within one business day after a consequential decision is made, deployers must send the affected consumer a detailed post-decision notice including: the principal factors and variables that drove the decision (with explanation of the AI's contribution, data sources, and how the consumer's personal data informed the factors), information on the right to correct data and submit supplementary information, guidance on actions the consumer could take to secure a different outcome, instructions for correcting any incorrect personal data used, and information about appeal opportunities (which must allow human review if technically feasible). All notices must be provided directly, in plain language, in all languages the deployer ordinarily uses with consumers, and in disability-accessible formats. If direct delivery is impossible, the deployer must use a method reasonably calculated to reach the consumer. A deployer may not use an automated decision system at all if it cannot provide these notices and explanations.

(b) A deployer that has used an automated decision system to make, or assist in making, a consequential decision concerning a consumer shall transmit to such consumer within one business day after such decision a notice that includes: (1) A specific and accurate explanation that identifies the principal factors and variables that led to the consequential decision, including: (A) The degree to which, and manner in which, the automated decision system contributed to the consequential decision; (B) The source or sources of the data processed by the automated decision system; and (C) A plain-language explanation of how the consumer's personal data informed these principal factors and variables when the automated decision system made, or assisted in making, the consequential decision; (2) Information about consumers' right to correct, and how the consumer can submit corrections and provide supplementary information relevant to, the consequential decision; (3) What actions, if any, the consumer might have taken to secure a different decision and the actions that the consumer might take to secure a different decision in the future; (4) Information on opportunities to correct any incorrect personal data that the automated decision system processed in making, or assisting in making, the consequential decision; and (5) Information on opportunities to appeal an adverse consequential decision concerning the consumer arising from the deployment of an automated decision system, which appeal shall, if technically feasible, allow for human review. (c)(1) A deployer shall provide the notice, statement, contact information, and description required by subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section: (A) Directly to the consumer; (B) In plain language; (C) In all languages in which the deployer, in the ordinary course of the deployer's business, provides contracts, disclaimers, sale announcements, and other information to consumers; and (D) In a format that is accessible to consumers with disabilities. (2) If the deployer is unable to provide the notice, statement, contact information, and description directly to the consumer, the deployer shall make such information available in a manner that is reasonably calculated to ensure that the consumer receives it. (d) No deployer shall use an automated decision system to make, or assist in making, a consequential decision if it cannot provide notices and explanations that satisfy the requirements of this Code section.

HI SB 2281 (AI in Health Care) HI

Pending 2028-07-01

H-01.1H-01.3

HRS § 321-__ (Consequential decisions; notice; statement; opt-out; corrections; appeal)(a)

Plain Language

Before using AI to make or substantially contribute to a consequential decision — any decision significantly affecting a patient's physical or mental health — the health care provider must give the patient or authorized representative a written pre-decision notice. The notice must: (1) inform the patient that AI will be used; (2) disclose the purpose of the AI system and the nature of the decision; (3) describe the AI system in plain language; and (4) allow the patient to opt out of profiling of their individually identifiable health information or personal data for decisions with legal or similarly significant effects. The 'substantial factor' trigger is broadly defined and captures any AI-generated content, prediction, or recommendation used as a basis for a consequential decision.

(a) Before using an artificial intelligence system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision, a health care provider shall provide the patient or the patient's authorized representative, as applicable, with a written notice that:
(1) Informs the recipient that the health care provider will be using an artificial intelligence system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, the consequential decision;
(2) Discloses the purpose of the artificial intelligence system and the nature of the consequential decision;
(3) Describes the artificial intelligence system in plain language; and
(4) Allows the patient to opt out of the processing of the patient's individually identifiable health information or other personal data for purposes of profiling in furtherance of decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects concerning the patient.

HI SB 2281 (AI in Health Care) HI

Pending 2028-07-01

H-01.1H-01.2H-01.4H-01.5

HRS § 321-__ (Consequential decisions; notice; statement; opt-out; corrections; appeal)(b)-(c)

Plain Language

After a consequential decision has been made using AI, the health care provider must give the patient or authorized representative: (1) a written statement describing the decision and its principal reasons — including the degree and manner of AI contribution, the types of data the AI processed, and the sources of that data; (2) an opportunity to correct any incorrect health information or personal data the AI used; and (3) an opportunity to appeal the decision with human review of all related information, to the extent technically feasible. The appeal right has a safety exception: it does not apply when delay would risk the patient's life or safety. All notices and statements must be delivered directly to the patient or authorized representative, or if that is not possible, through a manner reasonably calculated to ensure receipt.

(b) Any health care provider that used an artificial intelligence system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision shall provide the patient or the patient's authorized representative, as applicable, with:
(1) A written statement that describes the consequential decision and the principal reasons for the consequential decision, including:
(A) The degree to which, and manner in which, the artificial intelligence system contributed to the consequential decision;
(B) The type of data that was processed by the artificial intelligence system in making the consequential decision; and
(C) The sources of the data described in paragraph (B);
(2) An opportunity to correct any incorrect health information or personal data that the artificial intelligence system processed in making, or as a substantial factor in making, the consequential decision; and
(3) An opportunity to appeal the consequential decision, including allowing, to the extent technically feasible, human review of all information relating to the consequential decision; provided that this paragraph shall not apply if providing the opportunity for appeal is not in the best interest of the patient, including in instances in which any delay might pose a risk to the life or safety of the patient.
(c) The notice and statement required pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), respectively, shall be provided directly to the patient or the patient's authorized representative, as applicable; provided that if the health care provider is unable to comply with this requirement, the health care provider shall provide the notice or statement in a manner that is reasonably calculated to ensure that the patient or the patient's authorized representative, as applicable, receives the notice or statement.

HI SB 2281 (AI in Health Care) HI

Pending 2028-07-01

H-01.6

HRS § 321-__ (Consequential decisions; review and validation by qualified oversight personnel)(a)-(c)

Plain Language

Health care providers using AI to make or substantially factor into consequential decisions must designate and maintain AI oversight personnel. This person must be a natural person with qualifications, experience, and expertise to effectively evaluate AI outputs in health care — and may be a third-party contractor. The oversight person must both (1) monitor the provider's AI systems on an ongoing basis and (2) before any AI output is used in a consequential decision, affirmatively review, evaluate, and then validate or override the output. This is a mandatory human-in-the-loop requirement: no AI output may be acted upon for a consequential decision without prior human review and an affirmative validation or override decision. The Department of Health will adopt rules specifying required qualifications for oversight personnel.

(a) Any health care provider that uses an artificial intelligence system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision shall maintain an artificial intelligence oversight personnel.
(b) The artificial intelligence oversight personnel:
(1) Shall be a natural person;
(2) Shall have the qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to effectively evaluate outputs, including but not limited to any information, data, assumptions, predictions, scoring, recommendations, decisions, or conclusions generated by artificial intelligence systems in the field of health care; and
(3) May be retained by contracting with a third-party.
(c) The artificial intelligence oversight personnel shall:
(1) Monitor the artificial intelligence systems used by the health care provider; and
(2) Before the health care provider uses an output generated by an artificial intelligence system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision:
(A) Review and evaluate the output; and
(B) Validate or override the output.

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.3

Iowa Code § 91F.2(1)-(3)

Plain Language

Employers must provide a plain-language, stand-alone written notice to any employee (or their authorized representative) who will foreseeably be directly affected by an automated decision system used for non-hiring employment decisions. The notice must be provided at least 30 days before first deploying an ADS, by January 1, 2027 for systems already in use, or within 30 days of hiring a new employee. The notice must describe the types of decisions affected, the data categories and sources used, key parameters that disproportionately affect output, the ADS vendor, any quotas, the employee's right to access and correct their data, and the employer's anti-retaliation obligations. The notice must be delivered in the same language used for routine workplace communications.

1. An employer shall provide a written notice that an automated decision system is in use for the purpose of making employment-related decisions, other than hiring decisions, at the workplace to an employee who will foreseeably be directly affected by the automated decision system, or the employee's authorized representative. The employer shall provide the notice by the following dates: a. At least thirty days before an automated decision system is first deployed by the employer. b. If the employer is using an automated decision system to assist in making employment-related decisions as of the effective date of this Act, no later than January 1, 2027. c. To a new employee within thirty days of hiring the employee. 2. A notice provided pursuant to subsection 1 shall contain all of the following information: a. The type of employment-related decisions potentially affected by the automated decision system. b. A general description of the categories of employee-input data the automated decision system will use, the sources of employee input data, and how employee input data will be collected. c. Any key parameters known to disproportionately affect the output of the automated decision system. d. The individuals, vendors, or entities that created the automated decision system. e. If applicable, a description of each quota set or measured by an automated decision system to which the employee is subject, including the quantified number of tasks to be performed or products to be produced, and any potential adverse employment action that could result from failure to meet the quota, as well as whether those quotas are subject to change and if any notice is given of changes in quotas. f. A description of the employee's right to access and correct the employee's data used by the automated decision system. g. That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against employees for exercising the rights provided in this chapter. 3. A written notice required by subsection 1 shall be written in plain language as a separate, stand-alone communication. The notice shall be in the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to employees. The notice shall be provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, including but not limited to an email, electronic link, or other written format.

IA SF 2414 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IA

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.3

Iowa Code § 91F.2(4)

Plain Language

When an employer uses an ADS in hiring, it must notify each applicant upon receiving their application that an ADS is part of the hiring process. This notice may be provided via an automatic reply to the application or disclosed in the job posting itself. Unlike the more detailed advance notice required for current employees under § 91F.2(1)-(3), the applicant notification is simpler — it need only disclose that an ADS is used in hiring decisions.

4. If an employer will use an automated decision system in making hiring decisions for a position, the employer shall notify an applicant for the position, upon receiving the application, that the employer utilizes an automated decision system when making hiring decisions. The employer may make the notification using an automatic reply mechanism or on a job posting.

IA SF 2414 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IA

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.6

Iowa Code § 91F.3(1)(e), (2)

Plain Language

Employers may never rely solely on an ADS for discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions — a human must always be involved. When the ADS output is the primary basis for such a decision, the employer must use a human reviewer who reviews both the ADS output and any other relevant information, which may include supervisory evaluations, personnel files, employee work product, peer reviews, and witness interviews (including online customer reviews). The human reviewer must affirmatively compile and review this supplementary information, not merely rubber-stamp the ADS output.

e. Rely solely on an automated decision system when making a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision. 2. When an employer relies primarily on output from an automated decision system to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, the employer shall use a human reviewer to review the automated decision system output and compile and review other information that is relevant to the decision, if any. For purposes of this subsection, "other information" may include but is not limited to any of the following: a. Supervisory or managerial evaluations. b. Personnel files. c. Work product of employees. d. Peer reviews. e. Witness interviews, which may include relevant online customer reviews.

IA SF 2414 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IA

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.1

Iowa Code § 91F.4(1)-(3)

Plain Language

When an employer primarily relies on ADS output to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, it must provide the affected employee with a written notice at the time the decision is communicated. The notice must identify a contact person, state that an ADS was used, inform the employee of their right to request a copy of their data, and state that retaliation for exercising rights under the chapter is prohibited. The notice must be a separate, stand-alone plain-language communication delivered in the employee's routine communication language via an accessible method such as email.

1. An employer that primarily relied on an automated decision system to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision shall provide the affected employee with a written notice at the time the employer informs the employee of the decision. 2. A notice provided pursuant to subsection 1 shall contain all of the following information: a. The individual to contact for more information about the decision. b. That the employer used an automated decision system to assist the employer in one or more discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions with respect to the employee. c. That the employee has the right to request a copy of the employee's data used by the automated decision system. d. That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the employee for exercising the rights provided in this chapter. 3. A written notice required by subsection 1 shall be written in plain language as a separate, stand-alone communication. The notice shall be in the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to employees. The notice shall be provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, including but not limited to an email, electronic link, or other written format.

IA SSB 3118 (Utilization Review AI & Prior Authorization) IA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.4H-01.5

Iowa Code § 514F.8A(4) (new)

Plain Language

When a provider or covered person appeals a prior authorization denial or downgrade, the appeal must be conducted by a qualified reviewer or clinical peer (matched to the requesting provider type) who was not involved in the initial adverse determination. The appeal reviewer must consider the known clinical aspects of the services under review, including the covered person's relevant medical records and any medical literature the provider submits. This creates a substantive, individualized review obligation — not merely a procedural rubber stamp — and ensures independence from the initial decision-maker.

4. a. If a utilization review organization's decision to deny or downgrade a request for prior authorization is appealed by the requesting health care provider or covered person, the appeal shall be conducted by either of the following: (1) A qualified reviewer, if the health care provider requesting prior authorization is a physician. (2) A clinical peer, if the health care provider requesting prior authorization is not a physician. b. A qualified reviewer or clinical peer involved in the initial denial or downgrade determination of a request for prior authorization that is the subject of an appeal shall not conduct the appeal. c. When conducting an appeal of a request for prior authorization, the qualified reviewer or clinical peer shall consider the known clinical aspects of the health care services under review, including but not limited to medical records relevant to the covered person's medical condition that is the subject of the health care services for which prior authorization is requested, and any relevant medical literature submitted by the health care provider as part of the appeal.

IL HB 4980 (Human Control of AI Act) IL

Pending 2026-01-01

H-01.6

Section 10(a)

Plain Language

Public employers may not use, procure, or acquire any automated decision-making system for functions related to public assistance administration, employee rights, civil liberties, safety, or welfare without meaningful and continuing human review. The human reviewer must understand the system's risks and limitations, be trained on the system, have actual authority to intervene and override outputs (including rejecting uncorroborated outputs), and have adequate time and resources. This is not a one-time gate — human review must be continuing throughout the system's operation. The obligation covers both direct use and indirect use through contractors and subcontractors.

(a) An employer shall not use or apply, or authorize any procurement, purchase, or acquisition of any service or system using or relying on any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly, without meaningful and continuing human review when performing any function that: (1) is related to the administration of any public assistance program; (2) will have an adverse impact on the rights, civil liberties, safety, or welfare of any employee in this State; or (3) affects any statutorily or constitutionally provided rights of an employee.

IL HB 4980 (Human Control of AI Act) IL

Pending 2026-01-01

H-01.3H-01.4H-01.5

Section 10(b)

Plain Language

Before or at the time of any automated decision affecting an employee under a covered function, the employer must: (1) notify the affected employee that the decision was made using an automated decision-making system; (2) provide an appeals process for employees directly impacted by such decisions; and (3) provide the opportunity for an alternative human review by an individual working for or on behalf of the employer, independent of the automated system. All three requirements are prerequisites to use — the system may not be used without them in place. The alternative review must be by a human who is independent of the automated system, meaning they cannot simply rubber-stamp the system's output.

(b) An employer shall not use or apply any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly, to perform any function described in subsection (a) without providing: (1) a notice to any affected employee no later than the time a decision is issued to that employee that a decision concerning the employee was made using an automated decision-making system; (2) an appeals process for decisions made by automated decision-making system in which an employee is impacted as a direct result of the use of the automated decision-making system; and (3) the opportunity for an affected employee to have an appropriate alternative review, by an individual working for or on behalf of the employer with respect to the decision, independent of the automated decision-making system.

IL HB 4980 (Human Control of AI Act) IL

Pending 2026-01-01

Section 10(d)

Plain Language

The deployment of an automated decision-making system must not diminish existing employee rights under collective bargaining agreements or alter existing representational or bargaining relationships between employers and labor organizations. This is a preservation clause — it creates no new obligation but confirms that AI adoption cannot be used to circumvent existing labor agreements.

(d) The use of an automated decision-making system shall not affect: (1) existing rights of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement; or (2) existing representational relationships among labor organizations or bargaining relationships between an employer and a labor organization.

IL SB 2203 (Preventing Algorithmic Discrimination) IL

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.3

Section 15(a)

Plain Language

Before or at the time an automated decision tool is used to make a consequential decision, the deployer must notify the affected individual that an automated tool is being used. The notification must include: the tool's purpose, the deployer's contact information, and a plain-language description of how the automated and human components work together to inform the decision. This is a broad pre-decision notice requirement covering all consequential decision domains — employment, education, housing, healthcare, financial services, criminal justice, and more.

(a) A deployer shall, at or before the time an automated decision tool is used to make a consequential decision, notify any natural person who is the subject of the consequential decision that an automated decision tool is being used to make, or be a controlling factor in making, the consequential decision. A deployer shall provide to a natural person notified under this subsection all of the following: (1) a statement of the purpose of the automated decision tool; (2) the contact information for the deployer; and (3) a plain language description of the automated decision tool that includes a description of any human components and how any automated component is used to inform a consequential decision.

IL SB 2203 (Preventing Algorithmic Discrimination) IL

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.4

Section 15(b)

Plain Language

When a consequential decision is made solely by an automated decision tool — with no human involvement — the deployer must, if technically feasible, honor a person's request to opt out of the automated process and be subject to an alternative selection process or accommodation. The deployer may request identifying information to locate the person and the relevant decision; if the person declines to provide that information, the opt-out obligation does not apply. Note the two conditions: (1) the decision must be made solely by the tool, and (2) the alternative must be technically feasible. Decisions where a human plays any role do not trigger this opt-out right.

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

IL SB 2259 (Health Care Generative AI Use) IL

Pending 2026-01-01

H-01.4

225 ILCS 60/67(b)(2)

Plain Language

Every AI-generated patient communication about clinical information must include clear instructions for how the patient can contact a human health care provider or other appropriate staff member. This is a standalone requirement that applies alongside the AI-generation disclaimer and ensures patients always have an accessible path to a human. The instructions must be included in every covered communication — the bill does not specify format requirements for this element beyond 'clear instructions.'

(2) Clear instructions describing how a patient may contact a human health care provider, employee of the health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group provider, or other appropriate person.

IL SB 3735 (Ed-Tech Rights / Biometric Info) IL

Pending 2026-01-01

H-01.4

Student Educational Technologies Rights Act § 15(a)(2)

Plain Language

Students and their parents have the right to request that a human teacher review any grade that was scored automatically or generated by AI. This creates a right to human review of automated educational decisions. Schools must honor such requests, though the statute does not specify a timeframe for completing the review.

It is the policy of this State that a student and the student's parent have the right to: (2) request a human teacher review any automated scored grade or scored grade generated by artificial intelligence;

IN HB 1421 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IN

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.6

IC 22-5-10.4-10(1)

Plain Language

Employers are categorically prohibited from relying exclusively on an automated decision system — with no human involvement — to make any employment-related decision affecting a covered individual. This is an absolute prohibition: no amount of predeployment testing, disclosure, or documentation can cure a fully automated employment decision. Every employment decision using an automated decision system must include meaningful human involvement.

An employer may not: (1) rely exclusively on an automated decision system in making an employment related decision with respect to a covered individual;

IN HB 1421 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IN

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.6

IC 22-5-10.4-10(2)(E)

Plain Language

As a condition of using automated decision system output in any employment decision, the employer must have a human with appropriate and relevant experience independently corroborate the output through meaningful oversight. This is not a rubber-stamp review — the human must have subject-matter expertise relevant to the employment decision and must exercise independent judgment. The statute separately requires that the appeal reviewer (Section 10(2)(G)(ii)) be a different human than the one performing corroboration, creating a two-person minimum for human oversight.

the employer independently corroborates, via meaningful oversight by a human with appropriate and relevant experience, the automated decision system output;

IN HB 1421 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IN

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.1H-01.2

IC 22-5-10.4-10(2)(F)

Plain Language

Within seven days after making an employment-related decision using an automated decision system output, the employer must provide the affected covered individual — at no cost — with comprehensive, plain-language documentation covering: (1) a description of the automated decision system, (2) a plain-language description and explanation of the input data used, plus a machine-readable copy of that data, (3) how the output was used in the decision, and (4) the reasoning for using the output. This is an individualized post-decision disclosure — not a general policy notice. The documentation must be 'full, accessible, and meaningful,' which likely requires more than boilerplate language.

not later than seven (7) days after making the employment related decision, the employer provides full, accessible, and meaningful documentation in plain language and at no cost to the covered individual on the automated decision system output, including: (i) a description of the automated decision system used to generate the automated decision system output; (ii) a description and explanation, in plain language, of the input date to the automated decision system used to generate the automated decision system output and a machine readable copy of the data; (iii) a description and explanation of how the automated decision system output was used in making the employment related decision; and (iv) the reasoning for the use of the automated decision system output in the employment related decision;

IN HB 1421 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IN

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.4H-01.5

IC 22-5-10.4-10(2)(G)

Plain Language

After receiving the post-decision documentation, the covered individual must be allowed to (1) dispute the automated decision system output itself to a qualified human, through a process that is accessible, equitable, and not unreasonably burdensome, and (2) separately appeal the employment-related decision to a different qualified human — one who was not the person who corroborated the output under Section 10(2)(E). This creates two distinct rights: a challenge to the AI output and an appeal of the ultimate decision, with the appeal reviewer required to be independent from the initial corroboration step.

the employer allows the covered individual to, after receiving the documentation described in clause (F): (i) dispute, in a manner that is accessible, equitable, and does not pose an unreasonable burden on the covered individual, the automated decision system output to a human with appropriate and relevant experience; and (ii) appeal the employment related decision to a human with appropriate and relevant experience who is not the human for purposes of the corroboration under clause (E).

IN HB 1421 (Employer Automated Decision Systems) IN

Pending 2026-07-01

H-01.3

IC 22-5-10.4-11(a)-(c)

Plain Language

Employers must provide a comprehensive advance disclosure to every covered individual describing: the fact that automated decision system outputs are or will be used, a detailed description of the system (data types collected, characteristics measured, job-relatedness of those characteristics, measurement methodology, and plain-language interpretation guidance), the identity of the system operator, how the output factors into employment decisions, and how to dispute or appeal. For employees hired on or before July 1, 2026, the disclosure must be provided by August 1, 2026. For individuals hired after July 1, 2026 — including candidates — the disclosure must be provided before hiring. Any significant changes to the disclosed information, or significant new information becoming available, triggers a 30-day update obligation. This is a pre-decision disclosure obligation distinct from the post-decision documentation required under Section 10(2)(F).

Sec. 11. (a) An employer that uses or intends to use an automated decision system output in making an employment related decision with respect to a covered individual shall, in accordance with subsections (b) and (c), disclose to the covered individual: (1) that the employer uses or intends to use an automated decision system output in making an employment related decision; (2) a description and explanation of the automated decision system used or intended to be used to generate the automated decision system output, including: (A) the types of data collected or intended to be collected as inputs to the automated decision system and the circumstances of the collection; (B) the characteristics that the automated decision system measures or is intended to measure, such as the knowledge, skills, or abilities of the covered individual; (C) how the characteristics relate or would relate to any function required for the work or potential work of the covered individual; (D) how the system measures or is intended to measure the characteristics; and (E) how the covered individual can interpret the automated decision system output in plain language; (3) the identity of the covered individual or entity that operates the automated decision system that provides the automated decision system output; (4) how the employer uses or intends to use the automated decision system output in making the employment related decision; and (5) how the covered individual may dispute or appeal an employment related decision made with respect to the covered individual using an automated decision system output. (b) An employer shall provide the disclosures required by subsection (a) to a covered individual as follows: (1) In the case of a covered individual who was hired on or before July 1, 2026, the disclosure must be provided to the covered individual not later than August 1, 2026. (2) In the case of a covered individual who is hired after July 1, 2026, the disclosure must be provided to the covered individual before hiring. (c) Not later than thirty (30) days after: (1) any information provided by an employer to a covered individual through a disclosure required by subsection (a) significantly changes; or (2) any significant new information required to be provided in the disclosure becomes available; the employer shall provide the covered individual with an updated disclosure.

LA HB 421 (Automated Decision Systems & Employment) LA

Pending 2025-08-01

H-01.3

R.S. 23:972(A)-(E)

Plain Language

Employers must provide detailed written pre-deployment notice to any worker (or authorized representative) who will foreseeably be directly affected by an ADS used for employment-related decisions other than hiring. Notice must be given at least 30 days before first deployment, immediately for existing ADS at the time the law takes effect, and within 30 days of a new hire's start date. The notice must be plain-language, standalone, in the workers' routine communication language, and delivered via an accessible method. For hiring-specific ADS, employers must notify job applicants upon receiving their application — this can be done via auto-reply or on the job posting. The notice must include eight categories of information: decision types affected, data categories and sources, disproportionate parameters, ADS creator identity, quotas if applicable, data access/correction rights, anti-retaliation notice, and appeal rights. Employers must also maintain an updated inventory of all ADS currently in use.

A. An employer shall provide written notice that an ADS, for the purpose of making employment-related decisions, not including hiring, is in use at the workplace to a worker who will foreseeably be directly affected by the ADS, or his authorized representative. The notice shall be provided at any of the following time periods: (1) At least thirty days before an ADS is first deployed by the employer. (2) If the employer is using an ADS to assist in making employment-related decisions at the time this Part takes effect. (3) To a new worker within thirty days of his hiring date. B. An employer shall maintain an updated list of all ADS currently in use. C. A written notice required by this Section shall meet all of the following requirements: (1) Written in plain language as a separate, standalone communication. (2) In the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to workers. (3) Provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, including but not limited to an email, hyperlink, or other written format. D. An employer who uses an ADS to make hiring decisions shall notify a job applicant upon receiving his application that the employer utilizes an ADS for hiring decisions. Notifications may be made using an automatic reply mechanism or on the job posting. E. A notice issued pursuant to Subsection A of this Section shall contain all of the following information: (1) The type of employment-related decisions potentially affected by the ADS. (2) A general description of the categories of worker input data the ADS will use, the sources of worker input data, and how worker input data will be collected. (3) Any key parameters known to disproportionately affect the output of the ADS. (4) The individuals, vendors, or entities that created the ADS. (5) If applicable, a description of each quota set or measure by an ADS that the worker is subject to, including the quantified number of tasks to be performed or products to be produced, and any potential adverse employment action that could result from failure to meet the quota, as well as whether those quotas are subject to change and if any notice is given of changes in quotas. (6) A description of the worker's right to access and correct the worker's own data used by the ADS. (7) That the employer shall be prohibited from retaliating against a worker who exercises his rights as provided in Paragraph (6) of this Subsection. (8) That the worker has a right to appeal any decision made with the assistance of an ADS and the process to appeal that decision.

LA HB 421 (Automated Decision Systems & Employment) LA

Pending 2025-08-01

H-01.6

R.S. 23:973(C)(1)-(3)

Plain Language

Employers may never rely solely on an ADS for discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions — a human must always be involved. For any employment-related decision assisted by ADS output, the employer or vendor must: (1) ensure accuracy of the ADS output, and (2) assign a designated internal reviewer to independently investigate and compile corroborating evidence. The reviewer must have sufficient authority, expertise in the ADS, and training to make a well-informed decision, and must be protected from retaliation. If the employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, or if the reviewer concludes the output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer may not rely on the ADS for that decision. This goes beyond a right to request human review — it is a mandatory human review and corroboration requirement before any ADS-assisted employment decision.

C.(1) An employer shall not rely solely on an ADS when making a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision. (2) If an employer or a vendor utilizes an ADS output to assist in making an employment-related decision, the employer or vendor shall do all of the following: (a) Ensure the accuracy of the ADS output. (b)(i) Use a designated internal reviewer to conduct a separate investigation and compile corroborating information for the decision. This information may include but is not limited to supervisory or managerial evaluations, personnel files, employee work products, or peer reviews. (ii) The designated internal reviewer required by this Subparagraph shall have all of the following: (aa) Sufficient authority, discretion, resources, and time to corroborate the ADS output. (bb) Sufficient expertise in the operation of similar systems and a sufficient understanding of the ADS in question to interpret its outputs as well as results of relevant impact assessments. (cc) Education, training, or experience sufficient to allow the reviewer to make a well-informed decision. (iii) The designated internal reviewer shall be protected from retaliation for exercising his responsibilities. (3) An employer shall not rely on an ADS to make an employment-related decision if the employer cannot corroborate the ADS output or the human reviewer has concluded that the ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading.

LA HB 421 (Automated Decision Systems & Employment) LA

Pending 2025-08-01

H-01.1

R.S. 23:974(A)-(B)

Plain Language

When an employer primarily relies on an ADS to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, the employer must provide the affected worker with a post-decision written notice at the time the decision is made. The notice must be plain-language, standalone, in the worker's routine language, and accessible. It must inform the worker of: the human contact for more information and data requests, that an ADS was used, the worker's right to request a copy of their data, the anti-retaliation prohibition, and the worker's right to appeal under R.S. 23:975. This is a post-decision notice — distinct from the pre-deployment notice in §972.

A. An employer that primarily relies on an ADS to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision shall provide the affected worker with written notice at the time such decision is made. The notice shall meet all of the following requirements: (1) Written in plain language as a separate, standalone communication. (2) In the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to workers. (3) Provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, including but not limited to an email, hyperlink, or other written format. B. A notice issued pursuant to Subsection A of this Section shall contain all of the following information: (1) The human individual to contact for more information about the decision and the ability to request a copy of the worker's own worker data relied on in the decision. (2) That the employer used an ADS to assist the employer in any discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions with respect to the worker. (3) That the worker has the right to request a copy of the worker's data used by the ADS. (4) That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the worker for exercising his right pursuant to this Part. (5) The worker's right to appeal the decision as provided in R.S. 23:975.

LA HB 421 (Automated Decision Systems & Employment) LA

Pending 2025-08-01

H-01.4H-01.5

R.S. 23:975(A)-(C)

Plain Language

Workers have a statutory right to appeal any ADS-assisted employment-related decision. Employers or vendors must provide an appeal form (or electronic link) within 30 days of notification, allowing the worker to request input/output data access, request corroborating evidence, state reasons for appeal, and designate an authorized representative. The employer or vendor must respond within 14 business days by assigning a human reviewer who was not involved in the original decision, has authority to overturn it, and can objectively evaluate all evidence. The written response must describe the appeal result and its reasons. If the reviewer determines the decision should be overturned, the employer or vendor must rectify it within 21 business days. Both employers and vendors are directly obligated under this section.

A. If an employer has used an ADS to make an employment-related decision about a worker, the affected worker has the right to appeal that decision, request a human review, request submission of additional information, and correct any errors in the data used by the ADS. B. An employer or a vendor that used an ADS to make an employment-related decision shall provide an affected worker with a form or a hyperlink to an electronic form that provides that the worker has a right to appeal the decision within thirty days from the date that the worker was notified. The appeal form provided to an affected worker shall include all of the following: (1) The option to request access to the data used as input to or as output from the ADS. (2) The option to request access to any corroborating or supporting evidence provided by a human reviewer to verify output from the ADS. (3) The worker's reason or justification for an appeal and any evidence to support the appeal. (4) A designation for an authorized representative who can also access the data. C.(1) An employer or a vendor shall respond to an appeal within fourteen business days. (2)(a)(i) In responding to an appeal, the employer or vendor shall designate a human reviewer who shall meet all of the following requirements: (aa) He can objectively evaluate all evidence. (bb) He has sufficient authority, discretion, and resources to evaluate the decision. (cc) He has the authority to overturn the decision. (ii) The employer or vendor shall not designate a person who was involved in the decision that the worker is appealing. (b) The response provided to the worker shall be composed on a clear, written document which describes the result of the appeal and the reasons for that result. (3) If the human reviewer determines that the employment-related decision should be overturned, the employer or vendor shall rectify the decision within twenty-one business days.

LA SB 246 (Health Insurance AI Requirements) LA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.4H-01.5

R.S. 22:1260.49(E)(1)-(3)

Plain Language

Insureds have an express right to appeal any determination they learn was made with an AI or automated decision system recommendation. Critically, any adverse determination where AI materially contributed is presumed invalid — the insurer bears the burden of demonstrating that the determination was independently reached through documented clinical judgment without reliance on algorithmic output. If an adverse determination is appealed on AI grounds, the insurer is prohibited from using AI in any subsequent review of that claim. This creates a strong rebuttable presumption against AI-influenced adverse determinations and a categorical ban on AI use in the re-review process.

E.(1) Any insured has the right to appeal a determination that he has learned was made with a recommendation from an artificial intelligence or an automated decision system. (2) Any adverse determination in which artificial intelligence or an automated decision system materially contributed to the determination shall be presumed invalid unless the health insurance issuer demonstrates that the determination was independently reached through documented clinical judgment without reliance upon algorithmic output. (3) If an adverse determination is appealed on the basis of the use of an artificial intelligence or an automated decision system, the insurer shall not use an artificial intelligence or an automated decision system in any subsequent review of the claim.

LA SB 246 (Health Insurance AI Requirements) LA

Pending 2027-01-01

H-01.2

R.S. 22:2401(4)

Plain Language

As part of the appeals process for coverage determinations, health insurance issuers must allow covered persons to review and obtain copies of all documents relevant to any AI or automated decision system used in the utilization review or determination process. This is a right to access AI-related documentation that supplements the existing appeals process requirements, giving insureds visibility into the AI tools that influenced their coverage decisions.

(4) Allow covered persons, upon request, to review and have copies of all documents relevant to any artificial intelligence or an automated decision system as defined in R.S. 22:1260.49(A)(1) used in the utilization review or determination process.

MA H 94 (AI Accountability & Consumer Protection) MA

Pre-filed 2025-07-07

H-01.1H-01.3H-01.5

Chapter 93M, Section 3(c)

Plain Language

When an AI system materially influences a consequential decision about a consumer, deployers must: (1) notify the consumer that AI was involved, (2) explain the system's purpose and how it influenced the specific decision, and (3) provide a process for the consumer to appeal or correct adverse decisions. The notification trigger is 'material influence' on a consequential decision — meaning the AI system determines or heavily weighs inputs that directly affect the outcome. This bundles three distinct consumer rights: pre/at-decision notice, explanation, and appeal. The appeal process must cover both adverse decisions (reversal) and corrections (data accuracy).

(c) Consumer Protections: Deployers must: (1) Notify consumers when an AI system materially influences a consequential decision; (2) Provide consumers with: (i) The purpose of the system; (ii) An explanation of how the system influenced the decision; (iii) A process to appeal or correct adverse decisions.

MA H 94 (AI Accountability & Consumer Protection) MA

Pre-filed 2025-07-07

H-01.3

Section 4(c)

Plain Language

Consumers must be notified when AI systems are targeting or influencing them in ways that materially impact their decisions, and when algorithms are used to determine pricing, eligibility, or access to services. This is a real-time notification obligation separate from the general public website disclosure in Section 4(a)-(b). It applies to any corporation using AI for targeting or behavioral influence — not limited to high-risk AI systems. The pricing and eligibility trigger is notable: algorithmic pricing and eligibility determinations always require consumer notification regardless of whether they rise to the level of a 'consequential decision' under Section 1(4).

(c) Consumer Notification: Consumers must be notified when: (1) They are being targeted or influenced by AI systems in a way that materially impacts their decisions; (2) Algorithms are used to determine pricing, eligibility, or access to services.

MA H 96 (Biometric Recognition Technology) MA

Pre-filed 2025-01-17

Ch. 110I, § 4(a)

Plain Language

Covered entities are categorically prohibited from using biometric data to make or assist in making decisions that produce legal effects or similarly significant effects on end users. This is a blanket ban — not a requirement for human oversight or impact assessment — covering a broad range of consequential decisions including financial services, housing, insurance, education, criminal justice, employment, healthcare, and access to basic necessities. Unlike most automated decision-making statutes that require safeguards, this provision prohibits the use of biometric data in such decisions entirely.

(a) Covered entities shall not use biometric data to help make decisions that produce legal effects or similarly significant effects concerning end users. Decisions that include legal effects or similarly significant effects concerning end users include, without limitation, denial or degradation of consequential services or support, such as financial or lending services, housing, insurance, educational enrollment, criminal justice, employment opportunities, health care services, and access to basic necessities, such as food and water.

MA H 97 (AI Consumer Protection) MA

Pre-filed 2025-07-17

H-01.1H-01.2H-01.3H-01.4H-01.5

Ch. 93M § 3(d)

Plain Language

Before making a consequential decision about a consumer using a high-risk AI system, the deployer must: (1) notify the consumer that AI will be used, (2) disclose the system's purpose, the nature of the decision, deployer contact information, and a plain-language description of the system, and (3) inform the consumer about opt-out rights for profiling. If the decision is adverse, the deployer must additionally provide: the principal reasons for the decision (including the AI system's contribution, data types used, and data sources), an opportunity to correct incorrect personal data, and an appeal mechanism that includes human review where technically feasible. All notices must be provided directly, in plain language, in all languages the deployer uses in its business, and in disability-accessible formats. If direct delivery is impossible, a method reasonably calculated to reach the consumer is acceptable.

(d) (1) Not later than 6 months after the effective date of this act, and no later than the time that a deployer deploys a high-risk artificial intelligence 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 system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision before the decision is made; (ii) provide to the consumer a statement disclosing the purpose of the high-risk artificial intelligence system and the nature of the consequential decision; the contact information for the deployer; a description, in plain language, of the high-risk artificial intelligence system; and instructions on how to access the statement required by subsection (5)(a) of this section; and (iii) provide to the consumer information, if applicable, regarding the consumer's right to opt out of the processing of personal data concerning the consumer for purposes of profiling in furtherance of decisions that produce legal or similarly significant effects concerning the consumer. (2) Not later than 6 months after the effective date of this act, a deployer that has deployed a high-risk artificial intelligence system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision concerning a consumer shall, if the consequential decision is adverse to the consumer, provide to the consumer: (i) a statement disclosing the principal reason or reasons for the consequential decision, including: (A) the degree to which, and manner in which, the high-risk artificial intelligence system contributed to the consequential decision; (B) the type of data that was processed by the high-risk artificial intelligence system in making the consequential decision; and (C) the source or sources of the data described in subsection (d)(2)(i)(B) of this section; (ii) an opportunity to correct any incorrect personal data that the high-risk artificial intelligence system processed in making, or as a substantial factor in making, the consequential decision; and (iii) an opportunity to appeal an adverse consequential decision concerning the consumer arising from the deployment of a high-risk artificial intelligence system, which appeal must, if technically feasible, allow for human review unless providing the opportunity for appeal is not in the best interest of the consumer, including in instances in which any delay might pose a risk to the life or safety of such consumer. (3) (i) except as provided in subsection (d)(3)(ii) of this section, a deployer shall provide the notice, statement, contact information, and description required by subsections (c)(1) and (d)(2) of this section: (A) directly to the consumer; (B) in plain language; (C) in all languages in which the deployer, in the ordinary course of the deployer's business, provides contracts, disclaimers, sale announcements, and other information to consumers; and (D) in a format that is accessible to consumers with disabilities. (ii) if the deployer is unable to provide the notice, statement, contact information, and description required by subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section directly to the consumer, the deployer shall make the notice, statement, contact information, and description available in a manner that is reasonably calculated to ensure that the consumer receives the notice, statement, contact information, and description.

Pre-filed 2025-01-14

H-01.6

Chapter 149B, § 2(h)

Plain Language

When employment decisions (hiring, promotion, discipline, termination, compensation) are based in whole or part on electronically monitored data, an employer may not rely primarily on that data. Three requirements apply: (1) the employer must establish meaningful human oversight — including a designated internal reviewer with expertise, authority to override, and adequate time/resources; (2) a human decision-maker must actually review the monitoring data, verify its accuracy, address pending correction requests, and exercise independent judgment; and (3) the human must consider non-monitoring information such as supervisory evaluations, personnel files, work products, or peer reviews.

(h) An employer shall not rely primarily on employee data collected through electronic monitoring when making hiring, promotion, disciplinary decisions up to and including termination, or compensation decisions. For an employer to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph: (i) An employer shall establish meaningful human oversight of such decisions based in whole or in part on data collected through electronic monitoring. (ii) A human decision-maker must actually review any information collected through electronic monitoring, verify that such information is accurate and up to date, review any pending employee requests to correct erroneous data, and exercise independent judgment in making each such decision; and (iii) The human decision-maker must consider information other than information collected through electronic monitoring when making each such decision, such as but not limited to, supervisory or managerial evaluations, personnel files, employee work products, or peer reviews.

Pre-filed 2025-01-14

H-01.1H-01.2

Chapter 149B, § 2(i)

Plain Language

When an employment decision is based in whole or part on electronically monitored data, the employer must disclose to affected employees — at least 30 days before the decision takes effect — four categories of information: that monitoring data was used, which specific tools were used and how they work, the specific data and derived judgments used in the decision, and any non-monitoring information also used. The 30-day advance notice requirement is unusually long and creates a significant operational constraint, effectively requiring employers to finalize their decision rationale a month before implementation.

(i) When an employer makes a hiring, promotion, termination, disciplinary or compensation decision based in whole or part on data gathered through the use of electronic monitoring, it shall disclose to affected employees no less than thirty days prior to the decision going into effect: (i) that the decision was based in whole or part on data gathered through electronic monitoring; (ii) the specific electronic monitoring tool or tools used to gather such data, how the tools work to gather and analyze the data, and the increments of time in which the data is gathered; (iii) the specific data, and judgments based upon such data, used in the decision-making process; and (iv) any information used in the decision-making process gathered through sources other than electronic monitoring.

Pre-filed 2025-01-14

H-01.3

Chapter 149B, § 4(a)-(b)

Plain Language

Employers using ADS tools to evaluate employees or candidates must provide detailed notice at least 10 business days before use. The notice must cover six categories: that an ADS tool will be used, the qualifications/characteristics assessed and data inputs/outputs, data sources and retention policies, results of the most recent impact assessment including disparate impact findings, how to request an alternative non-ADS process or accommodation, and how to request reevaluation or file a civil complaint. The notice must be in plain language, included in job postings, posted on the employer's website in all regularly used languages, provided directly to candidates in their language, and made accessible for persons with disabilities.

(a) Any employer that uses an automated employment decision tool to assess or evaluate an employee or candidate shall notify employees and candidates subject to the tool no less than ten business days before such use: (i) that an automated employment decision tool will be used in connection with the assessment or evaluation of such employee or candidate; (ii) the job qualifications and characteristics that such automated employment decision tool will assess, what employee or candidate data or attributes the tool will use to conduct that assessment, and what kind of outputs the tool will produce as an evaluation of such employee or candidate; (iii) what employee or candidate data is collected for the automated employment decision tool, the source of such data and the employer's data retention policy. Information pursuant to this section shall not be disclosed where such disclosure would violate local, state, or federal law, or interfere with a law enforcement investigation; (iv) the results of the most recent impact assessment of the automated employment decision tool, including any findings of a disparate impact and associated response from the employer, or information about how to access that information if publicly available; (v) information about how an employee or candidate may request an alternative selection process or accommodation that does not involve the use of an automated employment decision tool and details about that alternative process or accommodation process; and (vi) information about how the employee or candidate may: (A) request reevaluation of the employment decision made by the automated employment decision tool in accordance with section one thousand thirteen of this article; and (B) notification of the employee or candidate's right to file a complaint in a civil court in accordance with section seven of this chapter or otherwise exercise the rights described in this chapter. (b) The notice required by this section shall be: (i) written in clear and plain language; (ii) included in each job posting or advertisement for each position for which the automated employment decision tool will be used; (iii) posted on the employer's website in any language that the employer regularly uses to communicate with employees; (iv) provided directly to each candidate who applies for a position in the language with which that candidate communicates with the employer; (v) made available in formats that are reasonably accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (vi) otherwise presented in a manner that ensures the notice clearly and effectively communicates the required information to employees.