Is an AI Law in California Still Possible?
Despite strong backing from prominent figures like Elon Musk and Jane Fonda, Big Tech has firmly opposed the sweeping Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto of the bill marks the beginning of a complex journey toward establishing comprehensive AI regulations in the state. A revised bill may very well become law in the future, carrying significant implications for AI developers.
What Is SB 1047?
The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act aimed to shift responsibility onto the creators of applications utilizing AI, diverging from traditional state laws that typically place responsibility on the user. For instance, if a car with a major defect is purchased, the buyer bears the responsibility for that defect. SB 1047 proposed that the manufacturer should be held accountable instead.
While several states have already enacted AI laws, California’s influence in the AI sector is profound, with many leading AI companies headquartered in the region. The state’s role at the forefront of the AI regulatory debate is undeniable. The question remains: what happens after the veto?
The situation in California exemplifies the pitfalls of lawmakers tackling more than they can manage. While SB 1047 may have been well-intentioned, it fell short of addressing critical issues such as explainability, transparency, and protection from harm. Although some state laws address these aspects, they do not specifically cover AI.
There are established safety standards for various consumer products, including food and medical devices. Therefore, the need for standards governing AI is equally pressing.
2 Top AI Issues to Address Right Now
With only a presidential executive order at the federal level and a patchwork of AI laws in smaller states, California is in a unique position to fill a substantial legislative gap. The state senator who originally sponsored the defeated SB 1047 is eager to collaborate with a panel of experts appointed by Newsom to develop a revised measure that could gain the governor’s approval in the next legislative session.
This work should commence immediately; waiting until January when the legislature reconvenes is not an option. If Governor Newsom aspires to demonstrate global leadership on this issue, he must take decisive action on two critical issues.
Harm Mitigation
The first issue is harm mitigation, which should be non-negotiable. Legislation must prevent harmful, AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, that seeks to demean individuals or seek revenge. A recent law in Colorado, set to take effect on February 1, 2026, establishes a mandatory regulatory framework for developers of “high-risk AI systems” to mitigate consumer harm and algorithmic discrimination.
California had the opportunity to lead the way in addressing harm through legislative action, but this chance was missed.
Transparency and Disclosure
The second crucial issue is transparency and disclosure. Many creators of AI technologies are not fulfilling their responsibility to inform others about the benefits of their products. There is an expectation that users will trust these technologies without adequate education on their implications.
The tech industry, along with state lawmakers, must commit to educating the public about AI, despite the challenges involved. It is their duty to help non-experts understand how AI operates and the benefits it can bring to daily life.
For example, while AI can automate and personalize the job application process, only humans can make meaningful decisions regarding hiring.
Governor Newsom should ensure that both of these critical issues are addressed in a revised bill and sign it into law.
Encourage Innovation, Don’t Punish It
California is likely to implement an AI law in the coming year, and it is essential for small developers to prepare accordingly. In his veto letter, Newsom expressed concern that SB 1047 might create a false sense of security regarding AI regulation by targeting larger, wealthier developers. His expectation that smaller companies bear the burden could stifle innovation and drive small businesses out of the state.
Political considerations may be influencing this stance, as Newsom’s term ends in 2027, and he may be positioning himself for higher office. However, his veto could have repercussions; a survey revealed that 40 percent of California voters would be less inclined to support him in a presidential primary if he vetoed SB 1047.
The governor and legislature must formulate a bill that allows California to remain a leader in innovation while balancing safety concerns. This balance is achievable and necessary.
Ultimately, the absence of common ground on safety measures for AI, coupled with a lack of dynamic legislation that can adapt to technological advancements, reinforces public fears that AI is out of control and that powerful players are defining the narrative. California has a prime opportunity to alleviate these concerns.
