California FEHA regulations on automated decision systems (Civil Rights Council)
Effective date
Penalty
No per-violation dollar amounts. Enforcement through FEHA litigation with uncapped compensatory damages, punitive damages, emotional distress, back pay, fron…
Obligations mapped
6 obligations
Legislative update
California SB 7 (No Robo Bosses Act) is pending legislation that would add human oversight, opt-out, and appeal requirements on top of these regulations. AB 1018 would broadly regulate AI in consequential decisions including employment.
Overview
If you work in California or apply for a job there, your employer cannot use AI or automated systems in ways that discriminate against you. This covers hiring, promotions, pay, scheduling, and any other employment decision. The rules apply to any employer with 5 or more employees. Where AI tools screen out people with disabilities, the employer may need to offer reasonable alternatives. Companies that test their AI for bias can use those results as evidence in their defense, but testing is not technically mandatory. You can file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department or sue directly.
This is an AI-specific state law.
See if this regulation applies to your company with the free exposure scan.
Who this applies to
This regulation applies to the following roles:
- Developers of covered AI systems
- Deployers and users of covered AI systems
- Organizations operating in California
This regulation applies to both companies that build AI products and companies that use AI tools from other vendors.
Section 11009(f) · Section 11009(f) (second sentence) and related sections
AI categories covered
- Employment and hiring
Specific AI use cases:
- Resume screening and ranking
- Candidate assessment and scoring
- Workforce scheduling and optimization
What this requires you to do
6 obligations identified from statutory analysis.
Section 11013(c)
Section 11009(f) (second sentence)
Sections 11017(a), 11017(e), 11072(b)(1)
Sections 11071(a)(1), 11071(c)
Section 11009(f)
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.
Enforcement and penalties
No per-violation dollar amounts. Enforcement through FEHA litigation with uncapped compensatory damages, punitive damages, emotional distress, back pay, front pay, and attorneys' fees. Private right of action through CRD complaint process.
Private right of action: plaintiffs may bring direct claims in addition to government enforcement.
Penalty amounts are based on statutory text and may be subject to adjustment, judicial interpretation, or enforcement discretion.
Related regulations
- UpcomingPrivacy ADM
CCPA/CPRA Automated Decision-Making Technology Regulations
California's ADMT regulations require businesses using automated decisionmaking technology for significant decisions (employment, finance, housing, education, healthcare) to provide pre-use notices, offer opt-out rights, respond to access requests, and conduct risk assessments with annual CPPA filing under penalty of perjury.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
Illinois Human Rights Act (HB 3773 AI amendment)
Illinois HB 3773 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to prohibit employers from using AI that has the effect of subjecting employees to discrimination on the basis of protected classes, including using zip codes as proxies. Where applicable, employers may need to notify employees and applicants when AI is used in employment decisions. IDHR draft implementing rules circulated December 2025. No safe harbors or affirmative defenses.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
NYC Local Law 144 (Automated Employment Decision Tools)
NYC Local Law 144 requires employers and employment agencies using automated employment decision tools for hiring or promotion in New York City to conduct annual independent bias audits, publish results on their website, and notify candidates that an AEDT is being used.
Effective
- In EffectFederal
EEOC Guidance on AI in Employment Selection
EEOC technical assistance documents explain how existing Title VII and ADA obligations apply to AI and algorithmic employment tools. Not binding regulation, but signals enforcement priorities. Employers are liable for adverse impact from AI tools even when tools are designed by third-party vendors. Requires adverse impact analysis per UGESP four-fifths rule. ADA prohibits AI tools that screen out individuals with disabilities or make pre-offer disability inquiries.
Effective
- UpcomingAI-Specific
California AI Transparency Act (SB 942)
The California AI Transparency Act requires creators of large generative AI systems to provide free AI detection tools, embed provenance metadata in AI-generated content, and offer visible disclosure options. Large platforms must detect and preserve provenance data.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Transparency in Frontier AI Act (SB 53)
Requires developers of frontier AI models trained above the statutory compute threshold (10^26 FLOPs) to publish safety frameworks, report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services, and implement whistleblower protections. Also reaches large frontier developers with annual revenues over $500 million. Replaces the vetoed SB 1047 with a narrower transparency approach. Currently applies to approximately five to eight companies worldwide given the FLOP threshold. Includes a federal deference provision: compliance with comparable federal standards, including the EU AI Act, is accepted where the statute allows.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California AI Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013)
Requires developers of generative AI systems or services available to Californians to publish high-level documentation on training data, including sources, types, and curation. Applies retroactively to systems released on or after January 1, 2022. No trade secret exemption. Internal development or material modification of third-party GenAI can be in scope. xAI challenged the law in federal court; on March 4, 2026 the court denied a preliminary injunction, so AB 2013 remains in full effect while litigation continues. Major providers published required documentation by January 1, 2026.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Healthcare Provider Generative AI Disclosure (AB 3030)
Requires healthcare providers to disclose when generative AI is used in patient interactions and to document that use in the patient record. Focuses on licensed providers and clinical settings. AB 489 (2025) later extended parallel transparency duties to developers and deployers of healthcare AI, not only providers.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Healthcare AI Deceptive Terms Act (AB 489)
AB 3030 (2024) requires healthcare providers to disclose generative AI use to patients and in records. AB 489 (2025) extends similar duties to technology developers and deployers whose healthcare AI communicates with patients or presents as credentialed care. It bars false claims of professional licenses or credentials and requires clear disclosures in healthcare settings.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Companion Chatbots Act (SB 243)
California's Companion Chatbot Act may apply to operators of AI chatbots designed for ongoing social interaction. Where applicable, operators may need to disclose the AI nature of the chatbot, maintain safety protocols for self-harm and suicide content, provide crisis referrals, and implement special protections for minors including break reminders and content restrictions. Operators may need to publish safety protocols and file annual reports with the Office of Suicide Prevention starting July 2027.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Digital Replicas of Deceased Performers Act (AB 1836)
Restricts commercial uses of realistic AI-generated replicas of deceased performers' voices or likenesses in audiovisual works and sound recordings without consent from the personality's estate or other rightsholder.
Effective
- In EffectAI-Specific
California Digital Replica Contract Protections (AB 2602)
Makes contract terms unenforceable when they allow digital replicas of a performer without the performer giving specific, informed consent. Two paths to enforceable consent: independent legal counsel review or union agreement. Companion to AB 1836.
Effective
California AI regulation guide lists every tracked rule for this jurisdiction with timelines and obligation tallies.
Regulation summaries are simplified for readability and may not capture every nuance of the underlying statute. Verify important details against primary sources linked on this page.