Insights

A Look at AI Regulation in California

The California Legislature is back to work for 2024, and one of the items at the top of their agenda will be artificial intelligence (AI) regulation at the state level. AI regulation has become even more of a focus on a national level in recent months. While we recently published this summary of the Biden Executive Order on October 31, 2023, California has prioritized regulation of AI applications.

California is leading the AI boom in the United States, specifically the San Francisco Bay Area. In a California State Executive Order issued last year regarding responsible AI policies and regulation, Governor Newsom noted, “California has established itself as the world leader in GenAI innovation with 35 of the world’s top 50 AI companies and a quarter of all AI patents, conference papers, and companies globally.” Axios also points out that San Francisco has the highest number of new job postings in GenAI, and the city boasts 20 of the best-funded AI companies (more than the rest of America combined.)

Given the prominence of AI companies in the state and the rate at which the technology is advancing and being adopted, does this mean California should have some heightened level of responsibility regarding regulation? More than one piece of AI legislation is set to be introduced in the legislature this year, as well as multiple other regulatory initiatives at the state level.

Below is a look at some of the AI regulatory measures that will be introduced by Assemblymembers in California.

Discrimination

First, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who chairs the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, has stated plans to reintroduce a bill targeting discrimination in AI. This would prohibit companies from using AI algorithms that discriminate against people and require companies developing these algorithms to evaluate them and disclose any potential discriminatory risks.

Safety and Transparency

State Sen. Scott Wiener plans to introduce broader legislation aimed at industry-wide safety and transparency standards. He has stated that SB294 would target the most significant risks in public safety and security, including AI-generated bioweapons, cyberattacks, and misinformation campaigns. This is still not finalized, but it will be an effort to regulate AI in the state more broadly.

Entertainment

In a more targeted approach, Assemblymember Ash Kalra is looking to enact further protections for actors and artists regarding AI, which was a large part of the negotiations during the actors’ strike last year. The bill would limit studios’ ability to utilize AI to replicate the work of an actor or artist and address language vagaries in contracts that might otherwise enable such unintended practices.

CPPA and ADMT

There is an effort by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to regulate automated decision-making technology (ADMT) in the state. The proposed regulations were introduced in November of 2023, signaling the agency’s plans to regulate automated tools leveraging AI and facial recognition significantly.

The proposed rules require companies to issue a notice to consumers that they utilize this technology, and they would allow California residents to stop the use of their personal data from ADMT. Employers would also be required to notify job applicants if a decision regarding their employment was based on ADMT.

Under current leadership, California is demonstrating that it is keen to lead the way when it comes to regulating AI applications at the state level. It was one of the first to pave the way for state-level privacy and data protection regulations, with other states soon following. Stay tuned for updates as these efforts move through the legislature and other agencies.

AUTHOR(S):

Louis Lehot
Natasha Allen

POSTED:

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.