Another California lawmaker hopes the state is at the forefront of AI regulation, and announces “Robo bossless” behavior, aiming directly to use AI in the workplace. Senate Bill 7, released Friday by Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton), seeks to regulate the use of an Automated Decision System (ADS) in Employment, hoping to strictly limit AI-driven tools when hiring, promoting, training and termination of workers. If established, SB 7 will use AI-driven workforce management tools to significantly impact employers. Here are what businesses need to know about this latest push to regulate AI in the workplace, and how it differs from other pending AI laws in California:
What do I need for SB 7?
The No Robo Bosses Act, which you can read here, will impose some important obligations and restrictions on employers who use advertising in employment-related decisions.
Managing Human Surveillance – Employers cannot rely solely on automated decision-making tools for employment, promotion, disciplinary action or termination. Human reviewers need to be involved in all major employment decisions. Notification requirements – Employers must provide written notice to workers when advertising is used to make employment-related decisions. This includes at least 30 days’ advance notice of use before introducing advertising. Post-use notification explaining how the advertisement influenced employment decisions. Transparency and Data Access – Employees must have the right to access and correct the data used in advertising, and should not be misunderstood due to inaccurate AI-driven analysis. Appeal Process – Employers should provide workers with a clear appeal process if they believe an ad-driven employment decision is incorrect. Employers must provide workers 30 days to file an appeal. After that, after a human reviewer who meets a particular criteria has objectively evaluated all the evidence, they will respond for 14 business days. If a human reviewer determines that a decision should be reversed, the employer must revise the decision within 21 business days. Prohibited Use – The bill explicitly prohibits certain advertising functions that include: Collection or speculation of sensitive personal data (e.g. immigration status, sexual orientation, credit history, religious beliefs, etc.). It mainly relies on similar AI-generated metrics for customer valuation or employment decisions.
This last point – banning actions such as predictive AI can be very controversial. Such a ban could significantly sweep the general use of AI aimed at supporting employees, including employee retention, employee satisfaction and other similar goals, significantly impeding progress and efficiency. Opponents will argue that such uses are not fuelled by generative AI, but instead are not fueled by simple formulas, and therefore are not affected by the same concerns (hagasms, bias, etc.) associated with the use of other genais.
How will SB 7 be enforced?
The Secretary of Labor has enforcement against SB 7 and violations could lead to a civil penalty of $500 for each violation, let alone private lawsuits from employees.
How does SB 7 differ from other pending AI regulations in California?
SB 7 is not just about AI workplace regulations being considered in California. As you can read Congressional Bill 1018 (AB 1018) here, it seeks to regulate AI in employment, but there are important differences.
SB 7 focuses primarily on human surveillance in employment decisions, preventing employers from relying solely on AI to make important workplace choices. AB 1018 It imposes a wide range of compliance obligations on both employers and AI vendors, requiring audits, data retention policies and comprehensive risk assessments on AI-driven employment tools. SB 7 expressly prohibits predictive behavioral analysis, while AB 1018 focuses more on impact assessments and reporting obligations.
Meanwhile, SB 7 imposes essentially similar requirements on what is currently proposed by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) in the second round of CCPA/CPRA regulations related to automated decision making technology (ADMT). These proposed regulations could be passed and enacted later this year.
However, the CCPA applies only to commercial businesses of a particular size and businesses that meet certain criteria related to the number of consumers collecting data. Conversely, SB 7 applies to all employers, including small businesses and nonprofits.
effect? SB 7 is because this Act imposes essentially the same requirements to effectively replace CCPA/CPRA mandates and regulate ADMT.
Finally, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced Senate Bill 53, which aims to promote responsible development of large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The bill proposes the creation of CalCompute, a public cloud computing cluster designed to support startups and researchers in the development of large-scale AI models. Additionally, SB 53 is seeking to enhance protection for whistleblowers reporting potential risks associated with AI development. It passed Congress but followed a similar path to the controversial bill that was ultimately rejected by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year.
What’s next?
The No Robobos Act is expected to generate important debate between trade unions and business groups. Advocates argue that human surveillance is essential to prevent AI-driven discrimination, and critics argue that existing employment laws already provide adequate protection.
Employers should be aware of potential amendments as the bill will move through committee hearings over the coming months. Important deadline? He must reach Governor Newsom by mid-September, and he must sign or reject the law until October 12th.
From a massive perspective, the bill is another reminder that states will lead foreseeable future AI regulations. In fact, the similar bill proposed at the federal level last year, the “Robots No Boss” Act, could not even delegate it from a Congressional committee. With no traction at the federal level, these types of bills will undoubtedly multiply in the state.
What should an employer do now?
Although SB 7 is still going through the legislative process, employers using AI in workforce management should consider some best practices and start preparing.
ai Current AI Systems Audit – Identifies where and how AI-driven tools are used in employment decisions.
Consider how human human surveillance policies are enforced. Human decision makers may need to ensure final decisions regarding employment, promotion, discipline and termination.
collection Check data collection practices – AI tools should not use or infer prohibited personal characteristics that can be done through AI bias audits.
Implementing ai AI Governance Policy – Establish a clear AI Governance Framework, including bias mitigation protocols and transparency measurements. Follow the 10-step guide to set up your own AI governance system.
Stay up to date on the development of califislative legislation – Given California’s aggressive push for AI regulations, employers need to closely monitor SB 7 and AB 1018 before compliance requirements.
