State AI law
California
AI laws
We track 139 artificial-intelligence bills and regulations in California. 83 have been signed or enacted.
Last updated Oct 12, 2026 · How we collect and check bills
Where California’s bills stand
139 bills- Introduced
- 0
- In committee
- 0
- Passed a chamber
- 0
- Signed or enacted
- 83
- Dead or vetoed
- 56
Overview
How California regulates AI
California has 139 published AI-related bills in our register, 83 of them signed or enacted. Every bill below links to its own page with the status, dates and a plain-English summary.
Industries these bills touch
California AI law guides
Deepfake Laws in California
California has enacted deepfake legislation. See how it compares with other states, including penalties, scope and enforcement.
Coming into force
Signed California laws with an effective date still ahead.
All California deadlines →- Jan 1, 2027 AB 1979 · Health care services: artificial intelligence.
- Jan 1, 2027 AB 2392 · Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intelligence systems: procurement standards: training.
- Jan 1, 2027 AB 2504 · Community colleges: artificial intelligence: pilot program.
- Jan 1, 2027 AB1609 · Customer service chatbots.
- Jan 1, 2027 AB1792 · Pupil instruction: health framework: sexual health.
- Jan 1, 2027 AB1946 · Reporting mechanism: child sexual abuse material.
- Jan 1, 2027 AB2713 · California AI Transparency Act: system provenance data.
- Jan 1, 2027 AB853 · California AI Transparency Act.
California AI bills
RSS feed for CaliforniaMental health professionals: artificial intelligence.
Vetoed. SB 903, the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, would have limited AI in California psychotherapy to administrative and supplementary support. Recording or transcribing sessions, or AI triage, would have needed the patient's informed consent, and AI could not make therapeutic decisions, produce diagnoses or treatment plans, detect emotions or screen patients without a licensed professional's review. Companion chatbots could not be marketed as therapy. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, calling it overly broad and saying it would restrict useful clinical tools and reach general-purpose AI.
Attorneys, arbitrators, judicial officers, and alternative resolution providers.
California's SB 574 sets rules for generative AI in legal work. Attorneys may not delegate the practice of law to generative AI; when using it they must keep confidential, personal identifying and other nonpublic information out of systems not restricted to them and those they authorize under confidentiality duties, take reasonable steps to verify outputs, including all citations, correct hallucinated output, and disclose its use to the court for documents they submit. Court filings may not contain citations the responsible attorney has not personally verified. Arbitrators may not delegate decision-making to generative AI. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 858); effective January 1, 2027.
Digital replicas.
California's SB 1111 clarifies that the voice or likeness protected by Civil Code § 3344, the right to sue over knowing use of a person's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on products or in advertising without consent, includes a digital replica: a computer-generated, highly realistic representation readily identifiable as a person's voice or visual likeness. It drops the presumption that using an employee's incidental likeness without consent was not knowing. New Penal Code § 540 makes using a digital replica with intent to impersonate someone false impersonation for crimes such as §§ 528.5, 529 and 530. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 862); effective January 1, 2027.
Workplace surveillance tools.
AB 1883 added Part 5.8 (commencing with Section 1580) to Division 2 of the Labor Code. With certain exceptions, it prohibits an employer, including public employers, from using a workplace surveillance tool that uses artificial intelligence to, among other things, collect neural data or recognize an individual's emotional state. The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors may enforce it, with civil penalties of up to $500 per violation. Exemptions apply where use is reasonably necessary to comply with federal law or federal contracts for aircraft, national security, military, or space work.
Health curriculum framework: human trafficking and online safety.
AB 1766 added Education Code Section 33546.5. When the health curriculum framework is next revised on or after January 1, 2027, the Instructional Quality Commission must consider including content on human trafficking and online safety, including how to stay safe from sexually exploitative materials and deepfakes online and foundational digital citizenship skills. The Department of Education must also maintain related information and recommended educator training on its website.
Employment: technological displacement: notice.
SB 951 amended Labor Code Sections 1400.5 and 1401 and added Section 1402.7. An employer giving notice of a mass layoff, relocation, or termination caused in whole or in substantial part by an artificial intelligence system or other automated technology replacing or automating positions must include specified information, such as the job functions that will be automated. The Employment Development Department must publish summaries of these notices and a quarterly statewide summary of technological displacement, and must report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028 on AI's effects on hiring practices across industries and occupations.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
Vetoed. AB 2575 would have barred California employers from retaliating against workers providing direct patient care based solely on their override of, or reliance on, a clinical decision support system (AI that aids decisions on timing of care, diagnosis or treatment), with enforcement by the Labor Commissioner. In lawsuits over harm from such a system, its developer or deployer could not have argued that a clinician's failure to override it cut off liability. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, saying its anti-retaliation test set a higher bar than other protections and would make the Labor Commissioner judge the medical standard of care.
Employment: automated decision systems.
California's SB 947 limits how employers, including public employers and labor contractors, use automated decision systems (ADS) such as AI tools, starting July 1, 2027. Employers may not use an ADS to violate labor or civil-rights laws, infer a protected status, or predict and punish workers for exercising their rights, and may not rely solely on an ADS to discipline or fire. When they primarily rely on one, a human must corroborate the output, and the worker gets a written notice and can request a description of their data used. $500 per violation. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 859).
California AI Transparency Act: system provenance data.
California's AB 2713 rewrites the large-online-platform duties of the California AI Transparency Act (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.3.1). From January 1, 2027, large online platforms must detect provenance data on content they distribute, show in their interface whether system provenance data or a digital signature identifies content as generated or substantially altered by a generative AI system or captured by a camera or other capture device, and let users inspect that data. They may not, to the extent technically feasible, knowingly strip it. Only data compliant or interoperable with widely adopted standards is covered. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 856); effective January 1, 2027.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 1979 sets rules for AI in clinical care. Health facilities such as hospitals, clinics, physician offices and group practices must take reasonable steps so licensed providers keep independent professional judgment whenever care is informed by a clinical decision support system, and may not use AI to independently perform licensed clinical work, or to direct unlicensed staff doing it. Businesses offering health care chatbots that consumers use to manage their health information or to diagnose, treat or manage a condition are treated as health care providers under the state's medical privacy law (CMIA). Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 854); effective January 1, 2027.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
California's SB 503 targets bias in clinical AI. Developers and deployers (health facilities, clinics and medical practices) of clinical decision support systems, AI that aids decisions on timing of care, diagnosis or treatment, must make reasonable efforts to find systems with known or foreseeable risk of biased impacts based on protected characteristics. Developers must mitigate those risks and give deployers a statement of uses and risks plus documentation on training data, bias testing and monitoring; deployers must monitor the systems and take reasonable steps to mitigate bias. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 857); effective January 1, 2027.
Public postsecondary education: generative artificial intelligence systems: procurement standards: training.
California's community colleges and CSU must, and the University of California is asked to, form a working group that by January 1, 2028 recommends procurement standards and user training for generative AI systems bought for education. Standards must require a documented risk assessment, safeguards against harmful output, no engagement-driven sycophancy, self-harm monitoring with human escalation, incident reporting, data-minimization and retention policies, and disclosure of training data sources. Until standards exist, each systemwide GenAI contract triggers a report to the Legislature within 60 days. Effective January 1, 2027.
Autonomous vehicles.
California's SB 1246 adds duties for autonomous vehicle manufacturers from July 1, 2028. Remote drivers must be in the U.S. and hold a license valid in California, of the right class. Manufacturers must keep enough communications capacity for remote support, immediately dispatch local incident technicians when a crash or incident immobilizes a vehicle or blocks traffic or when officials ask, alert local jurisdictions in fleetwide failures, acknowledge geofencing messages within two minutes, and report response data to the DMV quarterly. Cities and counties may seek penalties up to $5,000 or $10,000. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 1021); effective January 1, 2027, operative July 1, 2028.
Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.
California's SB 1159 makes clear that AI systems, autonomous agents, robots and other nonhuman entities are not 'persons' or 'members of the public' who can engage with government under the Public Records Act, the open-meeting laws, the Legislative Open Records Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Coastal Act and CEQA. People may still use AI or assistive technology for their own participation at an ordinary volume. Agencies may use AI detection tools, and knowingly using AI to falsely represent that a natural person engaged with an agency is banned. Signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 863); effective January 1, 2027.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's SB 1000 amends the California AI Transparency Act, operative since August 2, 2026. Any producer of a generative AI system publicly accessible in California is now covered (no 1,000,000-user threshold). Providers must offer a free disclosure verification tool (formerly the AI detection tool) and, where technically feasible, embed latent disclosures, now including whether the system created or altered the content, in AI image, video and audio. The manifest-disclosure option is dropped. Assistive-technology systems are exempt until 2029; falsely claiming that status costs $50,000 per violation. Urgency statute signed September 30, 2026 (Chapter 861); effective immediately.
Public employees: notice: artificial intelligence performing service within scope of work.
Vetoed. AB 2656 would have required California public employers to give a recognized employee organization at least 45 days' written notice before taking action to develop, purchase or require the use of generative AI to perform a service within the scope of work of a job classification it represents. Governor Newsom vetoed it on September 30, 2026, saying it would add redundant administrative layers for public agencies, slow even harmless tools, and that the issue is best handled through collective bargaining.
Customer service chatbots.
California's AB 1609 applies to businesses with over $500 million in national gross annual revenue. They may not represent that a customer service chatbot is human, and must clearly disclose that it is artificially generated if a reasonable person would likely be misled. During regular business hours every customer service platform must let customers request a human agent, and the business must make a good faith effort to connect within 15 minutes or book a call within one business day, with holds of at most 15 minutes (one hour total). Public prosecutors may seek up to $5,000, then $10,000 per violation. Signed September 28, 2026 (Chapter 733); effective January 1, 2027.
Tenancy: digitally altered images: disclosure.
AB 2025 added Civil Code Section 1940.11 and amended Business and Professions Code Section 10140.8. A person who includes a digitally altered image (an image altered through photo editing software or artificial intelligence to add, remove, or change elements), in an advertisement or promotional material for rental of real property must include a disclosure and, in most cases, provide the unaltered image. The requirement does not apply to renderings not originally created with a capture device. Violations by real estate licensees are violations of the Real Estate Law. It extends the 2025 sale-listing rule (AB 723) to rentals.
Postsecondary education: sexual harassment, harassment, intimidation, and bullying policies: student training.
AB 2212 amended Education Code Section 66262.5 and related provisions of the Equity in Higher Education Act. Commencing August 1, 2027, it defines digitized sexually explicit material, meaning realistic depictions created by digitization, including computer-generated nude body parts or sexual conduct the person did not engage in, along with sextortion and technology-facilitated sexual harassment, and revises the definitions of sexual harassment and sexual exploitation that campus policies and student training must address.
Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.
California's AB 502 rewrites Elections Code § 20012 on deceptive election deepfakes. No one may, with malice, knowingly distribute an ad or election communication with materially deceptive content (intentionally digitally created or altered media, such as deepfakes, that falsely appears authentic) of a California candidate or elected official, if material to voters or to election confidence, in the 30 days before an election, or of an elections official or voting equipment from 30 days before to 38 days after. Recognizable satire is exempt. Those depicted, candidates, committees and elections officials may sue. Urgency statute signed September 19, 2026 (Chapter 333); effective immediately.
Elections: deceptive audio or visual media.
AB 686 amended Elections Code Section 20010 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 35 to extend the election deceptive media law (originally AB 730 of 2019, extended by AB 972 of 2022) from January 1, 2027 to January 1, 2031. The law prohibits distributing, with actual malice and within 60 days of an election, materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate intended to injure the candidate or deceive voters, unless the media discloses that it has been manipulated, and gives depicted candidates rights to injunctive relief and damages.
Community colleges: artificial intelligence: pilot program.
California's AB 2504 creates the Future of Creative Industries Pilot Program at up to 10 community colleges to retrain workers in film, TV, music, touring and live events who have been or may be displaced by generative AI, such as sound engineers, voice actors, concept artists and entry-level staff. The Chancellor's office designs it with creative-worker unions and industry, sets eligibility by June 30, 2027, starts it by July 1, 2028 and reports results by January 1, 2032. It operates only if the Legislature funds it and is repealed January 1, 2033. Signed September 18, 2026 (Chapter 305).
Pupil instruction: health framework: sexual health.
California's AB 1792 (Education Code § 51900.3) requires the Instructional Quality Commission, in the next revision of the Health Framework for California Public Schools, to consider including, and recommending to the State Board of Education, sexual health content teaching pupils about dating abuse and digital violence. AI figures in the digital-safety part: understanding the risks of nonconsensual intimate imagery, deepfakes, online grooming, sextortion, stalking and the misuse of generative AI. The content also covers legal rights and support resources and LGBTQIA+ pupils' experiences. Signed September 18, 2026 (Chapter 273); effective January 1, 2027.
False advertising: synthetic performers.
California's SB 1050 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17610) makes it unlawful to create and cause to be published an ad that prominently includes a synthetic performer without a clear and conspicuous disclosure, worded like "this performance features a synthetic performer" or "no human performer is depicted." A synthetic performer is a generative-AI figure or voice that realistically appears to be a human performer but is not any identifiable person. Ads for expressive works and translation or accessibility uses are exempt. Ad outlets served with a court order must pull a violating ad. Signed September 16, 2026 (Chapter 246); effective January 1, 2027.
Pupil instruction: digital wellness.
AB 2071 amended Education Code Sections 51928 and 51929. By January 1, 2028, the State Department of Education must develop a plan to expand digital wellness instruction in public schools. The plan must include age-appropriate resources, strategies for keeping curriculum current with rapidly evolving digital and artificial intelligence technology, guidance for under-resourced schools, family engagement, and educator support. The bill's findings cite the effects of AI-powered technologies and AI-generated content on youth.
Student personal information.
AB 1159 amended the K-12 and early learning student privacy laws (KOPIPA and ELPIPA) in the Business and Professions Code and enacted the Higher Education Student Information Protection Act. Among other changes, it prohibits an operator of a site, service, or application used for school purposes from using covered student information, including persistent unique identifiers, to train a generative artificial intelligence system or service or to develop an artificial intelligence system. It adopts the Civil Code Section 3110 definitions of artificial intelligence and generative AI. The higher education act is operative July 1, 2027.
Toys: companion chatbots.
California bans toys with companion chatbots until 2031. From January 1, 2027, no one may make, sell, exchange, possess for sale, or offer to a retailer a toy (a physical product designed, marketed or made for play by children under 16) that includes a companion chatbot: an AI system with a natural-language interface that gives adaptive, human-like responses and can meet a user's social needs, including by sustaining a relationship across interactions. Violations carry the same civil liability as the state's companion chatbot rules. The ban is repealed January 1, 2031. Signed September 10, 2026 (Chapter 189).
Companion chatbots: children’s safety.
California's SB 1119, "Adam's Law," sets child-safety rules for companion chatbots. Operators must determine users' ages under the Digital Age Assurance Act or give every user the child protections. From July 1, 2027, operators that allow children must assess risks before releasing new or substantially modified chatbots, publish a child safety policy, and provide crisis protocols, parent-only default settings, parental controls, AI notices and limits on ads and data use. Independent audits follow. Civil penalties reach $15,000 per affected child. Signed September 10, 2026 (Chapter 190); effective January 1, 2027, with most duties operative July 1, 2027.
Crimes: sexual exploitation of a child.
SB 1276 amended Penal Code Section 311.3 and Section 11165.1 of the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. It broadens the definition of matter covered by the sexual exploitation of a child offense to include digitally altered or artificial-intelligence-generated matter that depicts a person under 18 engaged in sexual conduct, and makes it a crime to knowingly download, stream, or access such matter through electronic or digital media. Corresponding changes were made to the mandated reporter definition of sexual exploitation.
Reporting mechanism: child sexual abuse material.
California's AB 1946 amends the law on social media platforms and child sexual abuse material (Civil Code §§ 3273.65-3273.67, 3345.1). CSAM now includes intimate visual depictions of identifiable minors, including digital forgeries made with software, machine learning or AI. Any California user may report CSAM through a clear and conspicuous mechanism, not only people depicted; reports with no known hash match must get human review; reported CSAM must be blocked within 48 hours. Public prosecutors may seek up to $250,000 per day and depicted individuals may sue for damages. Signed September 10, 2026 (Chapter 185); effective January 1, 2027.
Artificial intelligence: auditors: registration.
California's AB 1405 creates a state registry for AI auditors. By January 1, 2029, the Government Operations Agency must launch an online AI Auditor Registry, set annual fees and open a channel for reporting auditor misconduct. Beginning January 1, 2029, no one may offer, sell or conduct a covered AI audit (an audit of an AI system's or model's controls, processes or systems needed to comply with state law) without registering. Registered auditors must disclose their standards, meet independence rules, give auditees signed reports, keep records at least 10 years and show their registration number in ads. Signed September 9, 2026 (Chapter 178); effective January 1, 2027.
Independent verification organizations.
SB 813 added Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 8898) to Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. By January 1, 2028, the Government Operations Agency must take actions to select and regulate independent verification organizations, which are entities designated as having demonstrated expertise in assessing the risks posed by an AI system or model and in identifying the metrics and methodologies for that assessment. The agency must convene working groups for stakeholder input on standards and procedures and report findings to the Legislature, and each designated organization must report annually to the agency and the Legislature.
Automated decision systems.
California's AB 1018 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have regulated automated decision systems (ADS) used to make consequential decisions. Developers of a covered ADS would have to give deployers instructions for use; deployers would have to disclose adverse outcomes to the affected person and allow an appeal. The Assembly passed it 50-16 on June 2, 2025; it was on the Senate floor, ordered to third reading August 30, 2026, and was not passed before the session ended.
Advanced driver assistance systems.
California's SB 1315 (2025-26 Regular Session), titled 'Advanced driver assistance systems,' would have required the manufacturer of an advanced driver assistance system, or of an automobile equipped with one, to ensure a driver can disable or disengage that system or autonomous technology where manual operation was previously available. The Attorney General, district attorneys or city attorneys could seek civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 38-0 on May 18, 2026; it was placed on the Assembly inactive file on August 30, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
Companion chatbots.
California's SB 300 (2025-26 Regular Session) would amend Business and Professions Code section 22602 on companion chatbots. It would require a companion chatbot operator to take its existing protective actions for minors when it has constructive knowledge that a user is a minor, and to prevent the chatbot from producing or facilitating the exchange of any sexually explicit material or proposing sexually explicit conduct. Passed the Senate 38-0; placed on the Assembly inactive file August 30, 2026; not passed.
Companion chatbots: children’s safety.
California's AB 2023 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have required an operator of a companion chatbot to, on or before July 1, 2027, take child-safety steps including an annual risk assessment, and to submit to an independent audit whose report goes to the Attorney General. The Assembly passed it 66-8 on May 26, 2026; it was ordered to the Senate inactive file on August 30, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
California State University: faculty employees.
California's SB 928 (Education Code § 89500.3) requires the instructor of record for a California State University course to be a person who meets the trustees' rules for faculty teaching credit or noncredit instruction, and every CSU faculty employee, from professors and lecturers to librarians, counselors and coaches, to be a person meeting the trustees' rules for that position. AI appears in one clause: the section does not prohibit CSU employees from using artificial intelligence tools to assist CSU operations or to serve students. Signed August 27, 2026 (Chapter 149); effective January 1, 2027.
State Bar of California: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 1651 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6060.15) requires the State Bar of California to disclose when it uses AI-generated content in material it develops or explicitly directs. Use in developing or administering the general bar exam, the first-year law students' exam or the attorneys' exam, including questions, performance tests, answer keys and scoring rubrics, must be posted on its website 60 days before the exam; use in study materials it prepares, publishes, endorses or distributes for applicants must be disclosed on the cover page. Human review does not remove the duty. Signed August 22, 2026 (Chapter 116); operative January 1, 2028.
Public higher education: artificial intelligence usage.
California's SCR 82 (2025-26 Regular Session) is a concurrent resolution that would have encouraged the heads of the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges to form a workgroup of faculty, staff and administrators to review AI use in higher education and report on agreed strategies and best practices. A resolution does not change the law. The Senate adopted it 37-0 on July 10, 2025; it was held in Assembly Appropriations on August 13, 2026 and was not adopted before the session ended.
Advertisement claims: health-related consumer products and services: digital replicas and synthetic performers.
California's SB 1146 (Gonzalez) would add Business and Professions Code 651.4, requiring a person who creates an advertisement for a health-related consumer product or service that includes a digital replica or synthetic performer depicted as a health care provider to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the provider was AI-generated or altered or that no human provider is depicted. Passed the Senate 36-0 on May 18, 2026; held in Assembly Appropriations August 13, 2026; it did not pass.
Critical infrastructure: artificial intelligence systems: human oversight.
California's SB 833 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have required a state agency responsible for operating or controlling access to critical infrastructure and deploying a covered AI system to ensure a human monitors the system in real time and reviews and approves any action it proposes before execution, except as provided. The Senate passed it 37-0 on June 3, 2025; it was held under submission in Assembly Appropriations on August 13, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
Income tax: credits: commercial production.
California's AB 2403 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have created a 20% or 30% income tax credit for qualified production costs above $500,000 for commercials produced in California, for taxable years from January 1, 2027 to before January 1, 2032. It would exclude commercials created entirely by generative AI or using generative AI or autonomous vehicles in ways that replace human job functions. Held in Senate Appropriations on August 13, 2026; not passed before the session ended.
Agentic artificial intelligence.
California's SB 1106 (2025-26 Regular Session), titled Agentic artificial intelligence, would define 'agentic artificial intelligence' in Civil Code section 3110 and amend Government Code sections 11546.45.5, 11549.64 and 11549.65. The Office of Emergency Services' AI risk-analysis recommendations and the Department of Technology's inventory of high-risk automated decision systems would have to cover agentic AI. Passed the Senate 39-0; held in Assembly Appropriations August 13, 2026; not passed.
Report: labor force impact: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2545 (2025-26 Regular Session) would create the California Artificial Intelligence Worker Impact Data Assessment Project in the Employment Development Department, with a 14-member advisory panel. The department would assess data sources and collection methods on how advanced AI systems affect the labor force, and the panel would report to the Legislature by January 1, 2028. Passed the Assembly 70-0; held under submission in Senate Appropriations on August 13, 2026, and not passed before the session ended.
Generative artificial intelligence: training data: copyrighted materials.
California's AB 412 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Civil Code Title 15.3 requiring a developer of a generative AI model to provide a website mechanism for rights owners to request information on use of their covered materials. Within 30 days of a request, subject to exceptions, the developer would assess whether the materials were used and give the owner a list. Passed the Assembly 45-16; held under submission in Senate Appropriations August 13, 2026; not passed.
State agencies or departments: public communications.
California's AB 2412 (2025-26 Regular Session) would amend Government Code section 11549.66 to require a state agency or department that uses generative AI to directly communicate with the public, whether with a specific member of the public or in a general public announcement, to include a GenAI disclaimer and information on how to contact a human employee. Passed the Assembly 73-0; its final Senate committee hearing was canceled at the author's request June 26, 2026; not passed.
Companion chatbots: crisis interruption pauses.
California's AB 1988, the Preventing AI User Self Endangerment (PAUSE) Act, would have required companion chatbot operators to adopt a public policy for credible crisis expressions (intent to harm self or others), warn the user on the first one, and on a second within 72 hours start a crisis interruption pause that continues until a human moderator reviews the chat. It passed the Assembly 73-0 on May 21, 2026; its three Senate committee hearings (June 12, 22 and 26) were canceled at the author's request, and the bill died. It did not become law.
Information Practices Act of 1977.
California's AB 1337 (Ward) is mainly a government privacy bill. As amended in the Senate June 1, 2026, it would recast the Information Practices Act of 1977, beginning January 1, 2028, to cover local agencies as well as state agencies and to expand the definition of personal information. The AI-related part is narrow: personal information could exist in formats that include artificial intelligence systems capable of outputting it. Passed the Assembly 64-0 June 2, 2025; final Senate hearing canceled June 25, 2026; dead.
Digital Dignity Act.
California's SB 1142 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Digital Dignity Act, would have imposed specified liability on a person who distributes content with actual knowledge it uses a digital replica and is found guilty of a crime requiring false impersonation or liable for defamation arising from the replica. It would also have required large online platforms with a generative AI tool to let individuals report digital replica content and to remove it on a court order. It was held in Senate Appropriations on May 14, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
Social media platforms: artificial intelligence models.
California's AB 2169 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Digital Choice Act, would require a social media company, or a person that deploys an AI model (a deployer), to give a consumer a copy of their personal information, contextual data and social graph within five business days in a portable format where technically feasible. It would also require interoperability interfaces. Held under submission in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
Office of Small Business Advocate: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2583 (2025-26 Regular Session), the AI for Main Street Act, would amend Government Code section 12098.5 to require the Small Business Advocate to assist California small businesses in evaluating artificial intelligence for their operations. That assistance would include information, guidance and training, training materials, and outreach. Held under submission in Assembly Appropriations on May 14, 2026; not passed before the session ended.
Workplace artificial intelligence tools.
California's AB 1898 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Labor Code Part 5.9, Artificial Intelligence Transparency at Work. An employer would have to give a worker written notice that a workplace AI tool was used to assist in employment-related decisions or to surveil workers, and keep an updated list of such tools and their impact on jobs, provided to workers annually. Penalties could reach $500 per employee per violation. Held in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
Worker data: prohibitions: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2027 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Labor Code provisions barring an employer from using a worker's personal information to train an artificial intelligence system to replicate, automate, or replace the worker's job, or from selling or providing that information to a third party for that purpose. Vendors serving employers would face parallel limits and contract terms. Held under submission in Assembly Appropriations on May 14, 2026; not passed before the session ended.
State contracts: report: modern foundation models and associated artificial intelligence systems.
California's AB 2653 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Public Contract Code Chapter 6.5 requiring the Department of Industrial Relations, in consultation with the Department of Technology, to convene a nine-member Foundation Model Labor and Procurement Working Group. It would assess labor practices behind modern foundation models and recommend whether and how the state should include labor standards in procurement, reporting by December 31, 2027. Held in Assembly Appropriations May 14, 2026; not passed.
State agencies: automated decision systems.
California's SB 1248 (2025-26 Regular Session) would restrict how state agencies use automated decision systems to confer services such as professional licenses and public benefits. An agency could not use a system's output as the sole basis for an adverse service determination affecting a person, except as specified, and would have to verify accuracy and promote nondiscrimination. Held under submission in Senate Appropriations on May 14, 2026; not passed before the session ended.
Autonomous vehicles.
California's AB 2193 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have amended Vehicle Code Section 38750 to say who receives a traffic citation when an autonomous vehicle commits a violation: the registered owner if no one is in the driver's seat, the driver if someone is, with exceptions, and the manufacturer of the autonomous technology for level 4 or 5 vehicles, as specified. It was held in Assembly Appropriations on May 14, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
Artificial intelligence: education and workforce development.
California's AB 2487 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have enacted the Artificial Intelligence Education and Workforce Development Act. Upon appropriation, the California Community Colleges would have developed AI-use guidance for districts, supported AI literacy and skills partnerships and instructor training, run a classroom AI pilot program and reported to the Legislature. It was never heard; its first hearing was canceled at the author's request on April 7, 2026, and it was not passed before the session ended.
Education for Filmmakers Pilot Program.
California's AB 2544 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Education for Filmmakers Pilot Program, would have required the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to run a pilot program delivering workforce-centered AI literacy instruction focused on entertainment-industry careers, in partnership with unions, guilds, employers and film schools. It was re-referred to committee March 23, 2026 and was not passed before the session ended.
Personal rights: liability: social media platforms.
Vetoed. California's SB 771 would have made social media platforms with more than $100 million in yearly gross revenue liable for civil penalties when they violate state civil rights laws (Civil Code §§ 51.7, 51.9, 52 and 52.1) through algorithms that relay content to users, or aid, abet, conspire in or are joint tortfeasors in such violations: up to $1,000,000 per intentional, knowing or willful violation and $500,000 per reckless one, up to double if the platform knew or should have known the plaintiff was a minor. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026.
Artificial intelligence technology.
Vetoed. California's SB 11 would have required anyone offering consumers AI technology that can create a digital replica to post, by December 1, 2026, a warning that unlawful use to depict another person without consent may bring civil or criminal liability, with civil penalties up to $10,000 a day. It would also have counted digital replicas as a voice or likeness under the right-of-publicity law, treated impersonation by digital replica as false impersonation, and had the Judicial Council address AI-generated evidence by January 1, 2027. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026.
Automated license plate recognition systems.
Vetoed. California's SB 274, the ALPR Data Accountability Act, would have tightened rules for automated license plate recognition (cameras plus computer algorithms that turn plates into searchable data). Public agencies could not have kept data not matching an authorized hot list past 60 days, police could have used it only to locate vehicles or people reasonably suspected of involvement in a public offense, every query would have needed a logged case file number (or AG task force name), and vendor contracts could not give default access to national ALPR databases. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 1, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026.
Employment: automated decision systems.
Vetoed. California's SB 7 would have regulated employers' use of automated decision systems (ADS) such as AI tools in employment decisions. Employers would have had to give workers written notice at least 30 days before deploying an ADS for decisions other than hiring (by April 1, 2026 for systems already in use), tell applicants when one is used in hiring, not rely solely on an ADS to discipline, fire or deactivate workers, use a human reviewer when relying primarily on one, and give a post-use notice, with a $500 civil penalty. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto sustained March 2, 2026. A later bill, SB 947, was signed in 2026 (Chapter 859).
Employment: artificial intelligence.
California's SB 366 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Government Code section 12815.5 to require the Department of General Services to contract with the UCLA Labor Center for a study of how artificial intelligence affects worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations and state revenues. The department would report to the Legislature on or before June 1, 2027, after which the section would be repealed. Held in Senate Appropriations May 23, 2025; not passed.
High-risk artificial intelligence systems: duty to protect personal information.
California's SB 468 (Becker) would add Civil Code Title 1.81.28 requiring a business that deploys a high-risk AI system (a high-risk automated decision system) that processes personal information to develop, implement and maintain a written comprehensive information security program. A violation would be a deceptive trade act under the Unfair Competition Law. Held in Senate Appropriations May 23, 2025; returned to the Secretary of the Senate under Joint Rule 56 on February 2, 2026; it did not pass the Senate.
Mental health and artificial intelligence working group.
California's SB 579 (as amended in the Senate March 26, 2025) would require the Secretary of Government Operations to appoint, on or before July 1, 2026, a mental health and artificial intelligence working group to evaluate AI's role in mental health settings. The group would hold at least three public meetings, report to the Legislature by July 1, 2028 and issue a followup report by January 1, 2030, and the provisions would be repealed January 1, 2031. It was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 23, 2025 and is listed as an inactive bill that died.
Local agencies: automated decision systems.
California's SB 430 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have restricted how local agencies use an automated decision system to confer supportive services, permits or licenses. An output could not be the sole basis for an adverse eligibility or benefit determination, except as specified, and the agency would have had to verify accuracy and promote nondiscrimination. The bill was returned to the Secretary of the Senate under Joint Rule 56 on February 2, 2026 and did not pass.
Workplace surveillance tools.
California's AB 1221 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have regulated workplace surveillance tools and employer use of worker data. Employers would have had to give affected workers 30 days' written notice before introducing a tool, and could not use tools incorporating facial, gait or emotion recognition technology, except as specified. Civil penalty $500 per violation. It was held in Assembly Appropriations May 23, 2025 and died under Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution on January 31, 2026.
Leading Ethical AI Development (LEAD) for Kids Act.
Vetoed. California's AB 1064, the LEAD for Kids Act, would have barred businesses and government agencies from making a companion chatbot available to a child unless it was not foreseeably capable of encouraging self-harm, suicidal ideation, violence, drug or alcohol use or disordered eating; offering unsupervised therapy; encouraging harm or illegal acts; sexually explicit interactions; favoring validation over accuracy or safety; or optimizing engagement over those guardrails. The Attorney General could seek $25,000 per violation and harmed children or parents could sue. Vetoed by Governor Newsom October 13, 2025; veto consideration stricken January 22, 2026.
Artificial intelligence: defenses.
California's AB 316 adds Civil Code § 1714.46. In a lawsuit against a defendant who developed, modified or used artificial intelligence alleged to have harmed the plaintiff, the defendant may not argue that the AI autonomously caused the harm. Defendants may still raise any other affirmative defense, including evidence on causation or foreseeability, and evidence of the comparative fault of other people or entities. Signed October 13, 2025 (Chapter 672); effective January 1, 2026.
Deepfake pornography.
California's AB 621 rewrites Civil Code § 1708.86, the civil claim over sexually explicit deepfakes. A depicted person can sue anyone who creates and intentionally discloses, or intentionally discloses, digitized sexually explicit material (including images) when they know or reasonably should know the person did not consent or was a minor, and anyone who knowingly facilitates or recklessly aids or abets it. Deepfake pornography services and providers that keep them running after 30 days' notice face presumptions of liability. Statutory damages reach $50,000, or $250,000 if malicious, and prosecutors may sue. Signed October 13, 2025 (Chapter 673); effective January 1, 2026.
Companion chatbots.
California's SB 243 regulates companion chatbots, AI systems that give adaptive, human-like responses and can meet a user's social needs. Operators must disclose that the chatbot is AI if a reasonable person would be misled to think it is human, keep and publish a protocol against suicide and self-harm content with crisis referrals, and warn that companion chatbots may not suit some minors. Known minors get AI disclosures, break reminders at least every three hours and sexual-content safeguards (deleted January 1, 2027 by SB 1119). Annual reports to the Office of Suicide Prevention start July 1, 2027. Injured persons may sue. Signed October 13, 2025 (Chapter 677); effective January 1, 2026.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's AB 853 amended the California AI Transparency Act (SB 942 of 2024), moving its operative date from January 1, 2026 to August 2, 2026. From January 1, 2027, large online platforms (over 2,000,000 monthly users) must detect provenance data, show whether content was generated or substantially altered by GenAI or captured by a device, and, where feasible, not knowingly strip it; GenAI hosting sites may not knowingly offer noncompliant systems. From 2028, new capture devices must embed latent disclosures by default where feasible. $5,000 per violation. Amended by AB 2713 and SB 1000 (Chapters 856, 861 of 2026). Signed October 13, 2025 (Chapter 674); effective January 1, 2026.
Health care professions: deceptive terms or letters: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 489 (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 4999.8-4999.9) makes the laws barring use of terms, letters or phrases that imply a health care license one does not hold enforceable against anyone who develops or deploys AI or generative AI that uses them in its advertising or functionality. AI technology may not use terms implying that its care, advice, reports or assessments come from a licensed natural person. Each use is a separate violation, under the jurisdiction of the relevant licensing board. Signed October 11, 2025 (Chapter 615); effective January 1, 2026.
Law enforcement agencies: artificial intelligence.
California's SB 524 (Penal Code § 13663) requires every law enforcement agency to have a policy that official reports written fully or partly with AI name each AI program used, state "This report was written either fully or in part using artificial intelligence," and carry the preparer's signature verifying the facts. The AI first draft must be kept as long as the report, agencies must keep an audit trail, and vendors may not share or sell agency data except as allowed. Signed October 10, 2025 (Chapter 587); effective January 1, 2026.
Real estate: digitally altered images: disclosure.
California's AB 723 (Bus. & Prof. Code § 10140.8) requires real estate brokers and salespersons, and people acting for them, who use a digitally altered image in advertising or promotional material for selling real property to include a reasonably conspicuous statement on or next to the image that it was altered, with a link, URL or QR code to the original. Postings on websites they control must include the unaltered images or a link to them. Altered means edited with photo software or AI to add, remove or change elements; routine lighting, color, cropping and similar adjustments are excluded. Signed October 10, 2025 (Chapter 497); effective January 1, 2026.
Data brokers: data collection and deletion.
California's SB 361 expands what data brokers must report when registering with the California Privacy Protection Agency. Registrations must say whether the broker collects data such as account logins, government ID numbers, citizenship or immigration status, union membership, sexual orientation, gender identity or biometric data, and whether in the past year it shared or sold consumers' data to a developer of a generative AI system or model, a foreign actor, governments or law enforcement. Signed October 8, 2025 (Chapter 466); effective January 1, 2026.
Cartwright Act: violations.
California's AB 325 amends the Cartwright Act, the state antitrust law. It is unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm (any methodology, including software, used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize, set or otherwise influence a price or commercial term) as part of a contract, combination or conspiracy to restrain trade, or while coercing another person to adopt a price or term it recommends. A Cartwright Act complaint need only plausibly allege an agreement, without excluding independent action. Signed October 6, 2025 (Chapter 338); effective January 1, 2026.
State Bar of California.
SB 253 is a State Bar omnibus bill. Its AI provision, in amended Business and Professions Code Section 6046.6, requires the Committee of Bar Examiners to provide notice if artificial intelligence is used in creating questions for the bar examination or in grading the bar examination. The bill also adds notice periods before changing the exam's question vendor or authorizing remote administration.
Autonomous vehicles.
California's SB 480 lets autonomous vehicles, from January 1, 2026, be equipped with automated driving system (ADS) marker lamps, which emit a light showing when the ADS is engaged in operating the vehicle, built to SAE International standards J3134 (May 2019) and J578 (April 2020), as revised. It exempts these lamps from the Vehicle Code rules that front lighting be white or yellow and rear lighting be red. The lamps are optional. Signed October 6, 2025 (Chapter 415); effective January 1, 2026.
California Cybersecurity Integration Center: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 979 amends Government Code § 8586.5 so the California Cybersecurity Integration Center, led by the Office of Emergency Services, must develop a California AI Cybersecurity Collaboration Playbook by January 1, 2027, informed by federal standards and the federal JCDC AI playbook. It must include mandatory mechanisms for state contractors and vendors providing AI services to share known threats and vulnerabilities, and may add voluntary ones for others. Shared threat information is confidential. Signed October 3, 2025 (Chapter 285); effective January 1, 2026.
Community colleges: personnel: qualifications.
SB 241 amended Education Code Section 87359.2. It explicitly requires that the instructor of record for a course and community college librarians, counselors, administrators, and other listed positions be a person who meets the minimum or alternative qualifications for the position, which keeps these roles with qualified humans. Subdivision (c) states that the section does not prohibit community college staff from using artificial intelligence tools to assist in college operations or in providing services to students.
February 2025 bar exam: audit.
SB 47 amended Business and Professions Code Section 6145 to require the California State Auditor to audit the February 2025 bar exam and report to the State Bar board of trustees, the Chief Justice, and the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees, with the State Bar covering the cost. Among other things, the audit must evaluate the events that led the State Bar to use artificial intelligence to create multiple choice questions for the exam, including when and by whom the decision was made, the rationale, and when leadership learned of it. The bill is an urgency statute that took effect immediately on approval, October 1, 2025.
Artificial intelligence models: large developers.
California's SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, covers developers of frontier models (foundation models trained with more than 10^26 operations). Large frontier developers (over $500 million in prior-year revenue with affiliates) must publish and follow a frontier AI framework for catastrophic risks. All frontier developers must publish transparency reports at deployment, report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days, and not retaliate against whistleblowers. Large developers face penalties up to $1 million per violation. Signed September 29, 2025 (Chapter 138); effective January 1, 2026.
California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025.
California's SB 295 (2025-26 Regular Session), the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, would have barred a person from distributing, or making recommendations based on, a pricing algorithm to 2 or more competitors, under specified circumstances, if they knew or should have known it processes competitor data, and from using such recommendations. Civil penalty up to $25,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 29-10, but the Assembly refused passage 13-24 on September 13, 2025.
Autonomous vehicles.
California's AB 33 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have barred delivering commercial goods through an autonomous vehicle without a human safety operator on California highways, with a $10,000 administrative fine for a first violation and $25,000 for later ones. The Assembly passed it 57-7 on May 29, 2025; it was ordered to the Senate inactive file on September 9, 2025 and not taken up again.
Housing rental terms: algorithmic devices.
California's SB 52 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have made it unlawful to sell, license or provide a rental pricing algorithm to 2 or more persons expecting it to be used to set residential rental terms, to use one to recommend terms if the person knew or should have known it would be used by 2 or more landlords in the same or a related market, or to set terms based on one that processes nonpublic competitor data, as specified. The Senate passed it 28-9 on June 2, 2025; it was held in Assembly Appropriations on August 29, 2025 and was not passed before the session ended.
Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act: prohibition on certain price-setting algorithm uses.
California's SB 384 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act, would have barred selling, licensing, providing or using a price-setting algorithm with the intent or reasonable expectation that 2 or more competitors in the same market use it, if the person knows or should know it processes nonpublic data to set a price, supply level, rent or occupancy level. Civil penalty up to $1,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 28-10; it was held in Assembly Appropriations on August 29, 2025 and was not passed before the session ended.
Artificial intelligence program: Attorney General.
California's SB 69 (2025-26 Regular Session) would add Government Code section 12525.6 to require the Attorney General to establish and maintain a program to build internal expertise in artificial intelligence, including its applications, risks, regulatory implications and civil rights impacts. The Attorney General would have to submit a public annual report starting on or before July 1, 2027. Passed the Senate 35-0; held in Assembly Appropriations August 29, 2025; not passed.
Budget Act of 2025.
Section 239 of AB 102 rewrote Section 11.25 of the Budget Act of 2025. Departments under the Governor using state resources for generative AI projects must complete the state's GenAI risk assessment (SIMM 5305-F) and privacy assessments (SIMM 5310-C) and follow the project delivery lifecycle (SIMM 19H). For IT projects using generative AI, agencies must give project documentation to the Legislature regardless of funding source, and funding requests go through the annual budget. The administration had to report by March 1, 2026 on the state's first GenAI proofs of concept.
Budget Act of 2025.
Section 11.25 of the Budget Act of 2025 (Artificial Intelligence Projects in State Departments) states the Legislature's intent that the workforce, fiscal, environmental, privacy, and policy effects of state generative AI projects be discussed publicly. It provides that no state fiscal or personnel resources may be spent implementing or maintaining generative AI projects in departments under the Governor's control unless the proposals were approved in the Budget Act or another statute. Projects in operation or development as of July 1, 2025 and projects responding to a declared state of emergency are excluded. Section 11.25 was amended the same day by AB 102 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2025).
California Digital Content Provenance Standards.
California's AB 3211 (Wicks), the California Digital Content Provenance Standards, would require generative AI providers to apply hard-to-remove provenance data to synthetic content and offer a detection tool, recording devices to offer provenance options, and large online platforms to label provenance, with duties operative July 1, 2026. Passed the Assembly 62-0 on May 22, 2024; ordered to the Senate inactive file August 31, 2024; died on that file November 30, 2024.
California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018: artificial intelligence: training.
California's AB 2877 (2023-24 Regular Session) would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act to prohibit a developer, except if certain conditions are met, from using the personal information of a consumer under 16 to train an AI system or service unless the consumer or a parent or guardian affirmatively authorizes it, and then only after deidentifying and aggregating it. Passed the Assembly 73-0; held under submission in Senate Appropriations August 15, 2024; not passed.
California Unconditional Benefit Program: employment replaced by automation or artificial intelligence: pilot program.
California's AB 3058 (2023-24 Regular Session) would establish, until January 1, 2029, the California Unconditional Benefit Income (CalUBI) Pilot Program in the Employment Development Department, upon appropriation. An eligible person found unemployed because of automation or artificial intelligence who has received the maximum unemployment benefits could apply for $1,000 a month for 12 months. Its only hearing, April 8, 2024, was canceled at the author's request; not passed.
California Artificial Intelligence Research Hub.
California's SB 893 (2023-24 Regular Session), the California Artificial Intelligence Research Hub Act, would require the Government Operations Agency, the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, the California Privacy Protection Agency and the Department of Technology to collaborate to establish a research hub in the Government Operations Agency. The hub would facilitate collaboration among government, academia and the private sector on AI research. Passed the Senate 37-0; held in Assembly Appropriations August 15, 2024; not passed.
Law enforcement agencies: facial recognition technology.
California's AB 1814 (2023-24 Regular Session) would add Penal Code section 13661 to bar a law enforcement agency or peace officer from using a facial recognition technology match as the sole basis for probable cause to arrest or search, and bar a judge from granting a warrant application based solely on a match. It passed the Assembly 70-0 but was held under submission in Senate Appropriations on August 15, 2024 and was not passed before the session ended.
Artificial intelligence.
California's AB 3050 (2023-24, as introduced) would have required the Department of Technology to set watermark standards, including digital content provenance, for covered AI-generated material (material that impersonates a specific individual or group or is represented as original), and barred AI-generating entities from creating it without a compliant watermark, with a civil penalty of $250 to $500. It would also have made creators of deepfakes using a person's likeness without permission liable for actual damages. Introduced February 16, 2024 and referred to committee; it died when the session ended.
Attorneys: court filings: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2811 (2023-24 Regular Session) would add Business and Professions Code section 6068.1, requiring an attorney to execute and keep for seven years an affidavit certifying whether a generative AI program was used in drafting each document filed, or intended to be filed, in a state or federal court in California, and to file the affidavit with a court on request. It was never heard: its April 1, 2024 committee hearing was canceled at the author's request, and it was not passed.
State Department of Education: artificial intelligence working group.
California's AB 2652 (2023-24 Regular Session) would add Education Code section 33328.5, requiring the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the State Board of Education, to convene a working group on AI in public schools. It would develop guidance on safe AI use by January 1, 2026, a model policy by July 1, 2026, and report by September 1, 2026, contingent on an appropriation. Held under submission in Assembly Appropriations May 16, 2024; not passed.
Crimes: child pornography.
SB 1381 amended Penal Code Sections 311.1, 311.3, 311.4, and 312.3 to expand those child sexual exploitation and obscene matter offenses to include matter that is digitally altered or generated by the use of artificial intelligence. It is the companion to AB 1831 of the same session, and each bill was made operative only if the other was enacted.
Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act.
Vetoed. California's SB 1047 (2024) would have required developers of covered AI models (trained with more than 10^26 operations at a compute cost over $100 million) to adopt safety and security protocols and full-shutdown capability before training, assess and guard against critical harms before release, hire annual third-party auditors from 2026, and report AI safety incidents to the Attorney General within 72 hours. The Attorney General could have sued for penalties. Governor Newsom vetoed it September 29, 2024, and the Legislature did not override the veto.
Crimes: child pornography.
AB 1831 amended Penal Code Sections 311, 311.2, 311.11, and 311.12 so that obscene matter and child sexual abuse material offenses include matter that is digitally altered or generated by the use of artificial intelligence, as defined. It treats AI-generated depictions of what appear to be minors engaged in sexual conduct like other prohibited material. The bill operates together with SB 1381 of the same session, which amended related Penal Code sections.
Pupil instruction: media literacy: artificial intelligence literacy: curriculum frameworks: instructional materials.
California's AB 2876 amends Education Code § 33548 so the Instructional Quality Commission must consider incorporating AI literacy into the mathematics, science and history-social science curriculum frameworks when they are next revised after January 1, 2025, and consider including it in its criteria for evaluating those subjects' instructional materials at the next adoptions. AI literacy means knowing how AI works and how to use it, including its limitations, implications and ethics. Signed September 29, 2024 (Chapter 927); effective January 1, 2025.
Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act.
California's SB 896, the Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act, governs state government's use of generative AI. The Department of Technology updates the state's GenAI report under Executive Order N-12-23 as needed; the Office of Emergency Services, as appropriate, analyzes GenAI threats to critical infrastructure, including mass-casualty events, with an annual summary to the Legislature. Agencies using GenAI to communicate directly with people about government services and benefits must disclose it and say how to reach a human. Signed September 29, 2024 (Chapter 928); effective January 1, 2025.
Generative artificial intelligence: training data transparency.
California's AB 2013 (Civil Code §§ 3110-3111) requires developers of generative AI systems or services made publicly available to Californians, free or paid, to post documentation of their training data on their websites: by January 1, 2026 for systems released since January 1, 2022, and before each later release or substantial modification. The documentation summarizes the datasets, including sources, size, data types, and whether they contain copyrighted material or personal information or were bought or licensed. Signed September 28, 2024 (Chapter 817); took effect January 1, 2025, with first postings due January 1, 2026.
Health care coverage: utilization review.
SB 1120 amended Health and Safety Code 1367.01 and Insurance Code 10123.135. Health plans and disability insurers that use an AI, algorithm or other software tool for utilization review must ensure it bases decisions on the enrollee's medical history and clinical circumstances, is applied fairly and equitably, does not supplant provider decisionmaking, and is open to inspection and review. Denials, delays or modifications for medical necessity must be made by a licensed physician or qualified health professional, not by the tool alone.
Artificial intelligence.
AB 2885 amended Business and Professions Code Section 22675, Education Code Section 75002, and Government Code Sections 11546.45.5, 11547.5, and 53083.1 to use a single definition of artificial intelligence: 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. The amended provisions include the state's high-risk automated decision system inventory and deepfake-related government provisions.
California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018: personal information.
AB 1008 amended Civil Code Section 1798.140, the CCPA definitions section. It specifies that personal information can exist in various formats, including physical formats, digital formats, and abstract digital formats such as compressed or encrypted files, metadata, or artificial intelligence systems that are capable of outputting personal information. This brings personal information held in or produced by AI models within the CCPA's consumer rights and business obligations.
Public schools: artificial intelligence working group.
California's SB 1288 (Education Code § 33328.5) has the Superintendent of Public Instruction convene a working group on AI in public schools, at least half of it credentialed teachers. It must issue guidance on safe AI use for school districts, county offices and charter schools by January 1, 2026, a model policy by July 1, 2026 (the Department of Education posted it June 25, 2026), and a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2027. The section is repealed January 1, 2031. Signed September 28, 2024 (Chapter 893); effective January 1, 2025.
Health care services: artificial intelligence.
California requires hospitals and other health facilities, clinics, physician offices and group practices that use generative AI to write or speak patient communications about clinical information to include a disclaimer that the message was AI-generated and clear instructions for reaching a human health care provider or other appropriate person. The disclaimer goes at the top of letters and emails, stays on screen in chats and video, and is spoken at the start and end of audio. Messages a licensed provider reads and reviews are exempt, as are administrative messages like scheduling and billing. Effective January 1, 2025.
Autonomous vehicles.
AB 1777 amended Vehicle Code Section 38750 and added Sections 38751 to 38753. Commencing July 1, 2026, manufacturers of autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator in the vehicle must maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line and equip each vehicle with two-way voice communication so emergency officials near the vehicle can reach a remote human operator. Emergency officials may issue emergency geofencing messages, and manufacturers must direct fleets to leave or avoid the area within 2 minutes. Peace officers may issue notices of autonomous vehicle noncompliance for observed Vehicle Code violations, which manufacturers must report to the DMV.
Public contracts: automated decision systems: procurement standards.
Vetoed. California's SB 892 (2024) would have required the Department of Technology to adopt regulations setting a procurement standard for automated decision systems (ADS), with risk assessments, risk controls, incident monitoring, prohibited uses, equity and human-oversight reviews and data minimization. From January 1, 2027, state agencies could not have bought ADS until those rules existed, and contracts would have needed risk-assessment and notice-and-appeal clauses. Governor Newsom vetoed it September 20, 2024, saying it would disrupt existing work and create unbudgeted General Fund costs.
Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.
California's SB 976 (Chapter 321 of 2024), the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, adds Health and Safety Code section 27000 and following. An "addictive feed" is one in which user-generated media is recommended, selected or prioritized for a user based on information provided by or associated with the user or their device. An operator may not provide an addictive feed to a user it knows is a minor without verifiable parental consent, and from January 1, 2027 it must reasonably determine that a user is not a minor, including under Attorney General rules, before providing one. It also limits notifications to minors between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. without parental consent.
Telecommunications: automatic dialing-announcing devices: artificial voices.
AB 2905 amended Public Utilities Code Section 2874, which governs automatic dialing-announcing devices. The required introductory announcement for prerecorded calls must also inform the person called if the prerecorded message uses an artificial voice, as defined, including voices generated or significantly altered using artificial intelligence. Violations of Public Utilities Commission orders implementing the requirement can be crimes.
California AI Transparency Act.
California's SB 942, the California AI Transparency Act, as amended, requires anyone who produces a generative AI system publicly accessible in California to offer a free, public disclosure verification tool and, where technically feasible, embed hard-to-remove latent disclosures (provider, system and version, time and date, unique ID, whether AI created or altered it) in AI image, video and audio output. Penalty: $5,000 per violation, each day a separate violation. SB 1000 (Chapter 861), effective September 30, 2026, dropped the original 1,000,000-user threshold and the visible-label option. Signed September 19, 2024 (Chapter 291); duties operative August 2, 2026, as moved by AB 853.
Sexually explicit digital images.
SB 981 added Business and Professions Code Section 22670 and following. Social media platforms must provide California users a reasonably accessible mechanism to report sexually explicit digital identity theft, meaning the posting of an image or video created or altered through digitization that appears to show an identifiable person's intimate body parts or sexual acts without that person's consent. Platforms must temporarily block reported material while they investigate and remove it when there is a reasonable basis to believe it is sexually explicit digital identity theft, within set time limits, and keep the reporting user informed.
Crimes: distribution of intimate images.
SB 926 amended Penal Code Section 647 (disorderly conduct). It makes it a crime for a person 18 or older to intentionally create and distribute any photo realistic, digital, electronic, computer, or computer-generated image of an intimate body part or sexual act of another identifiable person, created so a reasonable person would believe it is authentic, when the distributor knows or should know distribution will cause serious emotional distress and the person depicted suffers that distress. This extends the existing revenge porn offense to synthetic and AI-generated intimate images.
Elections: deceptive media in advertisements.
California's AB 2839 (Elections Code 20012) bars knowingly distributing, with malice, an ad or election communication with materially deceptive content about candidates, elected or elections officials, or election equipment, from 120 days before an election (through 60 days after for elections officials and equipment). Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 262) as an urgency statute. In Kohls v. Bonta (E.D. Cal.), the court preliminarily enjoined enforcement on October 2, 2024 (except the audio-only disclosure part) and on August 29, 2025 held it unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the Attorney General and Secretary of State from enforcing it against the named plaintiffs.
Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024.
California's AB 2655, the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, requires large online platforms (1M+ California users) to remove reported deepfakes of candidates, elections officials and elected officials within 72 hours during set periods around elections and to label other reported deceptive election content; candidates, officials and prosecutors may seek injunctions. Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 261); effective January 1, 2025. In August 2025 a federal court held it preempted by Section 230 and barred the Attorney General and Secretary of State from enforcing it against X and Rumble; they later agreed not to enforce it against any platform. California appealed.
Contracts against public policy: personal or professional services: digital replicas.
AB 2602 added Labor Code Section 927. A provision in an agreement for personal or professional services is unenforceable as to new performances, fixed on or after January 1, 2025, by a digital replica of the individual if it allows the replica to be used in place of work the individual would otherwise have performed, lacks a reasonably specific description of the intended uses, and the individual was not represented by legal counsel or a labor union in negotiating it. A digital replica is a computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation readily identifiable as the individual's voice or visual likeness.
Use of likeness: digital replica.
California's AB 1836 amends Civil Code § 3344.1 (post-mortem publicity rights). Anyone who produces, distributes or makes available a digital replica of a deceased personality's voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work or sound recording without prior consent from the rights holders is liable for the greater of $10,000 or the rights holder's actual damages. The existing exemption for films, TV, music and other expressive works does not cover such replicas. News, comment, satire, parody, fleeting or incidental uses and documentary or biographical portrayals not meant to pass as authentic recordings are exempt. Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 258); effective January 1, 2025.
Political Reform Act of 1974: political advertisements: artificial intelligence.
California's AB 2355 adds Government Code § 84514 to the Political Reform Act. A committee that creates, originally publishes or originally distributes a political ad containing images, audio or video generated or substantially altered using AI must include, clearly and conspicuously, "Ad generated or substantially altered using artificial intelligence." The statement goes where the Act's rules place ad disclosures for radio, video, print and online ads. The Fair Political Practices Commission may seek an injunction or use its administrative and civil remedies; a violation is not a misdemeanor. Signed September 17, 2024 (Chapter 260); effective January 1, 2025.
Budget Act of 2024.
In the Budget Act of 2024, the provisions of Item 0511-001-0001 (Secretary of Government Operations) require the Government Operations Agency to hold monthly Generative Artificial Intelligence meetings with designated Assembly and Senate staff about implementing Executive Order N-12-23. The agency must report on completion of each deliverable in the order and on the implementation, results, and funding sources of any generative AI proofs of concept. If more resources are needed to implement or procure a generative AI solution for a proof of concept, departments must seek them through the annual budget process. The provisions define artificial intelligence and generative AI.
Department of Technology: Office of Artificial Intelligence: state agency public interface: use of AI.
California's SB 313 (2023-24 Regular Session), the California AI-ware Act, would create an Office of Artificial Intelligence in the Department of Technology to guide state agencies' design, use and deployment of automated systems consistent with privacy and civil liberties law and to minimize bias. A state agency using generative AI to directly communicate with a person would have to give notice and instructions for reaching a human. Held in Senate Appropriations May 18, 2023; not passed.
Department of Technology: high-risk automated decision systems: inventory.
California's AB 302 required the Department of Technology, by September 1, 2024, to inventory every high-risk automated decision system that state agencies use, develop or procure, or have proposed to, and to report it to two legislative committees by January 1, 2025 and annually after that; the reporting duty becomes inoperative January 1, 2029. High-risk systems assist or replace human decisions with legal or similarly significant effects, such as access to housing, education, employment, credit, health care and criminal justice. It applies only to state agencies. Signed October 13, 2023 (Chapter 800); effective January 1, 2024.
Public employment: local public transit agencies: autonomous transit vehicle technology.
California's AB 96 adds Government Code §§ 3125-3130. At least 10 months before beginning a procurement process (a request for proposals or quotations) to acquire or deploy autonomous transit vehicle technology that would eliminate job functions or jobs, a local public transit employer, such as a city, county, transit district or joint powers authority, must notify the affected workforce's exclusive employee representative in writing. On the union's written request, the two must bargain over developing and implementing the technology, a transition plan and training for new positions. Signed October 8, 2023 (Chapter 419); effective January 1, 2024.
Artificial intelligence.
California's Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 affirms the Legislature's commitment to President Biden's vision for safe AI and to the five principles of the White House "Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights": safe and effective systems; algorithmic discrimination protections; data privacy; notice and explanation; and human alternatives, consideration and fallback. The Legislature commits to examining and implementing them in its legislation and policies on automated systems. Adopted by the Senate February 17, 2023 and the Assembly August 14, 2023; filed August 23, 2023 (Res. Chapter 135). A concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Secretary of Government Operations: deepfakes.
California's SB 1216 added Government Code § 11547.5. It directed the Secretary of Government Operations to evaluate, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the impact and risks of deepfakes and digital content forgery for government, California businesses and residents, including privacy and effects on voters, and to develop a coordinated plan on standards and tools for digital content provenance. A report to the Legislature with the plan was due October 1, 2024. The section was repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2025, so it is no longer in effect. Signed September 30, 2022 (Chapter 885); effective January 1, 2023.
Elections: deceptive audio or visual media.
AB 972 amended Elections Code Section 20010 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 35 to extend the 2019 election deepfake law (AB 730), which was set to expire January 1, 2023, to January 1, 2027. The extended provisions prohibit distributing, with actual malice and within 60 days of an election, materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate intended to injure the candidate or deceive voters, unless the media discloses it has been manipulated. Depicted candidates keep the right to seek injunctive relief and damages, with such cases given calendar precedence.
Public employment: local public transit agencies: autonomous transit vehicle technology.
Vetoed. California's AB 2441 (2022) would have required local public transit employers to give the affected workforce's exclusive employee representative written notice at least 12 months before starting any procurement process or plan to acquire or deploy autonomous transit vehicle technology that eliminates job functions or jobs. On request, they would have had to provide an analysis of the effects on workers, skill gaps and training budgets, then bargain over the technology, a transition plan and retraining. Governor Newsom vetoed it September 29, 2022. A 10-month-notice version, AB 96, was enacted in 2023 (Chapter 419).
Vehicles: consumer notices.
SB 1398 added Vehicle Code Section 24011.5. A dealer or manufacturer that sells a new passenger vehicle equipped with a partial driving automation feature, or that adds such a feature by software update or upgrade, must give the buyer or owner a notice describing the functions and limitations of the feature. Manufacturers and dealers are prohibited from naming or marketing these features in a way that deceptively suggests the vehicle is autonomous or more capable than it is. Violations of the notice requirement are infractions.
Autonomous vehicles: zero emissions.
SB 500 amended Vehicle Code Section 38750 on autonomous vehicles. Commencing January 1, 2030, and to the extent authorized by federal law, it prohibits the operation of certain new autonomous vehicles that are not zero-emission vehicles. It also bars the Department of Motor Vehicles from starting rulemaking to implement this requirement until January 1, 2027.
State government: Artificial Intelligence in State Government Services Commission: report.
California's AB 459 (2019-20), as amended April 8, 2019, would have required the Artificial Intelligence in State Government Services Commission to report to the Legislature by November 1, 2020 on recommended minimum standards for state government use of AI. The commission would exist only if AB 976 were enacted, and the report requirement would be repealed November 1, 2024. The bill was held under submission in Assembly Appropriations and died January 31, 2020.
Artificial intelligence.
Vetoed. California's AB 594 (2019) would have added Government Code § 11546.11, letting the Director of Technology designate a position in the Department of Technology to evaluate uses of AI in state government and advise on adding AI to state IT plans, policies, standards and enterprise architecture. By January 1, 2021, the Department, consulting stakeholders and considering the Future of Work Commission's recommendations, would have had to adopt guidelines for AI in state government, with standards for ethical use for the public good, efficiency, emerging technologies and benefiting workers. Governor Newsom vetoed it October 2, 2019.
Law enforcement: facial recognition and other biometric surveillance.
California's AB 1215 added Penal Code § 832.19, which barred law enforcement agencies and officers from installing, activating or using any biometric surveillance system, such as facial recognition, in connection with an officer camera (a body-worn camera or similar device) or its data, including by having another agency or a third party run it for them. Anyone could sue for equitable or declaratory relief. The section was repealed by its own terms on January 1, 2023, so the ban is no longer in effect. Signed October 8, 2019 (Chapter 579); effective January 1, 2020.
Pretrial release: risk assessment tools.
SB 36 regulates algorithmic pretrial risk assessment tools used in release decisions. Each pretrial services agency using one must validate it by January 1, 2021 and at least every 3 years, and publish information about the tool, including validation studies. The Judicial Council must list agencies that meet these requirements, publish annual reports on outcomes and potential bias in pretrial release, and report by July 1, 2022 with recommendations to reduce bias and disparate effects.
Depiction of individual using digital or electronic technology: sexually explicit material: cause of action.
AB 602 added Civil Code Section 1708.86, giving a depicted individual a private right of action against a person who creates and intentionally discloses sexually explicit material made through digitization (realistic computer-generated or altered depictions) when the person knows or reasonably should know the individual did not consent. It also covers a person who discloses such material they did not create if they know the depicted individual did not consent to its creation. Exceptions apply for matters of legitimate public concern and works of political or newsworthy value. A prevailing plaintiff may obtain injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and economic, statutory, and punitive damages.
Elections: deceptive audio or visual media.
AB 730 amended Elections Code 20010 and Code of Civil Procedure 35 to address election deepfakes. Until January 1, 2023 (later extended), no person or committee may distribute, with actual malice, materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate within 60 days of an election to injure the candidate's reputation or deceive voters. Such media is an image, audio or video intentionally manipulated so it would falsely appear authentic. Media disclosing that it has been manipulated is allowed, and the depicted candidate may seek an injunction and damages.
Artificial intelligence.
SJR 6 is a nonbinding joint resolution of the California Legislature. It urges the President and Congress of the United States to develop a comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee and to adopt a comprehensive artificial intelligence policy. Its findings cite AI adoption by businesses and consumers, expected effects on the workforce, and national AI strategies adopted by other countries. It was filed with the Secretary of State on July 9, 2019 and creates no legal obligations.
23 Asilomar AI Principles.
California's Assembly Concurrent Resolution 215 expresses the Legislature's support for the 23 Asilomar AI Principles as guiding values for the development of artificial intelligence and of related public policy. The principles, drafted at a January 2017 meeting of AI researchers and others in Asilomar, California, cover research issues, ethics and values (such as safety, failure transparency, personal privacy and human control) and longer-term issues (such as catastrophic risks and recursive self-improvement). Adopted by the Assembly June 25, 2018 and the Senate August 30, 2018; filed September 7, 2018 (Res. Chapter 206). A concurrent resolution does not change the law.
Get an email when California AI bills change
We’ll email you when AI bills in California are introduced or change status (at most one alert email a day), plus our weekly digest.
We’ll send a confirmation link first; nothing else is sent until you confirm. Unsubscribe anytime. Need alerts for specific bills only? Per-bill alerts come with Pro.