Disclaimer: This page provides general informational summaries only and does not constitute legal advice. AI-generated content may contain errors. Always consult a qualified attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
Read full disclaimer →
AI Summary
AB 2575 mandates disclosures for clinical decision support systems, specifies the required time and manner for disclosure, and states no reimbursement is required for local agencies.
Business Impact
If you use AI in health care, you must provide disclosures and allow overrides or face compliance issues.
What do these statuses mean? ▼
Introduced
— Filed in the legislature; not yet heard in committee
In Committee
— Assigned to and being reviewed by a legislative committee
Passed
— Approved by one or both chambers; awaiting further action
Signed / Enacted
— Signed into law by the governor; may or may not be in effect yet
Dead / Vetoed
— Vetoed, failed to pass, or session expired without action
Unknown
— Status data not yet available or awaiting classification
Affected Industries
Topics How we classify →
What This Means
AB 2575 requires health facilities and clinics using clinical decision support systems to provide specific disclosures to any licensed health care professional or other person using or viewing outputs, specifies the required time and manner, and supports professional judgment in care. No state reimbursement is required for local agencies.
Key Provisions
- Requires written notice for clinical decision support system use to any licensed health care professional or other person using or viewing outputs, specifying time and manner, and includes notice of override authority (Section 1).
- Extends existing prohibitions on AI harm defenses to include clinical decision support systems, specifically addressing the inability to claim that the failure to override a clinical decision support system output is a superseding cause (Section 1).
- Prohibits retaliation or discrimination against workers for using professional judgment in patient care (Section 2).
- Clarifies liability in cases involving clinical decision support systems (Section 3).
- Expands the scope of a crime by imposing new requirements on health facilities, clinics, physician's offices, or offices of a group practice (Section 4).
- Declares it is the policy of the state that a worker providing direct patient care be free to use their professional judgment (Section 4).
- No state reimbursement required for local agencies (Section 5).
Latest Legislative Action
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
Bill Sponsors
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Ortega | Author |
Compliance Checklist
Provide written notice of AI use and disclosure to staff
Who: Health facilities and clinics
Penalty: Potential expansion of criminal liability
Who: Health facilities and clinics
Penalty: Potential expansion of criminal liability
Ensure disclaimers are included in AI-generated communications
Who: Health facilities and clinics
Penalty: Potential expansion of criminal liability
Who: Health facilities and clinics
Penalty: Potential expansion of criminal liability
Related & Companion Bills
Full Legal Analysis
AB 2575 introduces requirements for health facilities, clinics, physician's offices, or offices of a group practice that use clinical decision support systems in patient care. These entities must provide written notice to any licensed health care professional or other person using or viewing outputs from these systems, specifying the required time and manner for the disclosure. The bill requires disclosures to include a notice that a worker providing direct patient care is authorized to override the output of a clinical decision support system. The bill introduces new requirements for clinical decision support systems, not all AI tools. The bill allows health care workers to override system outputs if deemed necessary within their professional judgment or to comply with applicable law. The bill prohibits retaliation or discrimination against workers for using their professional judgment in patient care. Workers facing retaliation can file complaints with the Labor Commissioner. Furthermore, the bill extends existing prohibitions on AI harm defenses to include clinical decision support systems, specifically addressing the inability to claim that the failure to override a clinical decision support system output is a superseding cause severing liability. The bill expands the scope of a crime by imposing new requirements on health facilities, clinics, physician's offices, or offices of a group practice. The bill declares it is the policy of the state that a worker providing direct patient care be free to use their professional judgment. The bill specifies that no state reimbursement is required for local agencies due to these mandates.
Official Source
Official Bill Text
View AB 2575 on official legislature website →
Related Topics
Affected Industries
More California AI Legislation
SB 947
Employment: automated decision systems.
High
SB 1248
State agencies: automated decision systems.
High
AB 412
Generative artificial intelligence: training data: copyrighted materials.
High
SB 903
Mental health professionals: artificial intelligence.
Medium
AB 1988
Companion chatbots: crisis interruption pauses.
Medium
SB813
California AI Standards and Safety Commission: independent verificati…
Medium
View All CA Laws →
More California AI Laws
Browse all published AI bills and regulations for California.