Existing law generally regulates artificial intelligence, including by requiring the Office of Emergency Services to, as appropriate, perform a risk analysis of potential threats posed by the use of generative artificial intelligence to California's critical infrastructure, including those that could lead to mass casualty events. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish and maintain a specified program to build internal expertise in artificial intelligence, including its applications, risks, regulatory implications, and civil rights impacts. The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General to submit a public report to the Legislature describing the program, key developments in artificial intelligence law and policy, and recommendations for additional state oversight or safeguards.
Existing law requires a health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group practice that uses generative artificial intelligence to generate written or verbal patient communications pertaining to patient clinical information, as defined, to ensure that those communications include both (1) a disclaimer that indicates to the patient that a communication was generated by generative artificial intelligence, as specified, and (2) clear instructions describing how a patient may contact a human health care provider, employee, or other appropriate person. Existing law exempts from this requirement a communication read and reviewed by a human licensed or certified health care provider. This bill would require developers and deployers, as defined, of an artificial intelligence system that produces a prediction, classification, recommendation, evaluation, or analysis that aids decisionmaking related to diagnosis or treatment, known as a clinical decision support system, to make reasonable efforts to identify clinical decision support systems developed for use by deployers that are known or have a reasonably foreseeable risk for biased impacts resulting from deployment of the system in health programs or activities. The bill would require developers to make a statement describing the intended uses and known or reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the use of the clinical decision support system and certain documentation available to deployers, as specified. The bill would require developers to make reasonable efforts to mitigate known or reasonably foreseeable risk for biased impacts resulting from use of the clinical decision support system in health programs or activities. The bill would require deployers to regularly monitor clinical decision support systems and take reasonable and proportionate steps to mitigate known or reasonably foreseeable risk of biased impacts. The bill would specify that a person, partnership, state or local governmental agency, or corporation may be both a developer and a deployer.
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in this state online with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for the purposes of knowingly deceiving the person about the content of the communication in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or to influence a vote in an election, unless the person using the bot discloses that it is a bot. Existing law defines a "bot" as an automated online account where all or substantially all of the actions or posts of that account are not the result of a person. This bill would require a person who uses a bot to autonomously communicate with another to ensure that the bot discloses to any person with whom the bot communicates when the bot first communicates with the person that the bot is a bot and not a human being, answers truthfully any query from a person regarding its identity as a bot or a human, and refrains from attempting to mislead a person regarding its identity as a bot. The bill would redefine "bot" to mean an automated online account or application that a reasonable person could believe is a human being and with respect to which substantially all of the actions or posts of that account or application are the outputs of generative artificial intelligence, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions a person who uses a bot that is required to comply with a more prescriptive disclosure scheme. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to bring a civil action to punish noncompliance, as prescribed.
Existing law establishes the Department of Technology within the Government Operations Agency. Existing law requires the department to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Existing law generally regulates artificial intelligence, including the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, which, among other things related to the safety of certain artificial intelligence models, requires a large frontier developer to write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework that applies to the large frontier developer's frontier models and describes how the large frontier developer approaches certain safety-related items. Existing law defines "artificial intelligence" as an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. This bill would require the Government Operations Agency to, no later than January 1, 2029, establish an AI Auditor Registry on the agency's internet website allowing AI auditors to register with the agency and allowing natural persons to report misconduct by a registered AI auditor, and require the agency to fix annual registration fees, as specified. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2029, prohibit an unregistered person from offering, selling, or conducting a covered AI audit, as defined, and would require the agency to, among other things, issue a unique registration number to each registered AI auditor and publish information provided by a registered AI auditor on the agency's internet website. The bill would require the registration number of a registered AI auditor to be clearly and conspicuously displayed on all advertising materials offering or soliciting covered AI audit services. The bill would authorize the agency to adopt regulations that are reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the bill. This bill would require an AI auditor that registers with the agency to provide specified information to the agency and would impose various requirements on a registered AI auditor that conducts a covered AI audit, including, among other things, providing the auditee with a report that includes a signed and dated statement indicating that the audit was conducted according to the provisions of this bill. This bill would require a registered AI auditor to adhere to various standards of independence, objectivity, and integrity, including not seeking, soliciting, negotiating for, or accepting employment with an auditee while participating in the audit and not conducting a covered AI audit if the auditor has a financial, business, employment, or other interest or relationship that would reasonably be expected to impair the auditor's independence or objectivity. The bill would prohibit a registered AI auditor from preventing an employee from engaging in, or from retaliating against an employee who has engaged in, specified whistleblower activity. The bill would authorize the agency to investigate alleged violations of the bill, as specified, and provide that a violation constitutes grounds for removal from the registry and referral to the Attorney General or other appropriate enforcement authority. This bill would create the AI Auditors' Registration Fund within the State Treasury, to be administered by the agency, and would require that all moneys collected or received by the agency pursuant to the above-described provisions be deposited into the fund to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to administer the above-described provisions. Existing law establishes the California Board of Accountancy, which is within the Department of Consumer Affairs, and requires the board to license and regulate accountants in this state. This bill would exempt a registered AI auditor licensed or authorized to practice public accountancy and a firm holding a permit to practice public accountancy issued by the California Board of Accountancy, as specified, from complying with certain requirements related to reporting information to the agency and standards of independence, objectivity, and integrity under the bill if certain requirements are met. The bill would require the Government Operations Agency to, if the agency determines that a certified public accountant, public accountant, or accounting firm in good standing has violated this bill, notify the accountant or firm and the California Board of Accountancy in writing, and would require the board to investigate the complaint and provide the agency with a report of its findings and any resulting action.
Existing federal law, through copyright, provides authors of original works of authorship, as defined, with certain rights and protections. Existing federal law generally gives the owner of the copyright the right to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords and the right to distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public. Existing federal law provides that sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not subject to copyright but are subject to similar rights and protections under the Classics Protection and Access Act. Existing law requires, before each time that a generative artificial intelligence system or service, as defined, or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service, released on or after January 1, 2022, is made available to Californians for use, regardless of whether the terms of that use include compensation, a developer of the system or service to post on the developer's internet website documentation, as specified, regarding the data used to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service. This bill would require a developer of a generative artificial intelligence model to make available on its internet website a mechanism allowing a rights owner to request information about the developer's use of the rights owner's covered materials that would allow the rights owner to provide the developer with, among other things, registration, preregistration, or index numbers for one or more covered materials. The bill would require a developer to document and retain any requests received from rights owners for a specified time period. The bill would, subject to specified exceptions, require a developer to, within 30 days of receiving that request from the rights owner, assess whether the developer used the rights owner's covered materials to develop the model and provide the rights owner with a list of covered materials, as specified. The bill would provide that each day following the 30-day period that a developer fails to provide a rights owner with that information constitutes a discrete violation. The bill would authorize a rights owner who complies with specified requirements for submitting a request that is not provided with information according to these provisions to bring, subject to a certain notice and cure opportunity, a civil action against the developer for specified relief. The bill would provide that its requirements do not apply to a model that meets certain criteria, including, among other things, being trained exclusively using data the developer makes publicly available at no cost to users. The bill would provide that it does not impose liability on a telecommunications service, information service, or cable service provider, as specified. The bill would define various terms for these purposes.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and requires the department to, among other things, bring civil actions to enforce the act. Existing law requires, on or before September 1, 2024, the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. This bill would generally regulate the development and deployment of an automated decision system (ADS) used to make consequential decisions, as defined. The bill would define "automated decision system" to mean a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is designed or used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons. This bill would require a developer of a covered ADS, as defined, to take certain actions, including providing a potential deployer instructions explaining how the covered ADS should be used by the deployer to make or facilitate a consequential decision. This bill would require a deployer of a covered ADS to take certain actions, including provide certain disclosures to a subject of a consequential decision made or facilitated by the covered ADS that results in an adverse outcome, as defined, and provide the subject with an opportunity to appeal the outcome of the consequential decision, as prescribed. This bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring a specified civil action for noncompliance.
Existing law establishes the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice, with charge of all legal matters in which the state is interested, except as specified. Existing law imposes various responsibilities on the Attorney General related to consumer protection, including, among others, the supervision of charitable trusts and the enforcement of antitrust laws. Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts that are unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement through civil actions. This bill would enact the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, to prohibit a person, as described, from distributing or making recommendations based on the use of a pricing algorithm to 2 or more competitors, as defined, under specified circumstances, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm processes competitor data, as defined. This bill would also prohibit a person from using the recommendation of a pricing algorithm that processes competitor data, as specified, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm uses or incorporates competitor data. The bill would establish an affirmative defense to liability under this prohibition for a person who demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that they exercised reasonable due diligence before using the recommendations of a pricing algorithm, as specified. The bill would specify when the use, recommendation, or distribution of a pricing algorithm constitutes separate violations. The bill would declare that these provisions do not apply if all of the competitor data processed by the pricing algorithm was collected more than one year before the use, recommendation, or distribution of the pricing algorithm. The bill would declare that a contract that violates these provisions is to that extent void. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring a civil action for violation of the above-described provisions to seek restitution, punitive damages, a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, and other appropriate relief, as provided. The bill would declare that its provisions shall not impair or limit the applicability of antitrust laws, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions the development, distribution, output, or use of a credit score or other computational tool either subject to specified law or provided by a commercial credit reporting agency, as specified.
(1) Existing law generally regulates artificial intelligence, including by requiring, on or before January 1, 2026, and before each time thereafter, that a generative artificial intelligence system or service, or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service, released on or after January 1, 2022, is made publicly available to Californians for use, the developer of the system or service to post on the developer's internet website documentation regarding the data used by the developer to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service, as prescribed. This bill would enact the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) that would, among other things related to ensuring the safety of a foundation model, as defined, developed by a frontier developer, require a large frontier developer to write, implement, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework that applies to the large frontier developer's frontier models and describes how the large frontier developer approaches, among other things, incorporating national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. The TFAIA would also require a large frontier developer to transmit to the Office of Emergency Services a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk, as defined, resulting from internal use of its frontier models, as specified. The TFAIA would require the Office of Emergency Services to establish a mechanism to be used by a frontier developer or a member of the public to report, as prescribed, a critical safety incident, as defined, and would also require the Office of Emergency Services to establish a mechanism to be used by a large frontier developer to confidentially submit summaries of any assessments of the potential for catastrophic risk resulting from internal use of its frontier models, as prescribed. The TFAIA would exempt from the California Public Records Act a report of a critical safety incident submitted to the Office of Emergency Services, a report of assessments of catastrophic risk from internet use, and a covered employee report made pursuant to the whistleblower protections described below. The TFAIA would impose a civil penalty for noncompliance with the TFAIA to be enforced by the Attorney General, as prescribed. (2) Existing law establishes the Department of Technology within the Government Operations Agency. Existing law requires the department to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. This bill would establish within the Government Operations Agency a consortium required to develop a framework for the creation of a public cloud computing cluster to be known as "CalCompute" that advances the development and deployment of artificial intelligence that is safe, ethical, equitable, and sustainable by, among other things, fostering research and innovation that benefits the public, as prescribed. The bill would require the Government Operations Agency to, on or before January 1, 2027, submit a report from the consortium to the Legislature with that framework and would dissolve the consortium upon submission of that report. The bill would make those provisions operative only upon an appropriation in a budget act, or other measure, for its purposes. (3) Existing law prohibits employers and their agents from making, adopting, or enforcing a rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to certain entities or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a law, as specified, and prohibits retaliation against an employee for, among other things, exercising these rights. This bill would, among other things related to protecting whistleblowers working with foundation models, prohibit a frontier developer from making, adopting, enforcing, or entering into a rule, regulation, policy, or contract that prevents a covered employee, as defined, from disclosing, or retaliates against a covered employee for disclosing, information to the Attorney General, a federal authority, a person with authority over the covered employee, or another covered employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the reported issue, if the covered employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses that the frontier developer's activities pose a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk or that the frontier developer has violated the TFAIA. This bill would require a large frontier developer to provide a certain internal process through which a covered employee may anonymously disclose information to the large frontier developer if the covered employee believes in good faith that the information indicates that the large frontier developer's activities present a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk or that the large frontier developer violated the TFAIA. The bill would specify provisions particular to the enforcement of those whistleblower protections and would authorize attorney's fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation. This bill would preempt any rule, regulation, code, ordinance, or other law adopted by a city, county, city and county, municipality, or local agency on or after January 1, 2025, specifically related to the regulation of frontier developers with respect to their management of catastrophic risk. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
(1) Existing law prohibits the false impersonation of another person in either their personal or official capacity with the intent to steal or defraud, as specified. This bill would define various terms related to artificial intelligence and digital replication, and would clarify that false impersonation includes the use of a digital replica with the intent to impersonate another for purposes of these and other criminal provisions. (2) Existing law creates a civil cause of action against any person who knowingly uses the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness of another person, without their consent, for specified purposes. When a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in an advertisement or other publication is incidental and not essential to the purpose of the publication, existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that failure to obtain the consent of an employee was not a knowing use of an employee's photograph or likeness. This bill would clarify that, for purposes of this cause of action, a voice or likeness includes a digital replica, as defined. The bill would also remove the provisions establishing the rebuttable presumption when an employee's likeness or photograph appears in an advertisement or other publication. (3) Existing law governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings. Existing law prescribes procedures for the authentication of photographs and audio and video recordings. This bill would require the Judicial Council, by no later than January 1, 2027, to review the impact of artificial intelligence on the admissibility of proffered evidence in court proceedings and develop any necessary rules of court to assist courts in assessing claims that proffered evidence has been generated by or manipulated by artificial intelligence and determining whether such evidence is admissible. (4) Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law, establishes a statutory cause of action for unfair competition, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and establishes remedies and penalties in that regard, including civil penalties. This bill would require, by December 1, 2026, and except as provided, any person or entity that makes available to consumers any artificial intelligence technology that enables a user to create a digital replica, as defined, to provide a consumer warning that unlawful use of the technology to depict another person without prior consent may result in civil or criminal liability for the user. The bill would require the warning to be hyperlinked on any page or screen where the consumer may input a prompt to the technology and included in the terms and conditions for use of the technology. The bill would also impose a civil penalty for violations of the requirement. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3344 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 683 to be operative only if this bill and SB 683 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations. This bill would require an employer to 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 all workers that will foreseeably be directly affected by the ADS, as specified. The bill would require the employer to maintain an updated list of all ADS currently in use. The bill would require an employer to notify, as provided, a job applicant that the employer utilizes an ADS when making hiring decisions, if the employer will use the ADS in making decisions for that position. The bill would prohibit an employer from using an ADS that does certain functions and would limit the purposes and manner in which an ADS may be used to make decisions. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker's own data primarily used by an ADS to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied on an ADS to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written notice, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bill's provisions, as specified, and would authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil action. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty. The bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bill's provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined. This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.
