Colorado automated decision-making technology law (SB 26-189, replacing the Colorado AI Act, SB 24-205)
Repeals and re-enacts the 2024 Colorado AI Act as narrower rules on automated decision-making technology that materially influences consequential decisions (employment, housing, lending, insurance, health care, education, essential government services). Deployers must give notice before use, explain an adverse outcome and the technology's role, let consumers correct data and request meaningful human review by someone with authority to change the decision, and keep records for three years; developers must document intended uses, known harmful uses, and limits. The earlier duty of care, risk-management program, and impact assessments are removed.
Scope. Executive Order 14365 (December 2025) directs a federal challenge to state AI laws judged onerous; it does not by itself preempt this law, which remains enforceable unless Congress or a court says otherwise.
Draft mapping. Drafted by the Register's agents from the rule's text and not yet confirmed by a person. It is the Register's reading, not legal advice: whether and how the rule applies to you is a question for counsel.
Controls this rule maps to
Required by the text The rule's text requires a measure that is this control, or plainly includes it. Implied A binding rule whose purpose needs this control, but whose text does not name it. The Register's reading. Recommended A voluntary standard or guidance recommends it; nothing binds you to it. Proposed Appears in a proposed rule or proposed provision that is not yet in force.
| Control | Strength | Where in the rule, and why | Confidence | Missing or failed in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mandate disclosed to supervisor C-M1 | Required by the text | notice to the consumer before the technology is used to materially influence a consequential decision, and developer documentation of intended and known harmful uses | high | 1 case |
| Authority limit on automation over humans C-E6 | Required by the text | right to meaningful human review and reconsideration by a reviewer with authority to change the decision, who must not simply defer to the system | high | 1 case |
| Independent audit log C-V1 | Implied | records kept for at least three years after a consequential decision | medium | 1 case |
Cases that cite this rule
| Case | How the case cites it | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Mobley v. Workday | Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Title VII; Americans with Disabilities Act; California Fair Employment and Housing Act (pleaded); state automated-decision laws (none appears among the claims in the court orders) | Pending |