AI Frontier Institute

Automated decision systems.

View primary source →

California AB 1018, the Automated Decisions Safety Act, establishes comprehensive regulations for the development and deployment of automated decision systems (ADS) used to make 'consequential decisions' affecting natural persons. Under Chapter 24.6 (commencing with Section 22756) of the Business and Professions Code, an ADS is defined as a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output (such as a score, classification, or recommendation) used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking. A 'consequential decision' covers determinations affecting employment, education, housing, health care, financial services, government benefits, and insurance. Developers of covered ADS must provide deployers with instructions on proper use, fine-tuning conditions, and necessary technical information, and must retain documentation for the deployment period plus five years (Section 22756.1). Deployers must give subjects advance notice that a covered ADS will be used and, when an adverse outcome results, must provide a plain-language written disclosure within 30 days including details on the data used, key parameters, ADS role, and appeal rights (Section 22756.2). Deployers with more than 25 employees must also allow subjects to correct personal information and appeal adverse outcomes within 30 business days. The Attorney General may bring civil actions for noncompliance, with courts authorized to award injunctive relief, declaratory relief, attorney's fees, and civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation; a 60-day cure period generally applies before suit unless the violation was knowing or the violator is a repeat offender (Section 22756.4). The bill exempts certain systems including cybersecurity tools, fraud detection, FDA-regulated medical devices, spam filters, and systems solely serving national security purposes (Section 22756.5). Section 51.1.1 of the Civil Code and Section 12959 of the Government Code clarify that compliance with Chapter 24.6 is relevant but not conclusive in Unruh Act and FEHA civil rights actions, and noncompliance alone does not create a presumption of unlawful intent.

← Back to the tracker