Employment: automated decision systems.

The bill document was reformatted from a printed layout with page numbers, line numbers, and page headers/footers into a web-based presentation with navigation menus (skip to content, home, accessibility, FAQ, feedback, sitemap, login), a structured digest key section, and version tracking UI elements.

A 'Date Published: 08/21/2026 09:00 PM' timestamp and a structured 'Digest Key' block (Vote: MAJORITY, Appropriation: NO, Fiscal Committee: YES, Local Program: NO) were added as web metadata elements.

New Section 1526.7 sets the operative date of the entire part at July 1, 2027, giving employers roughly a year to comply before the law takes effect.

Throughout the bill, references to 'worker' are replaced with 'employee' in key provisions including data access rights, postuse notices, and anti-retaliation protections. Since 'employee' is generally narrower than 'worker' (which can include independent contractors), this narrows who is covered by those specific protections.

In multiple provisions (sole reliance prohibition, primary reliance trigger, postuse notice trigger, and the prohibition on using uncorroborated ADS output), 'deactivation' is removed from the list of covered decisions, leaving only 'disciplinary or termination' decisions. This narrows the types of employment actions subject to the bill's requirements.

Section 1526.3 (preemption of other state notice requirements) is expanded with a carve-out: it shall not apply to any quotas as defined in Section 2100 or any other automated standards applied to working conditions of employees, meaning those remain subject to other state laws.

The federal exemption (for national security, military, space, defense, and aircraft development) is reworded from 'exempt from its provisions' to 'does not prohibit,' and adds an explicit condition that the ADS use must be 'reasonably necessary to comply with' the federal requirement, making the exemption slightly more conditional.

The employee's data access right is changed from receiving 'a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker's own data primarily used by an ADS' to receiving 'a meaningful, objective description of the most recent 12 months of the employee's own data used by the ADS.' Employers no longer must provide the raw data itself, only a description.

The human reviewer requirement is narrowed: instead of conducting an independent investigation and compiling corroborating information broadly, the reviewer must now 'corroborate the decision using data that was collected or used to produce the ADS output or other relevant corroborating or supporting information,' limiting what sources the reviewer may draw from.

A new burden-of-proof provision (Section 1526.1(c)) states that once it is demonstrated an ADS was used to make a disciplinary or deactivation decision, the employer must demonstrate either that it did not primarily rely on the ADS or that it complied with Sections 1522 and 1524. This shifts the evidentiary burden to the employer.

The Labor Commissioner's enforcement authority is changed from 'shall enforce' to 'may enforce,' making enforcement discretionary rather than mandatory.

New definitions are added for 'Employ,' 'Employee,' and an expanded 'Employer' definition that explicitly includes farm labor contractors (Business and Professions Code Section 1682) and foreign labor contractors (Section 9998.1), as well as a new 'Employee data' definition.

Section 1526.6 no longer states that the bill 'does not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government.' This broad exemption is deleted, leaving only the narrow exemption for systems required by federal statute, regulation, or binding contract related to aircraft development or national security/military/space/defense purposes.

Assembly Member Kalra added as a coauthor alongside Assembly Member Ward.

Section 1522(a)(4) now reads 'Predict or and take adverse action' instead of 'Predict or take adverse action,' introducing an apparent typo with the extra word 'and.'

Removed the private right of action that allowed any worker or their exclusive representative to bring a civil action in court for damages caused by a violation. Enforcement is now limited to the Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors only.

Deleted the prohibition on using individualized worker data as inputs or outputs to inform compensation unless the employer could demonstrate differences were based on cost differentials or directly related to hired tasks.

Deleted the provision prohibiting employers from using customer ratings as the only or primary input data for employment-related decisions.

Narrowed the definition of 'predictive behavior analysis' by removing 'or modifies' - it now only covers systems that predict a worker's behavior, beliefs, or intentions, not systems that also modify them.

Removed the standalone definition of 'individualized' (specific to an individual or group with particular personal characteristics, behaviors, or biometrics), consistent with the removal of the compensation provision that relied on it.

Expanded the federal government exemption from a general carve-out for compliance with federal requirements to specifically cover ADS use required by or reasonably necessary to comply with federal statutes, regulations, or binding contracts relating to (1) development of aircraft for national airspace use and (2) development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes. Added a limiting clause that the exemption applies only to operations covered by such federal requirements.

The definition of 'predictive behavior analysis' was narrowed from covering any system that 'predicts, infers, predicts or modifies a worker's behavior, beliefs, intentions, personality, emotional state, or other characteristic or behavior' to only systems that 'predict or modify a worker's behavior, beliefs, or intentions.' This removes coverage of inference-based systems and drops references to personality and emotional state.

The prohibition on conducting predictive behavior analysis was narrowed from a blanket ban to only applying when the employer has 'the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision.' Employers can now conduct such analysis for other purposes without violating the bill.

The prohibition in Section 1522(a)(4) was narrowed by removing 'identify' and 'profile,' so it now only prohibits predicting or taking adverse action against a worker for exercising legal rights, rather than also prohibiting identification or profiling for that purpose.

The $500 civil penalty was clarified as applying 'per violation' rather than as a single flat penalty, meaning an employer with multiple violations would face multiplied penalties.

The private right of action in Section 1526.1(b) was changed from allowing workers to sue for 'damages caused by that adverse action, including punitive damages' to simply 'damages caused by the violation.' Punitive damages remain available under subdivision (d) but are no longer explicitly listed in the private action provision.

The word 'alternatively' was removed from the public prosecutor enforcement provision (Section 1526.1(c)), changing it from 'may also alternatively be enforced' to 'may also be enforced,' which could affect how concurrent enforcement actions are structured.

The prohibition on conducting predictive behavior analysis on a worker (Section 1522(a)(3)) was narrowed. Previously it banned all predictive behavior analysis on workers. Now it only prohibits such analysis conducted 'with the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision.' This means employers can conduct predictive behavior analysis for other purposes without violating this section.

The prohibition in Section 1522(a)(4) on identifying, profiling, or taking adverse action against a worker for exercising legal rights was narrowed by removing 'predict' from the list of prohibited actions. The section now reads 'Identify, profile, or take adverse action' rather than 'Identify, profile, predict, or take adverse action.'

The threshold for triggering the human review requirement (Section 1522(b)(2)) and the postuse notice obligation (Section 1524(a)) was raised. Previously these applied when an employer 'used' an ADS to 'assist in making' a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision. Now they apply only when the employer 'primarily relies upon' an ADS to make such a decision. This means employers who use an ADS as one input among many (without primarily relying on it) are no longer subject to the human review and notice requirements.

Assembly Member Ward was added as a coauthor, indicating broader legislative coalition support for the bill.

Section 1522(b)(2) changed from 'If an employer uses an ADS output to assist in making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision' to 'If an employer primarily relies upon an ADS output to assist...' This raises the threshold for when an independent human investigation is required, meaning employers who use an ADS as one factor among many (but not the primary one) would no longer trigger the corroboration requirement.

Section 1524(a) changed from 'An employer that uses an ADS to assist in making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision' to 'An employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to assist...' This narrows when the written postuse notice must be provided to the affected worker, aligning it with the same 'primarily relies upon' standard.

Section 1520(d)(1) narrowed the definition of 'employer' for governmental entities. The old version included broad language covering 'any other political subdivision of the state, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof.' The new version replaces this with a specific list: cities, counties, charter counties, municipalities, charter municipalities, special districts, transit districts, UC (upon regent agreement), CSU, community college districts, school districts, or any other governmental entity. This removes the open-ended catch-all for agencies and instrumentalities.

Section 1526.1(d) corrected 'pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b)' to 'pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b),' using the correct legal term for subsections of a statute.

Fixed typo in Section 1524(c)(4): 'vender' corrected to 'vendor.'

Section numbering corrected: the old version had two sections both labeled 'SEC. 2.' The new version properly numbers the statewide concern declaration as SEC. 2 and the severability clause as SEC. 3.

The definition of 'employer' in Section 1520(d)(1) was expanded to explicitly include charter counties, charter municipalities, transit districts, the University of California (upon agreement by the regents), the California State University, and community college districts, in addition to the previously listed entities.

A new Section 2 was added declaring that the act addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair under Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution, and therefore applies to all cities including charter cities. This is a preemptive measure to prevent local governments from arguing the bill does not apply to them.

The original Section 2 (severability clause) was renumbered as Section 3 to accommodate the new statewide concern declaration inserted as Section 2.