Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill, beginning on July 1, 2027, would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would, when an employer primarily uses an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, authorize an employee to request, and require an employer to provide, a description of the employees own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision to provide the affected employee with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any employee for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would provide that it does not prohibit the use of an automated decision system relating to the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace or the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, if the use of an automated decision system is reasonably necessary to comply with the federal statute, the federal regulation, or the binding federal contract, as specified.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill, beginning on July 1, 2027, would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would, when an employer primarily uses an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, authorize an employee to request, and require an employer to provide, a description of the employees own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision to provide the affected employee with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any employee for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would provide that it does not prohibit the use of an automated decision system relating to the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace or the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, if the use of an automated decision system is reasonably necessary to comply with the federal statute, the federal regulation, or the binding federal contract, as specified.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill bill, beginning on July 1, 2027, would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would would, when an employer primarily uses an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, authorize a worker an employee to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers description of the employees own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation disciplinary or termination decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation disciplinary or termination decision to provide the affected worker employee with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker employee for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require authorize the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would exempt from its provisions provide that it does not prohibit the use of an automated decision system to the extent that its use is required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract relating to the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace or the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, if the use of an automated decision system is reasonably necessary to comply with the federal statute, the federal regulation, or the binding federal contract, as specified.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would exempt from its provisions the use of an automated decision system to the extent that its use is required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract relating to the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace or the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, as specified.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions the use of an automated decision system to the extent that its use is required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract relating to the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace or the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, as specified.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions, authorize, in the alternative, any worker who has suffered a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions, authorize, in the alternative, any worker who has suffered a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, and authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty. penalty per violation.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions, authorize, in the alternative, any worker who has suffered a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, and authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that uses primarily relied upon an ADS to assist in making make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions, authorize, in the alternative, any worker who has suffered a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, and authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined.

The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill would prohibit an employer employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that uses an ADS to assist in making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions, authorize, in the alternative, any worker who has suffered a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, and authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency.

Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This bill would prohibit an employer from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the workers own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that uses an ADS to assist in making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written postuse notice, as specified.

This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bills provisions, authorize, in the alternative, any worker who has suffered a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action for damages, and authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty.

This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bills provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined.

This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 947

Author: McNerney (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/26

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 3-1, 4/8/26

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo

NOES: Strickland

NO VOTE RECORDED: Laird

SENATE PRIV., DIGITAL TECH. & CONS. PROT. COMMITTEE: 7-2, 4/20/26

AYES: Cabaldon, Gonzalez, McNerney, Padilla, Reyes, Umberg, Wiener

NOES: Jones, Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto, Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 29-9, 5/19/26

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Stern

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/30/26

SUBJECT: Employment: automated decision systems

SOURCE: California Federation of Labor Unions

DIGEST:

This bill 1) prohibits an employer from using an automated decision system (ADS) that does certain functions and limits the purposes and manner in which an ADS may be used to make disciplinary or termination decisions; 2) requires an employer to provide a written ADS postuse notice, as specified; 3) includes worker anti-retaliation provisions for the exercise of these rights; 4) authorize enforcement through the Labor Commissioner (LC) or authorized public prosecutor; and 5) prescribes penalties and remedies for violations.

Assembly Amendments

revised provisions of this bill to: 1) clarify the prohibited use of an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision as opposed to their use to “assist” in making the decision; 2) struck provisions of this bill that would have prohibited ADS use to inform compensation or conduct predictive behavior analysis on a worker; 3) struck provisions of this bill that would have prohibited an employer from using customer ratings to assist in making employment-related decisions; 4) struck the applicability of this bill to independent contractors; 5) struck the limitation on ADS use for “deactivations”; 6) limits the information an employee can receive when making ADS data requests; 7) struck the provisions of this bill that granted a worker, or their exclusive representative, the right to bring a civil action for violations; and 8) delays implementation to July 1, 2027.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Artificial intelligence” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.
   2. “Automated decision system” means a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decision making and materially impacts natural persons. “Automated decision system” does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data. (Government Code §11546.45.5)
2. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which grants consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, including enhanced notice, access, and disclosure; the right to deletion; the right to restrict the sale of information; and protection from discrimination for exercising these rights. It places attendant obligations on businesses to respect those rights. (Civil Code §1798.100 et seq.)
3. Establishes the Consumer Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which amends the CCPA and creates the California Privacy Protection Agency (PPA), which is charged with implementing these privacy laws, promulgating regulations, and carrying out enforcement actions. (Civil Code §1798.100 et seq.; Proposition 24 (2020))
4. Requires the Attorney General to adopt regulations governing, among other things, access and opt-out rights with respect to businesses’ use of automated decision making technology, including profiling and requiring businesses’ response to access requests to include meaningful information about the logic involved in those decision making processes, as well as a description of the likely outcome of the process with respect to the consumer. (Civil Code §1798.185)
5. Establishes within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), various entities including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) under the direction of the Labor Commissioner (LC), and empowers the LC with ensuring a just day’s pay in every workplace and promotes economic justice through robust enforcement of labor laws. (Labor Code §79-107)

This bill:

1. Defines, among others, the following terms:
   1. “Automated decision system” or “ADS” means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decision making and materially impacts natural persons. An automated decision system does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data.
   2. “ADS output” means any information, data, assumptions, predictions, scoring, recommendations, decisions, or conclusions generated by an ADS.
   3. “Employer” means a person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.
      1. “Employer” includes all branches of state government, including all cities, counties, charter counties, municipalities, charter municipalities, cities and counties, special districts, transit districts, the University of California upon agreement by the regents, the California State University, community college districts, school districts, or any other governmental entity.
      2. “Employer” includes a labor contractor of a person defined as an employer under subparagraph (A).
      3. “Employer” includes a farm labor contractor as defined in Section 1682 or foreign labor contractor as defined in Section 9998.1 of the Business and Professions Code.
   4. “Employee data” means any information that identifies, relates to, or describes an employee, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.
2. Beginning July 1, 2027, prohibits an employer from using an ADS to do any of the following:
   1. Prevent compliance with or violate any federal, state, or local labor, occupational health and safety, employment, or civil rights laws or regulations.
   2. Infer employee’s protected status under Government Code Section 12940.
   3. Predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by state and federal employment and labor law.
3. Prohibits an employer from relying solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision.
4. If an employer primarily relies upon an ADS output to make a disciplinary or termination decision, requires the employer to direct a human to corroborate the decision using data that was collected or used to produce the ADS output or other relevant corroborating or supporting information. “Corroborating or supporting information” may include, but is not limited to, the following:
   1. Supervisory or managerial evaluations.
   2. Personnel files.
   3. Work product of employees.
   4. Peer reviews.
   5. Witness interviews, that may include relevant online customer reviews.
5. Prohibits an employer from using the ADS output to discipline or terminate an employee if the employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, or the human reviewer has concluded that the ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading.
6. Grants employees the right to request, and requires an employer to provide, a meaningful, objective description of the employee’s own data used by the ADS when an employer has primarily used an ADS to make disciplinary or termination decisions.
   1. For purposes of safeguarding the privacy rights of consumers, employees, and individuals, requires description of employee data to be provided in a manner that anonymizes the customer’s, other employee’s, or individual’s personal information.
7. Requires an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision to provide the affected employee with a written postuse notice at the time the employer informs the employee of the decision.
   1. Requires the notice to comply with all of the following:
      1. It shall be written in plain language as a separate, stand-alone communication.
      2. It shall be in the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to employees.
      3. It shall be provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, including an email, hyperlink, or other written format.
8. Requires the postuse notice to contain all of the following information:
   1. That the employer primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision with respect to the employee.
   2. That a human reviewed the decision and corroborated the ADS output.
   3. Contact information for a human that the worker may contact for more information about the decision and the employee’s right to access a description of the employee’s own data used by the ADS when an employer primarily used an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision.
   4. That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the employee for exercising their rights under this part.
9. Prohibits an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any employee for using or attempting to use their rights under these provisions, including the filing of a complaint with the LC, as specified.
10. Authorizes the LC to enforce these provisions, including by investigating an alleged violation, ordering appropriate temporary relief to mitigate a violation or maintaining the status quo pending the completion of a full investigation or hearing through the procedures set forth in existing law, as specified, including by issuing a citation against an employer who violates these provisions and filing a civil action.
    1. If a citation is issued, the procedures for issuing, contesting, and enforcing judgments for citations and civil penalties issued by the LC shall be the same as those set forth in existing law, as specified.
11. Authorizes public prosecutors to enforce these provisions pursuant to existing Labor Code Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 180) of Division 1.
12. Specifies that in any civil action or administrative proceeding brought, once it has been demonstrated that an ADS was used to make a disciplinary or termination decision, requires the employer to demonstrate that the employer did not primarily rely upon an ADS or that the employer complied with Sections 1522 and 1524 of this bill when making the disciplinary or termination decision.

1. Specifies that in any action brought, the petitioner may seek appropriate temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, including punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in addition to other remedies, as specified.
2. Subjects an employer who violates these provisions to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) per violation.
3. Specifies that it does not preempt any city, county, or city and county ordinance that provides equal or greater protection to employees who are covered by these provisions.
4. Provides that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar notice provisions related to ADS’ used for employment-related decisions required under any other state law, except as specified.
   1. Notwithstanding the above, specifies that an employer that is a business subject to the CCPA is subject to any privacy-related automated decisionmaking technology regulation duly adopted by the California Privacy Protection Agency, as specified.
5. Exempts from its provisions, parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement explicitly waives these provisions in clear and unambiguous terms, expressly provides for the wages or earning, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of work, and provides protection from algorithmic management.
6. Provides that this bill’s provisions do not apply to the use of an ADS to the extent its use is required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract, as specified, relating to either of the following:
   1. The development of aircraft for use in the national airspace.
   2. The development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes.
7. Finds and declares that these provisions address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, therefore, the provisions apply to all cities, including charter cities.
8. Declares that its provisions are severable and if any provision or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

Background

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automated Decision Systems. Automated decision systems (ADS) are computer programs that analyze data (in employment settings, this can be anything from tracking attendance to work product delivery or even worker behavior) to find patterns or correlations and produce outputs for employer use. The use of ADS can pose several challenges including bias and discrimination in its development and use. Over the last several years, the Legislature has considered several bills aimed at regulating AI and its use to ensure that the privacy rights of Californians continue to be protected.

Need for this bill? According to the author: “Employers are increasingly using automated decision-making systems to surveil, manage, and replace workers in pursuit of maximizing productivity and reducing costs. While the passage of AB 701 (Chapter 197, Statutes of 2021) has prohibited employers from setting productivity demands at the expense of health and safety, "robo-bosses" continue to pose a threat to workers. Unregulated employer use of ADS leaves workers vulnerable to discrimination, lower pay, dangerous working conditions, and high risk of unjust termination. SB 947 requires human oversight and independent verification for discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions. The bill provides notice and access to data to a worker when ADS has been used to support a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision. It also prohibits the use of ADS for predictive behavior analysis of workers.”

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 7 (McNerney) of 2025 attempted to regulate the use of ADS’ in the employment setting by, among other things, 1) requiring employers to provide a written notice (pre introduction and post use) that an ADS is in use at the workplace to all workers and job applicants directly affected by the ADS; 2) prohibiting in some instances and in others limiting the use of an ADS, as specified; 3) providing worker anti-retaliation protections for exercising these rights; and 4) specifying enforcement mechanisms that included penalties and relief for violations. SB 7 was vetoed by Governor Newsom.

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more background information and information on more prior and related legislation.]

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of an unknown, but likely significant amount, in excess of $150,000, to the state as an employer to ensure compliance with this bill’s human review, notice, and data provision requirements for allowable ADS uses (General Fund (GF) or special fund). The magnitude of costs depends the state’s existing ADS disclosure and use policies.

Similarly, likely significant costs to local government employers, which the state would not need to reimburse because this bill’s new requirements for local agencies equally apply to the private sector.

1. Costs ranging from approximately $600,000 to the low millions of dollars annually to the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE, also known as the LC) to enforce this bill’s ADS use and workers’ rights provisions, partially offset by penalty revenue (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund). DLSE’s primary mission is enforcement of the state’s wage and hour laws, whereas this bill regulates employer conduct broader than the usual scope of enforcement for DLSE. As such, DLSE anticipates needing additional staff positions to provide technical expertise and accommodate a sharp increase in complaints and investigations. DLSE notes the number of complaints filed is likely to be as high as 4,000 per year, given this bill’s broad scope, application to both employees and independent contractors, and role for DLSE as the primary enforcement body. DLSE estimates costs to reach approximately $5.1 million annually if DLSE investigates an additional 285 cases per year as a result of this bill.
2. Annual cost pressures of an unknown amount to the courts in additional workload by authorizing a new civil action against an employer that violates this bill’s ADS use and workers’ rights provisions (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide and how much court time may be needed to resolve each case, but it generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF. The state budget provides annual GF backfills to the TCTF to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in fiscal year 2025-26.
3. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports no significant impact from this bill, indicating DOJ is unlikely to experience an increase in litigation representing state agencies for alleged violations of this bill’s prohibitions or pursue civil actions to enforce this bill’s provisions as a public prosecutor.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/26/26)

California Federation of Labor Unions (Source)

Alameda Labor Council

American Federation of Musicians, Local 7

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California

Association of California State Employees with Disabilities

California Alliance for Retired Americans

California Community Foundation

California Employment Lawyers Association

California Faculty Association

California Federation of Teachers AFL-CIO

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Nurses Association

California Professional Firefighters

California School Employees Association

California State Legislative Board of the SMART Transportation Division (SMART-TD)

California Teachers Association

California Working Families Party

Center on Policy Initiatives

Central Coast Labor Council

Communications Workers of America, District 9

County Employees Management Association

Fresno-Madera-Tulare-Kings Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Inland Empire Labor Council, AFL-CIO

Kapor Center Advocacy

National Union of Healthcare Workers

NextGen California

North Bay Labor Council

North Valley Labor Federation

Oakland Privacy

Orange County Employees Association

Orange County Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

San Mateo County Central Labor Council

SEIU California

State Building & Construction Trades Council of California

TechEquity Collaborative

Tech Oversight California

The Greenlining Institute

UAW Region 6

What We Will

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/26/26)

American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association

American Staffing Association

Apartment Owners Association of California

Associated Equipment Distributors

Associated General Contractors California

Associated General Contractors San Diego

Association of California Healthcare Districts

Association of California School Administrators

Bay Area Council

Brea Chamber of Commerce

Business Software Alliance

CalAsian Chamber of Commerce

California Alliance of Small Business Associations

California Apartment Association

California Association of Recreation & Park Districts

California Association of School Business Officials

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Bankers Association

California Broadband & Video Association

California Business Roundtable

California Chamber of Commerce

California Coalition on Worker’s Compensation

California County Superintendents

California Distributors Association

California Farm Bureau

California Food Producers

California Fuels and Convenience Alliance

California Grocers Association

California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

California Hospital Association

California Landscape Contractors Association

California League of Food Producers

California Manufacturers & Technology Association

California Multicultural Business Alliance

California Restaurant Association

California Retailers Association

California School Boards Association

California Special Districts Association

California Staffing and Recruiting Association

California Staffing Professionals

California State Association of Counties

California Trucking Association

California's Credit Unions

Chamber of Progress

Cinema Association of California

Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

Civil Justice Association of California

County of Fresno

County of Kern

County of Ventura

DoorDash

Family Business Association of California

Fresno County Board of Supervisors

Gaslamp Quarter Association

Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce

Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce

Insights Association

Leading Age California

League of California Cities

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Long Beach Restaurant Association

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Los Angeles County Business Federation

Lyft, Inc.

Moorpark Chamber of Commerce

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

Orange County Business Council

Orange County Fire Authority

Personal Insurance Federation of California

Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Coalition

Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management

Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce

Regional Cal Black Chamber San Fernando Valley

Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce

Rural County Representatives of California

Sacramento Metro Chamber

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce

Self Storage Association

SHRM California

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Southwest California Legislative Council

TechNet

Tri-County Chamber Alliance

Uber Technologies, INC.

Urban Counties of California

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Western Growers Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the sponsors of the measure, the California Federation of Labor Unions: “To prevent algorithmic firings and discipline, SB 947 ensures human oversight of automated decision-making systems when making decisions that impact workers’ working conditions and livelihoods... SB 947 will prevent the outsourcing of decisions that impact workers’ lives to machines. It allows for the use of technology and tools to make workplaces more productive and efficient but ensures human oversight to prevent abuse and mistakes. New technologies like artificial intelligence are powerful tools with the potential to either improve work for workers and employers or to exacerbate and increase existing exploitation and inequality. SB 947 ensures that technology remains a tool controlled by humans.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: A coalition of employer associations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, are opposed arguing, among other things, that “SB 947 will drive up costs for consumers and employers because it would impose significant compliance burdens and any misstep would lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers. While we appreciate concerns over employees being unfairly disciplined or terminated solely based on automated tools, SB 947 is not tailored to those scenarios and does not consider the benefits of ADS technology. Unfortunately, we believe SB 947 will have an undesired chilling effect on the technology and make it that much harder to develop the very tools that can help combat bias in decision making.”

Opposition from various local government and educational agencies, including the League of California Cities, “For public employers with represented workforces, collective bargaining agreements already provide mechanisms for appealing personnel decisions. This bill’s enforcement provisions overlay appeal rights for public employees that could create confusion, workload redundancy, and legal uncertainty…With the state and local agencies grappling with a substantial and growing decline in support from the federal government for a variety of programs and services, now is not the time for additional unfunded mandates, particularly without a clearly demonstrated need…”

Prepared by: Alma Perez-Schwab / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

8/30/26 19:55:06

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 947

Author:(McNerney)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Regulates, beginning July 1, 2027, an employer′s use of automated decision systems (ADS), as specified, including prohibiting an employer from relying solely on an ADS to make disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decisions.

Major Provisions

Regulates an employer′s use of ADS:

1. Prohibits an employer from using an ADS to do any of the following:
   1. Prevent compliance with or violate any federal, state, or local labor, occupational health and safety, employment, or civil rights laws or regulations.
   2. Infer an employee′s protected status under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
   3. Predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by state and federal employment and labor law.
2. Prohibits an employer from relying solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision.
3. Requires the employer, if it primarily relies upon an ADS output to make a disciplinary or termination decision, to direct a human to corroborate the decision using data that was collected or used to produce the ADS output or other relevant corroborating or supporting information, as specified.
4. Prohibits, if an employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, or the human reviewer has concluded that the ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer from using the ADS output to make a disciplinary or termination decision.
5. Provides that an employee shall have the right to request, and an employer shall provide a meaningful, objective description of the employee′s own data used by the ADS when the employer has primarily used an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, as specified.

Requires employers to provide affected workers with a post-use notice:

1. Requires an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision to provide the affected employee with a written post-use notice at the time the employer informs the employee of the decision, as specified.
2. Requires the post-use notice to contain all of the following information:
   1. That the employer primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision with respect to the employee.
   2. That a human reviewed the decision and corroborated the ADS output.
   3. Contact information for a human that the employee may contact for more information about the decision and the employee′s right to access a description of the employee′s own data used by the ADS when an employer has primarily used an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision.
   4. That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the employee for exercising their rights under this bill.

Provides for enforcement and retaliation protections:

1. Prohibits employer discrimination and retaliation against any employee for exercising their rights under, or alleging a violation of, this bill, as specified.
2. Authorizes the Labor Commissioner (LC), and authorizes a public prosecutor, to enforce the provisions of the bill, as specified.
3. Provides that, in any civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to this bill for a violation of (2) or (4) above, once it has been demonstrated that an ADS was used to make a disciplinary or deactivation decision, the employer must demonstrate that the employer did not primarily rely upon an ADS or that the employer complied with the provisions of this bill when making the disciplinary or termination decision.
4. Authorizes, in any civil action brought pursuant to subdivision (9) above in superior court in any county wherein the violation in question is alleged to have occurred, or wherein the person resides or transacts business, the petitioner to seek appropriate temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, including punitive damages, and reasonable attorney′s fees and costs in addition to other remedies, as specified.
5. Provides that an employer who violates this bill′s provisions shall be subject to a civil penalty of $500 per violation.

Additional provisions:

1. Provides that the bill′s provisions do not preempt any city, county, or city and county ordinance that provides equal or greater protection to employees who are covered by this bill.
2. Provides that, except as set forth in (15) below, an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice under this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar notice provisions related to ADS used for employment-related decisions required under any other state law.
   1. Provides that (14) above does not apply to any quotas, as defined, or any other automated standards applied to working conditions of employees.
3. Provides that, notwithstanding (14) above, an employer that is a business subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) of 2018 is subject to any privacy-related automated decisionmaking technology regulation duly adopted by the California Privacy Protection Agency (PPA).
4. Exempts from the provisions of this bill parties covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement explicitly waives this part in clear and unambiguous terms, expressly provides for the wages or earning, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of work, and provides protection from algorithmic management.
5. Provides that the bill does not apply to the use of an ADS to the extent that use of the system is required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract relating to either 1) the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace, or 2) the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, as specified.
6. Includes a severability clause.
7. Defines certain terms, including ADS, ADS output, AI, employ, employee, employee data, and employer.
8. Provides that the bill′s provisions become operative on July 1, 2027.

COMMENTS

Employers are increasingly using workplace surveillance such as electronic monitoring, as well as ADS, to not only surveil and collect data on workers, but to manage, and even terminate, workers. According to the University of California (UC) Berkeley Labor Center, ″Employers use electronic monitoring and automated decision systems to make a wide range of decisions about workers (including employees, independent contractors, and job applicants):

1. Wages and benefits
2. Hours and work schedules
3. Performance evaluations
4. Hiring, firing, discipline, and promotion
5. Job content, tasks, and responsibilities
6. Productivity requirements
7. Access to training opportunities
8. Workplace health and safety

Concrete examples of these decisions include terminating gig workers based on customer ratings, using wearable devices on construction sites to detect worker fatigue, setting daily productivity quotas in warehouses, and filtering out job candidates with flagged social media content.

Many workplace ADS tools make predictions about workers′ future behavior or characteristics. These computer programs identify patterns or correlations in large datasets about workers, and based on those patterns make predictions about an individual worker in a given workplace. Examples of these predictions include the probability that a worker will quit a job, struggle with performance, succeed in a promotion or work team, experience stress, join a union, pose a safety risk, or become pregnant.″^[1]

The author provides examples of ADS use in the employment setting:

1. Nurses who work through gig-nursing apps, such as ShiftKey, have had their wages and hours set by an algorithm, which has led to disparate pay between equally qualified nurses without any justification or reasoning.^[2]
2. The ADS used by the employer of a California-based software developer terminated him due to an error in the system′s data. The system removed the worker′s access to enter the office space and his workstation, all without human intervention. The termination was ultimately resolved but not until after the worker missed three weeks of work without pay.^[3]
3. Uber Eats used ethnically-biased facial recognition technology that led to a driver′s suspension and a subsequent legal settlement. Uber Eats had not made the driver aware of the processes that led to his suspension from the app, nor provided an effective route to challenge this decision.^[4]

According to the Author

″Businesses are increasingly using AI to boost efficiency and productivity in the workplace. But there are currently no safeguards to prevent machines from unjustly or illegally impacting workers′ livelihoods and working conditions. SB 947 establishes post-use notifications when ADS is used in the workplace, and ensures employers have a human in the loop when making critical employment decisions. SB 947 does not prohibit ADS in the workplace, rather it will establish guardrails to ensure that California businesses are not operated by robo bosses, because there will be a human in the loop. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.″

Arguments in Support

The California Federation of Labor Unions, sponsor of this measure, states that ″Employer use of ADS is increasingly used without oversight to make the decisions that impact workers′ paychecks. A 2025 ResumeBuilder survey of employers found that 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical decisions about workers, including raises, terminations, and layoffs. Of those, 20% let AI make final decisions without any human input or oversight.^[5] Algorithmic management can inflict serious harm to workers. Endlessly increasing efficiency through eliminating routine tasks and increasing work speeds can lead to fatigue, burn-out, excessive injuries, and other harm, as seen in Amazon warehouses that relied on algorithms to implement speed quotas which forced workers to skip bathroom breaks and skirt safety measures.″

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of business organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, states in opposition that ″SB 947 will drive up costs for consumers and employers because it would impose significant compliance burdens and any misstep would lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers. While we appreciate concerns over employees being unfairly disciplined or terminated solely based on automated tools, SB 947 is not tailored to those scenarios and does not consider the benefits of ADS technology. Unfortunately, we believe SB 947 will have an undesired chilling effect on technology and make it that much harder to develop the very tools that can help combat bias in decision making.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of an unknown, but likely significant amount, in excess of $150,000, to the state as an employer to ensure compliance with this bill′s human review, notice, and data provision requirements for allowable ADS uses (General Fund (GF) or special fund). The magnitude of costs depends the state′s existing ADS disclosure and use policies.

Similarly, likely significant costs to local government employers, which the state would not need to reimburse because this bill′s new requirements for local agencies equally apply to the private sector.

1. Costs ranging from approximately $600,000 to the low millions of dollars annually to the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE, also known as the LC) to enforce this bill′s ADS use and workers′ rights provisions, partially offset by penalty revenue (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund). DLSE′s primary mission is enforcement of the state′s wage and hour laws, whereas this bill regulates employer conduct broader than the usual scope of enforcement for DLSE. As such, DLSE anticipates needing additional staff positions to provide technical expertise and accommodate a sharp increase in complaints and investigations. DLSE notes the number of complaints filed is likely to be as high as 4,000 per year, given this bill′s broad scope, application to both employees and independent contractors, and role for DLSE as the primary enforcement body. DLSE estimates costs to reach approximately $5.1 million annually if DLSE investigates an additional 285 cases per year as a result of this bill.
2. Annual cost pressures of an unknown amount to the courts in additional workload by authorizing a new civil action against an employer that violates this bill′s ADS use and workers′ rights provisions (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide and how much court time may be needed to resolve each case, but it generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF. The state budget provides annual GF backfills to the TCTF to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in fiscal year 2025-26.
3. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports no significant impact from this bill, indicating DOJ is unlikely to experience an increase in litigation representing state agencies for alleged violations of this bill′s prohibitions or pursue civil actions to enforce this bill′s provisions as a public prosecutor.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 29-9-2

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ABS, ABST OR NV: Niello, Stern

ASM LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT: 5-1-1

YES: Ortega, Arambula, Kalra, Lee, Ward

NO: Alanis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Chen

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 10-4-1

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Pellerin, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

NO: Macedo, DeMaio, Hoover, Patterson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Petrie-Norris

ASM JUDICIARY: 8-3-1

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Papan, Stefani, Zbur

NO: Macedo, Dixon, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pacheco

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pacheco

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Erin Hickey / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0004016

1. Bernhardt, Annette and Lisa Kresge. (2025). UC Berkeley Labor Center. “Electronic Monitoring and Automated Data Systems FAQs.” https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Electronic-Monitoring-and-Automated-Decision-Systems-FAQ.pdf ↑

2. “Uber for Nursing: How an AI-Powered Gig Model Is Threatening Health Care.” (2024). Roosevelt Institute. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/uber-for-nursing/ ↑

3. Wakefield, Jane. (2018). “The man who was fired by a machine.” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44561838 ↑

4. “Uber Eats settles driver's facial recognition discrimination claim.” (2024). Personnel Today. https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/uber-eats-settles-drivers-facial-recognition-discrimination-claim/ ↑

5. https://www.resumebuilder.com/half-of-managers-use-ai-to-determine-who-gets-promoted-and-fired/ ↑

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 947

Author:(McNerney)

As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Regulates an employer′s use of automated decision systems (ADS), as specified, including prohibiting an employer from relying solely on an ADS to make disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decisions.

Major Provisions

Regulates an employer′s use of ADS:

1. Prohibits an employer from using an ADS to do any of the following:
   1. Prevent compliance with or violate any federal, state, or local labor, occupational health and safety, employment, or civil rights laws or regulations.
   2. Infer a worker′s protected status under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
   3. Conduct predictive behavior analysis on a worker with the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision.
   4. Predict and take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by state and federal employment and labor law.
2. Prohibits an employer from relying solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision.
3. Requires the employer, if it primarily relies upon an ADS output to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, to direct a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation and compile corroborating or supporting information for the decision, as specified.
4. Prohibits, if an employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, or the human reviewer has concluded that the ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer from using the ADS output to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker.
5. Provides that a worker shall have the right to request, and an employer shall provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker′s own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. A worker is limited to one request every 12 months for a copy of their own data used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision.

Requires employers to provide affected workers with a post-use notice:

1. Requires an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written post-use notice at the time the employer informs the worker of the decision, as specified.
2. Requires the post-use notice to contain all of the following information:
   1. That the employer primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision with respect to the worker.
   2. That a human reviewer conducted an independent investigation and compiled evidence to corroborate the ADS output.
   3. Contact information for a human that the worker may contact for more information about the decision and the worker′s right to access a copy of their own data and corroborating evidence that was used in the decision.
   4. That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the worker for exercising their rights under this bill.
3. Requires an employer, when responding to a data access request pursuant to (5) and (7) above, to provide to the worker a written, plain language document using a simple and easy-to-use method that is accessible away from the workplace containing all of the following:
   1. The specific decision for which the employer used the ADS.
   2. The specific worker data that the ADS used, and the specific ADS output produced by the ADS.
   3. Any additional corroborating or supporting information used in addition to the ADS output in making the decision.
   4. The name of the vendor or entity that created the ADS and the product name of the ADS.
   5. A copy of any completed impact assessments regarding the ADS in question.

Provides for enforcement and retaliation protections:

1. Prohibits employer discrimination and retaliation against any worker for exercising their rights under, or alleging a violation of, this bill, as specified.
2. Requires the Labor Commissioner (LC), and authorizes a public prosecutor, to enforce the provisions of the bill, as specified.
3. Authorizes, in any civil action brought pursuant to subdivision (10) above in superior court in any county wherein the violation in question is alleged to have occurred, or wherein the person resides or transacts business, the petitioner to seek appropriate temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, including punitive damages, and reasonable attorney′s fees and costs as part of the costs of any such action for damages.
4. Provides that an employer who violates this bill′s provisions shall be subject to a civil penalty of $500 per violation.

Additional provisions:

1. Provides that the bill′s provisions do not preempt any city, county, or city and county ordinance that provides equal or greater protection to workers who are covered by this bill.
2. Provides that, except as set forth in (15) below, an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice under this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar notice provisions related to ADS used for employment-related decisions required under any other state law.
3. Provides that, notwithstanding (14) above, an employer that is a business subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) of 2018 is subject to any privacy-related automated decisionmaking technology regulation duly adopted by the California Privacy Protection Agency (PPA).
4. Exempts from the provisions of this bill parties covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement explicitly waives this part in clear and unambiguous terms, expressly provides for the wages or earning, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of work, and provides protection from algorithmic management.
5. Provides that the bill does not apply to the use of an ADS to the extent that use of the system is required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract relating to either 1) the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace, or 2) the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, as specified.
6. Includes a severability clause.
7. Defines certain terms, including ADS, ADS output, AI, employer, employment-related decision, predictive behavior analysis, worker, and worker data.

COMMENTS

Employers are increasingly using workplace surveillance such as electronic monitoring, as well as ADS, to not only surveil and collect data on workers, but to manage, and even terminate, workers. According to the UC Berkeley Labor Center, ″Employers use electronic monitoring and automated decision systems to make a wide range of decisions about workers (including employees, independent contractors, and job applicants):

1. Wages and benefits
2. Hours and work schedules
3. Performance evaluations
4. Hiring, firing, discipline, and promotion
5. Job content, tasks, and responsibilities
6. Productivity requirements
7. Access to training opportunities
8. Workplace health and safety

Concrete examples of these decisions include terminating gig workers based on customer ratings, using wearable devices on construction sites to detect worker fatigue, setting daily productivity quotas in warehouses, and filtering out job candidates with flagged social media content.

Many workplace ADS tools make predictions about workers′ future behavior or characteristics. These computer programs identify patterns or correlations in large datasets about workers, and based on those patterns make predictions about an individual worker in a given workplace. Examples of these predictions include the probability that a worker will quit a job, struggle with performance, succeed in a promotion or work team, experience stress, join a union, pose a safety risk, or become pregnant.″^[1]

The author provides examples of ADS use in the employment setting:

1. Nurses who work through gig-nursing apps, such as ShiftKey, have had their wages and hours set by an algorithm, which has led to disparate pay between equally qualified nurses without any justification or reasoning.^[2]
2. The ADS used by the employer of a California-based software developer terminated him due to an error in the system′s data. The system removed the worker′s access to enter the office space and his workstation, all without human intervention. The termination was ultimately resolved but not until after the worker missed three weeks of work without pay.^[3]
3. Uber Eats used ethnically-biased facial recognition technology that led to a driver′s suspension and a subsequent legal settlement. Uber Eats had not made the driver aware of the processes that led to his suspension from the app, nor provided an effective route to challenge this decision.^[4]

According to the Author

″Businesses are increasingly using AI to boost efficiency and productivity in the workplace. But there are currently no safeguards to prevent machines from unjustly or illegally impacting workers′ livelihoods and working conditions. SB 947 establishes post-use notifications when ADS is used in the workplace, and ensures employers have a human in the loop when making critical employment decisions. SB 947 does not prohibit ADS in the workplace, rather it will establish guardrails to ensure that California businesses are not operated by robo bosses, because there will be a human in the loop. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.″

Arguments in Support

The California Federation of Labor Unions, sponsor of this measure, states that ″Employer use of ADS is increasingly used without oversight to make the decisions that impact workers′ paychecks. A 2025 ResumeBuilder survey of employers found that 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical decisions about workers, including raises, terminations, and layoffs. Of those, 20% let AI make final decisions without any human input or oversight.^[5] Algorithmic management can inflict serious harm to workers. Endlessly increasing efficiency through eliminating routine tasks and increasing work speeds can lead to fatigue, burn-out, excessive injuries, and other harm, as seen in Amazon warehouses that relied on algorithms to implement speed quotas which forced workers to skip bathroom breaks and skirt safety measures.″

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of business organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, states in opposition that ″SB 947 will drive up costs for consumers and employers because it would impose significant compliance burdens and any misstep would lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers. While we appreciate concerns over employees being unfairly disciplined or terminated solely based on automated tools, SB 947 is not tailored to those scenarios and does not consider the benefits of ADS technology. Unfortunately, we believe SB 947 will have an undesired chilling effect on technology and make it that much harder to develop the very tools that can help combat bias in decision making.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of an unknown, but likely significant amount, in excess of $150,000, to the state as an employer to ensure compliance with this bill′s human review, notice, and data provision requirements for allowable ADS uses (General Fund (GF) or special fund). The magnitude of costs depends the state′s existing ADS disclosure and use policies.

Similarly, likely significant costs to local government employers, which the state would not need to reimburse because this bill′s new requirements for local agencies equally apply to the private sector.

1. Costs ranging from approximately $600,000 to the low millions of dollars annually to the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE, also known as the LC) to enforce this bill′s ADS use and workers′ rights provisions, partially offset by penalty revenue (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund). DLSE′s primary mission is enforcement of the state′s wage and hour laws, whereas this bill regulates employer conduct broader than the usual scope of enforcement for DLSE. As such, DLSE anticipates needing additional staff positions to provide technical expertise and accommodate a sharp increase in complaints and investigations. DLSE notes the number of complaints filed is likely to be as high as 4,000 per year, given this bill′s broad scope, application to both employees and independent contractors, and role for DLSE as the primary enforcement body. DLSE estimates costs to reach approximately $5.1 million annually if DLSE investigates an additional 285 cases per year as a result of this bill.
2. Annual cost pressures of an unknown amount to the courts in additional workload by authorizing a new civil action against an employer that violates this bill′s ADS use and workers′ rights provisions (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide and how much court time may be needed to resolve each case, but it generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF. The state budget provides annual GF backfills to the TCTF to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in fiscal year 2025-26.
3. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports no significant impact from this bill, indicating DOJ is unlikely to experience an increase in litigation representing state agencies for alleged violations of this bill′s prohibitions or pursue civil actions to enforce this bill′s provisions as a public prosecutor.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 29-9-2

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ABS, ABST OR NV: Niello, Stern

ASM LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT: 5-1-1

YES: Ortega, Arambula, Kalra, Lee, Ward

NO: Alanis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Chen

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 10-4-1

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Pellerin, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

NO: Macedo, DeMaio, Hoover, Patterson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Petrie-Norris

ASM JUDICIARY: 8-3-1

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Papan, Stefani, Zbur

NO: Macedo, Dixon, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pacheco

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

NO: Hoover, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Pacheco

UPDATED

VERSION: July 2, 2026

CONSULTANT: Erin Hickey / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0003568

1. Bernhardt, Annette and Lisa Kresge. (2025). UC Berkeley Labor Center. ″Electronic Monitoring and Automated Data Systems FAQs.″ https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Electronic-Monitoring-and-Automated-Decision-Systems-FAQ.pdf ↑

2. ″Uber for Nursing: How an AI-Powered Gig Model Is Threatening Health Care.″ (2024). Roosevelt Institute. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/uber-for-nursing/ ↑

3. Wakefield, Jane. (2018). ″The man who was fired by a machine.″ BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44561838 ↑

4. ″Uber Eats settles driver's facial recognition discrimination claim.″ (2024). Personnel Today. https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/uber-eats-settles-drivers-facial-recognition-discrimination-claim/ ↑

5. https://www.resumebuilder.com/half-of-managers-use-ai-to-determine-who-gets-promoted-and-fired/ ↑

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 947

Author:(McNerney) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits an employer from using an automated decision system (ADS) to perform certain actions and regulates allowable ADS uses.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines an “ADS” to mean any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence (AI) that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, used to assist or replace human discretionary decision-making and materially impacts natural persons.
2. Prohibits an employer from using an ADS to perform certain actions, such as to conduct predictive behavior analysis on a worker with the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision.
3. Prohibits an employer from relying solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision (“decision”) and requires an employer that relies upon an ADS output to make a decision to direct a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation and compile corroborating information for the decision.
4. Grants a worker the right to request a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker’s data primarily used by an ADS to make a decision and requires the employer to respond with a plain-language document that contains certain information, including the corroborating information used by the employer and the vendor and product name of the ADS.
5. Requires an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a decision to provide the worker with a written, post-use notice that contains certain information, including contact information for a human that the worker may contact for more information about the decision and the worker’s rights.
6. Prohibits an employer from discriminating or retaliating against a worker who asserts their rights under these provisions.
7. Requires the Labor Commissioner (LC) to enforce these provisions, including issuing a citation and filing a civil action, and authorizes enforcement by a public prosecutor through a civil action.
8. Allows the petitioner in a civil action to seek temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs, and subjects an employer to a civil penalty of $500 per violation.
9. Exempts parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement (CBA) from these provisions if the CBA explicitly waives these provisions and provides protection from algorithmic management.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs of an unknown, but likely significant amount, in excess of $150,000, to the state as an employer to ensure compliance with this bill’s human review, notice, and data provision requirements for allowable ADS uses (General Fund (GF) or special fund). The magnitude of costs depends the state’s existing ADS disclosure and use policies.

Similarly, likely significant costs to local government employers, which the state would not need to reimburse because this bill’s new requirements for local agencies equally apply to the private sector.

1. Costs ranging from approximately $600,000 to the low millions of dollars annually to the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement (DLSE, also known as the LC) to enforce this bill’s ADS use and workers’ rights provisions, partially offset by penalty revenue (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund). DLSE’s primary mission is enforcement of the state’s wage and hour laws, whereas this bill regulates employer conduct broader than the usual scope of enforcement for DLSE. As such, DLSE anticipates needing additional staff positions to provide technical expertise and accommodate a sharp increase in complaints and investigations. DLSE notes the number of complaints filed is likely to be as high as 4,000 per year, given this bill’s broad scope, application to both employees and independent contractors, and role for DLSE as the primary enforcement body. DLSE estimates costs to reach approximately $5.1 million annually if DLSE investigates an additional 285 cases per year as a result of this bill.
2. Annual cost pressures of an unknown amount to the courts in additional workload by authorizing a new civil action against an employer that violates this bill’s ADS use and workers’ rights provisions (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). It is unclear how many civil actions may be filed statewide and how much court time may be needed to resolve each case, but it generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on staff and the TCTF may create a demand for increased court funding from the GF. The state budget provides annual GF backfills to the TCTF to offset revenue reductions, totaling approximately $117.3 million in fiscal year 2025-26.
3. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports no significant impact from this bill, indicating DOJ is unlikely to experience an increase in litigation representing state agencies for alleged violations of this bill’s prohibitions or pursue civil actions to enforce this bill’s provisions as a public prosecutor.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “there are currently no safeguards to prevent machines from unjustly or illegally impacting workers’ livelihoods and working conditions.” The author contends, “SB 947 does not prohibit ADS in the workplace, rather it will establish guardrails to ensure that California businesses are not operated by robo bosses, because there will be a human in the loop. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.”
2. Background. Workplace AI Tools. An employer may use data gathered from workplace AI tools to make a wide range of decisions affecting a worker’s wages and benefits, work schedule, performance evaluation, discipline, promotion, and other workplace conditions. An ADS is a predictive AI system that produces simplified outputs, such as scores, classifications, or recommendations, to assist or replace human discretionary decision-making. An ADS can process enormous datasets, identify hidden patterns, and make decisions on a scale that vastly exceeds human capabilities. However, relying on an ADS may be hazardous if deployed without proper oversight, as the datasets the ADS is trained on may be unrepresentative or biased, the basis for ADS outputs may be inscrutable, and the ADS may fail to account for the complexity of human behavior. This bill puts restrictions on an employer’s ability to use an ADS in employment-related decisions. This bill prohibits an employer from relying solely on an ADS output to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker, and requires an employer that primarily relies on an ADS output to make such a decision to direct a human reviewer to investigate and compile information to corroborate the decision and provide the worker with certain information regarding the decision.

Agency Regulations. The Civil Rights Department approved regulations, effective October 1, 2025, to address an employer’s use of AI and an ADS under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, clarifying that an employer cannot use an ADS to make employment decisions that discriminate against an applicant or employee based on their protected characteristics. Similarly, this bill prohibits an employer from using an ADS to violate certain laws, including state labor law or civil rights laws.

The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) approved regulations, effective January 1, 2027, that will require a business that uses automated decision-making technology (ADMT) to provide a consumer with: (a) a pre-use notice, (b) the ability to opt-out of the use of ADMT to make a significant decision concerning the consumer, unless the business provides the consumer with a method to appeal the decision to a human reviewer or certain other conditions are met, and (c) a response to the consumer’s request to access ADMT. The CPPA regulations define a “significant decision” to include employment or independent contracting opportunities or compensation and distinguishes between decisions related to hiring and allocation of work and compensation, with decisions related to demotion, suspension, and termination. Given the differences in definitions and scope between the CPPA regulations and this bill, it is unclear how the two policies may interact once the regulations take effect and if this bill is enacted.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is sponsored by the California Federation of Labor Unions, which argues, “SB 947 will prevent the outsourcing of decisions that impact workers’ lives to machines. It allows for the use of technology and tools to make workplaces more productive and efficient but ensures human oversight to prevent abuse and mistakes.” This bill is also supported by a coalition of other labor and privacy rights organizations.

This bill is opposed by a coalition of business groups, led by the California Chamber of Commerce, which argues this bill “broadly targets businesses of all sizes, across every industry, and regulates even low-risk applications of [ADS]” and “will drive up costs for consumers and employers because it would impose significant compliance burdens and any misstep would lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers.” This bill is also opposed by a coalition of local government associations.

1. Related Legislation. AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan) establishes requirements for the developer and deployer of an ADS used to make or facilitate a consequential decision, including a decision relating to employment. AB 1018 was ordered to the Senate Inactive File.

AB 1221 (Bryan) regulates an employer’s use of workplace surveillance tools and worker data. AB 1221 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

AB 1331 (Elhawary) prohibits an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool to monitor workers in employee-only areas and during off-duty hours. AB 1331 was ordered to the Senate Inactive File.

AB 1883 (Bryan) prohibits an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool that uses AI for certain purposes. AB 1883 is pending hearing by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1898 (Schultz) requires an employer to notify a worker of the employer’s use of a workplace AI tool to make an employment-related decision or for workplace surveillance. AB 1898 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

AB 2027 (Ward) prohibits an employer from using a worker’s personal information to train an AI system to replicate, automate, or replace a worker’s job. AB 2027 was held on this committee’s suspense file.

SB 7 (McNerney) was similar to this bill, but would not have required the human reviewer of an ADS decision to conduct an independent investigation and would have required an employer to provide a pre-use notice to a worker regarding the use of an ADS for employment-related decisions. SB 7 was vetoed by Governor Newsom, who stated:

I share the author’s concern about situations where an employer uses an ADS to make disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decisions. Such situations are partially covered by forthcoming [CPPA] regulations, which would allow employees and independent contractors to better understand how their personal data is used by automated decision technology. Before enacting new legislation in this space, we should assess the efficacy of these regulations to address these concerns.

SB 951 (Reyes) expands the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act to require an employer to give notice of a mass layoff, relocation, or termination caused by an AI system that replaces or automates a worker’s job. SB 951 is pending hearing by this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 947

Author:(McNerney) – As Amended Ver:June 25, 2026

As Proposed to be Amended

SENATE VOTE: 29-9

SUBJECT: Employment: automated decision systems

SYNOPSIS

According to several studies and news reports, employers increasingly use “Automated Decision System” (ADS) tools, including artificial intelligence (AI), to analyze data about applicants and employees. The tools produce “ADS output” that an employer may then use to make any number of employment-related decisions, including hiring or promoting workers, tracking performance, setting schedules, assigning work tasks, and disciplining and firing workers, among others. According to the U.C. Berkeley Labor Center, these tools “typically perform three main tasks: (a) rank workers, (b) predict workers’ future behavior or characteristics, and (c) give workers directions about their job tasks.” While many laud the possibilities of ADS, the author and sponsor point out that, without human oversight, workers could be unfairly “ranked” or subjected to adverse employment actions based on algorithmic predictions, inaccuracies, or inherent biases built into the data that ADS relies upon. If an employee runs the risk of losing their livelihood, the author and sponsor believe there should be human input.

This bill imposes restrictions on, but does not entirely eliminate, an employer’s ability to use ADS in employment-related decisions. The bill prohibits an employer from using ADS to, in any way, avoid compliance with the law and it prohibits the use of prediction analysis to infer an employee’s protected characteristics, predict future behavior, or identify employees likely to exercise legal rights and then take adverse action against workers based on these predictions. The bill also prohibits employers from relying solely on ADS output to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker. If the employer relies primarily on ADS output to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker, the employer must direct a human reviewer to investigate and compile information to corroborate the ADS decision. If the employer takes the adverse action based primarily on ADS output they must provide the affected worker with notice of the decision and rationale, as specified. Finally, the bill requires the Labor Commissioner (LC) to enforce the provisions of this bill and authorizes both the LC and a public prosecutor to bring a civil action for injunctive relief, punitive damages, a civil penalty, and attorney’s fees and costs.

The bill is supported by a broad coalition of labor and employee rights organizations, among others. It is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and a broad coalition of employer and business associations, as well as associations representing local government entities. The triple-referred bill recently passed out of the Assembly Labor Committee on 5-1 vote and out of the Assembly Privacy Committee on a 10-4 vote.

SUMMARY: Restricts an employer’s ability to use an “Automated Decision System” (ADS) in making employment-related decisions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits an employer from using ADS to do any of the following:
   1. Prevent compliance with or violate any federal, state, or local labor, occupational health and safety, employment, or civil rights laws or regulations.
   2. Infer a worker’s protected status.
   3. Conduct predictive behavior analysis on a worker with the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision.
   4. Predict or take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by state and federal employment and labor law.
2. Prohibits an employer from relying solely on ADS when making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision. Requires an employer who primarily relies on ADS output to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to direct a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation and compile corroborating or supporting information, as defined, for the decision. If an employer cannot corroborate, as specified, the employer shall not use ADS to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker.
3. Gives the worker the right to request, and requires an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker’s own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decisions. Limits a worker to one request every 12 months.
4. Requires an employer that primarily relies upon ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written post-use notice at the time the employer informs the worker of the decision and prescribes the content of the notice.
5. Prohibits an employer from discharging, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for using or attempting to use their rights under the bill, filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner, alleging a violation, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution, or asserting any other right.
6. Requires the Labor Commissioner to investigate an alleged violation and order appropriate temporary relief to mitigate a violation or maintain the status quo pending the completion of a full investigation or hearing, as specified, including issuing a citation and filing a civil action. Specifies that the provisions of the bill may also be enforced by a public prosecutor, as defined and provided.
7. Specifies that provisions of the bill do not preempt a city, county, or county and city ordinance that provides greater protection to workers.
8. Specifies that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice provisions of the bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar notice provisions related to ADS and employment-related decisions under any other state law. However, an employer that is a business subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 is subject to any privacy-related ADS regulation duly adopted by the California Privacy Protection Agency.
9. Specifies that the provisions of the bill do not apply to parties covered by a collective bargaining agreement, as specified, and does not prohibit an employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provisions of products or services to the federal government.
10. Defines the following terms:
    1. “ADS output” means any information, data, assumptions, predictions, scoring, recommendations, decisions, or conclusions generated by an ADS.
    2.  “Artificial intelligence” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.
    3. “Automated decision system” or “ADS” means any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decision making and materially impacts natural persons. An automated decision system does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data.
    4.  “Employment-related decision” means any decision by an employer that materially impacts a worker’s wages, benefits, compensation, work hours, work schedule, performance evaluation, hiring, discipline, promotion, termination, job tasks, skill requirements, work responsibilities, assignment of work, access to work and training opportunities, productivity requirements, or workplace health and safety.
    5. “Predictive behavior analysis” means any system that predicts a worker’s behavior, beliefs, or intentions.
    6. “Worker” means any natural person who is an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in any workplace.
    7. “Worker data” means any information that identifies, relates to, or describes a worker, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Makes it an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, for an employer to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based upon specified characteristics, including race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision making, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status. (Government Code Section 12940.)
2. Requires the California Department of Technology to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk ADS that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Defines the following terms:
   
   1. “Artificial intelligence” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.
      
   2. “Automated decision system” means a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decision making and materially impacts natural persons. “Automated decision system” does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data.
      
   3. “High-risk automated decision system” means an ADS that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisions that have a legal or similarly significant effect, including decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice. (Government Code Section 11546.45.5.)
3. Clarfies, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Civil Rights Department, that unlawful discrimination based on protected characteristics includes unlawful discrimination made through the use of an automated-decisions system, as defined. (Defines “automated-decision system” for purpose of these regulations to mean a computational process that makes a decision, or facilitates human decision making, regarding an employment benefit. Specifies that an automated-decisions making system may be derived from or use artificial intelligence, machine-learning, algorithms, statistics, or other data processing techniques. (Title 2 California Code of Regulations Sections 11008.1 et seq.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: According to the author:

Businesses are increasingly using AI to boost efficiency and productivity in the workplace. But there are currently no safeguards to prevent machines from unjustly or illegally impacting workers’ livelihoods and working conditions. SB 947 establishes post-use notifications when ADS is used in the workplace, and ensures employers have a human in the loop when making critical employment decisions.

SB 947 does not prohibit ADS in the workplace, rather it will establish guardrails to ensure that California businesses are not operated by robo bosses, because there will be a human in the loop. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.

Employer Use of Automated-Decision Systems (ADS). According to a number of studies and reports, employers increasingly use ADS tools to analyze data about applicants and employees. The ADS then produces output that the employer may use to make any number of employment-related decisions, including hiring or promoting workers, tracking performance, setting schedules, and assigning work tasks, among others. According to the U.C. Berkeley Labor Center, these tools “typically perform three main tasks: (a) rank workers, (b) predict workers’ future behavior or characteristics, and (c) give workers directions about their job tasks.” Some of these programs simply monitor employee performance, including platforms that monitor office workers’ computer activity to generate “distraction” scores or use behavioral and personality assessments to make predictions about an employee’s ability to assume leadership roles. More troubling, other tools may predict the probability that an employee might join a union, become pregnant, or pose a security or safety risk. (U.C. Berkeley Labor Center, Electronic Monitoring and Automated Decision Systems, May 2025; see also A. Hertel-Hernández, Estimating the Prevalence of Automated Management and Surveillance Technologies and Their Impact on Workers Well-Being, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, 2024.) According to the author and sponsor, these tools present a danger that employers will use AI and ADS to make decisions – including taking disciplinary actions or even terminating workers – based on output generated by these programs without any human oversight.

Existing regulations of employer use of ADS. Last year the California Civil Rights Department’s Civil Rights Council (CRC) approved new regulations to address employers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated-decision systems (ADSs) under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Taking effect on October 1, 2025, these regulations clarify that employers cannot use ADS to make employment decisions that discriminate against applicants or employees in violation of FEHA, the California state law prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing. The regulations define ADS as a “computational process that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making regarding an employment benefit” that “may be derived from and/or use artificial intelligence, machine-learning, algorithms, statistics, and/or other data processing techniques.” The regulations also provide a non-exhaustive, illustrative list of the tasks ADSs perform, including assessing applicants or employees with “questions, puzzles, games, and other challenges”; directing job advertisements to targeted groups; screening resumes for terms and patterns; evaluating facial expressions and speech and voice patterns in online interviews; and analyzing applicant or employee information from third parties. ADSs exclude certain types of processors, such as word processors, spreadsheet software, information technology software, map navigation systems, spellchecking and calculators — “provided that these technologies do not make a decision regarding an employment benefit.” (2 CCR Section 11008.1 et seq.)

The new regulations make clear that it is unlawful to use an ADS in connection with an employment decision to discriminate against persons based on their national origin, sex, pregnancy, marital status, disability, age, or other protected characteristics by incorporating references to ADS into several existing prohibitions or requirements. (2 CCR Sections 11016-11079.) In short, discriminating against a worker on the basis of a protected characteristic is an unlawful employment practice, whether based on old-fashioned human bigotry or newfangled technology. As many studies have suggested, AI and ADS, despite their ability to analyze data at speeds and in volumes that are almost unimaginable, still reproduce the biases of the human beings who created that data.

This bill seeks to protect workers by preventing “robo bosses” from making automated decisions “to fire, discipline, or deactivate works by requiring human oversight and independent corroboration before those decisions are made.” The bill defines ADS to mean “any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decision making and material impacts natural persons.” It prohibits an employer from using ADS to (1) prevent compliance with any health, labor, or civil rights law or regulation; (2) infer a worker’s protected status; (3) conduct predictive behavior analysis on a worker with the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision; and (4) predict and take adverse action against for worker for exercising the legal rights.

The bill also prohibits the employer from relying “solely” on ADS to make “disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decisions.” (“Deactivation” seems to refer to terminating a relationship with a contractor, which is included in the definition of “worker.”) As implied by the word “solely,” employers may still use ADS as one factor in a decision to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker. However, if the employer “primarily” relies upon ADS to make the decision, the employer must direct a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation and compile corroborating or supporting information for a decision. The bill specifies that supporting information could include supervisory evaluations, personnel files, work product, peer reviews, witness interviews, and online customer reviews.

Beyond those things that an employer can never do – use ADS to avoid compliance with a law, infer a worker’s protected status, or conduct predictive analysis and use it to make employment-related decisions – there is some ambiguity as to what is required to prove that an adverse decision was based “solely” or “primarily” on ADS, or if it was just one factor among many. Unless the ADS has the power to automatically fire or take an adverse action against an employee, the ADS output will necessarily be interpreted and evaluated by a human actor before an adverse action is taken. It is difficult to imagine that an employer or supervisor will act on that output alone without any consideration of their real life experience with that employee that might confirm or question the ADS output.

If the adverse action relies “primarily” (though not “solely”) on ADS output, the employer may use the ADS output but must direct a human reviewer to “conduct an investigation and compile corroborating and supporting information for the decision.” Although the bill does not say how extensive this investigation must be or how much corroborating information is sufficient, a plausible reading of the bill would suggest that it must be a “reasonable” investigation, and the supporting information would be sufficient to convince a reasonable person that there are reasons beyond the ADS output that justify the adverse action. At a minimum, the employer will need to point to some other piece of evidence that supports the conclusion in the ADS output and not act on the ADS output alone. This does not seem like a great burden on the employer given that the employee’s livelihood is potentially at stake.

In addition to imposing limits on the employer’s ability to rely solely or primarily on ADS output, including predictive output, the bill also requires an employer who primarily relies on ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written notice at the time the employer informs the worker of the decision. The bill requires that the notice, among other things, be written in plain language that explains how the decision was made, how it complies with the provisions of this bill, and the worker’s rights under this bill, including the right to be free from retaliation for exercising those rights.

Enforcement. Finally, the bill requires the Labor Commissioner (LC) to enforce the bill, including by investigating alleged violations and ordering appropriate relief, issuing a citation, or filing a civil action. If a citation is issued, the procedures for issuing, contesting, and enforcing judgments shall be the same as those provided for under existing provisions of the Labor Code. The bill also authorizes the Attorney General, a district attorney, a city attorney, county counsel, or any other city or county prosecutor to independently investigate, prosecute, and bring actions to enforce the provisions of this bill. In any civil action brought by the Labor Commissioner or public prosecutor, the petitioner may seek appropriate injunctive relief, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. (A prior version of the bill permitted a private right of action by the person harmed; however, that provision was removed in the Assembly Privacy Committee.)

Opposition concerns. The business and employer groups opposing this bill raise several objections, some more reasonable than others. To begin with, opponents contend that the bill is overly broad and will have a “chilling effect” on the very kinds of technology that help prevent the irrational bias that concern the bill’s proponents. While it is certainly true that technology may be no more biased than human actors, and perhaps even less biased if properly constructed, the bill does not prohibit the use of ADS for all employment related decisions. To be sure, the bill’s definition of “employment related decisions” is quite broad in that it includes anything that “materially impacts a worker’s wages, benefits, compensation, work hours, work schedule, performance evaluation, hiring, discipline, promotion, termination, job tasks, skill requirements, work responsibilities, assignment of work, access to work and training opportunities, productivity requirements, or workplace health and safety.” However, the bill does not prohibit the use of ADS to make employment-related decisions. It only prohibits the use of ADS to prevent compliance with the law, infer a worker’s protected status, conduct predictive analysis with the intention of making an employment-related decision, or using predictive analysis to take adverse action against an employer for exercising legal rights. Employers can use ADS for any other reason – including in decisions to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker – so long as they do not rely solely on ADS. Employers can even use ADS as the primary (but not sole) reason for taking an adverse action against the employee, so long as a human reviewer investigates and compiles supporting information for the decision. In short, if the decision is to discipline, terminate, or deactivate, the employer must be prepared to offer up some additional piece of evidence. This would appear to leave ample opportunity to continue using ADS to assist them in employment-related decisions, even those that result in an adverse action against the employee.

However, the breadth of the bill is not the opposition’s only concern. They also object to defining “worker” to include independent contractors. They point out that many independent contractors are quite different from employees, and the relationship between the employer and contractor may be more akin to a business-to-business relationship than an employer-employee relationship. If an ADS flags inappropriate behavior or fraud, opponents contend that the employer should be free to terminate (or “deactivate” in the words of the bill) that contract without meeting the investigation and corroboration requirements of this bill. Opponents also claim that the requirement to “corroborate” decisions with additional information and to provide this corroborating evidence to the affected employee could compromise the integrity of workplace investigations or reveal confidential communications with other workers. However, there is nothing in the bill that requires undermining investigations or revealing confidential communications; the bill only requires the employer to provide some evidence beyond the ADS output and to ensure that there was some human review of the decision. The author may wish to consider whether it is necessary to expressly state that the employer is not required to reveal confidential communications or reveal information that could undermine an ongoing investigation, but that may not be necessary given that nothing in the bill requires the employer to do that.

Finally, the opposition argues that the bill increases employers’ exposure to litigation and costly civil penalties. This criticism had more weight when the bill permitted a private right of action, but as recently amended the actions may only be brought by the Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors. Because these agencies typically target their limited resources to many other pressing public needs, it seems unlikely that this bill will result in a wave of litigation. Most likely, the Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors will only pursue the most egregious cases. Having said that, the author may wish to consider modifying the language in the bill that permits a petitioner in a civil action (whether the LC or a public prosecutor) to seek “punitive damages,” especially given that the LC and public prosecutor may recover attorney’s fees and costs and impose a civil penalty of $500 per violation.

Unanswerable questions about AI vs. human bias. One of the promises and selling points of ADS is that it removes the element of human bias. In theory, ADS is programmed to analyze data in an efficient, objective, and scientific manner, free from the subjective feelings and implicit bias of human actors. However, AI and ADS are only as good as the datasets and large-scale language models that they “scrape” and harvest. Earlier this year the consultants in the Committee conducted an admittedly unscientific experiment asking ChatGPT to write letters of application for different job positions and feeding it with different scenarios about both the applicant and the job. When asked to write a job application letter for a Latina seeking a job as an attorney, ChatGPT recommended that the letter writer discuss her pride in being the first person from her family to graduate from college and seek a professional degree, even though we had not given ChatGPT any reason to believe that our hypothetical applicant was the first in her family to attend college. ChatGPT assumed that based on stereotypes. AI is no less biased and subjective than humans, because the data it pulls from originates from and is pre-organized by humans. Of course one could persuasively argue that humans have such an dismal track record in this regard that they will do worse than ADS. Who knows for sure? Yet it cannot but help to have a second set of eyes, as it were, reviewing the ADS output before jeopardizing someone’s livelihood.

Relationship to SB 7: Last year’s SB 7, by the same author, is quite similar to the bill now before the Committee. SB 7 was vetoed by Governor Newsom because he found it “overly broad” and cited, in particular, a provision that required the employer to provide a “pre-notification” to workers before using ADS. The Governor contended that this provision would impose “unfocused notification requirements on any business using even the most innocuous tools.” The author removed the pre-notification requirement in its entirety from this year’s bill. Opponents contend, however, that the bill does not address the Governor’s more general criticism that the bill was “overly broad.” They claim, too, that the bill adds new requirements that were not in SB 7, such as the requirement that a human reviewer “conduct an investigation” and compile evidence that corroborates the ADS output. Whether the differences between this bill and SB 7 are sufficient to assuage the Governor remains to be seen.

Clarifying Technical Amendment. On page 4, line 34, replace “or” with “and.” This makes it clearer that the bill prohibits the use of ADS to predict and then take adverse action based on that prediction.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Federation of Labor Unions, the bill’s sponsor, writes in support:

Employer use of ADS is increasingly used without oversight to make the decisions that impact workers’ paychecks. A 2025 Resume Builder survey of employers found that 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical decisions about workers, including raises, terminations, and layoffs. Of those, 20% let AI make final decisions without any human input or oversight. Algorithmic management can inflict serious harm to workers. Endlessly increasing efficiency through eliminating routine tasks and increasing work speeds can lead to fatigue, burn-out, excessive injuries, and other harm, as seen in Amazon warehouses that relied on algorithms to implement speed quotas which forced workers to skip bathroom breaks and skirt safety measures.

In addition to swiftly firing a worker, ADS can potentially discriminate based on the pre-set rules that are deemed proprietary to conduct predictive behavior analysis to prevent “undesirable worker outcomes.” For example, Teramind offers employers with advisory service algorithms to detect potential employee fraud by analyzing information such as a worker’s debt history or their spending habits in order to flag a worker as being susceptible to committing fraud and stealing from the company. Ultimately, unregulated employer use of ADS technology leaves workers vulnerable to discrimination, lower pay, dangerous working conditions, and high risk of unjust termination. The wellbeing of a human should not be at the behest of a machine.

To prevent algorithmic firings and discipline, SB 947 ensures human oversight of automated decision-making systems when making decisions that impact workers’ working conditions and livelihoods. SB 947 allows employers to use ADS, but requires human oversight and independent corroboration of firing, disciplinary, and deactivation decisions. Additionally, SB 947 outright prohibits employers from using an ADS to make decisions on workers based on predictive analysis, thus protecting workers from being profiled and disciplined based on actions they have not committed. SB 947 will prevent the outsourcing of decisions that impact workers’ lives to machines. It allows for the use of technology and tools to make workplaces more productive and efficient but ensures human oversight to prevent abuse and mistakes.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Chamber of Commerce, writing on behalf of itself and several other business associations, opposes this bill for the following reasons:

The bill broadly targets businesses of all sizes, across every industry, and regulates even low-risk applications of automated decision systems (ADS). . . SB 947 will drive up costs for consumers and employers because it would impose significant compliance burdens and any misstep would lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers . . . Unfortunately, we believe SB 947 will have an undesired chilling effect on technology and make it that much harder to develop the very tools that can help combat bias in decision making.

[Many] employers rely on ADS for productivity tracking or performance monitoring in environments where supervisors cannot directly observe every worker at all times. In those circumstances, SB 947 would effectively bar the use of these tools for personnel purposes because they could never be relied upon unless every single output is independently corroborated. In practice, this would undermine the very technologies that help employers manage operations, maintain safety, and ensure accountability.

The bill’s definition of “worker” includes independent contractors, which should be removed from the bill. Contractors are often limited-term workers who are performing a specific job for a company. . . [The] the inclusion of contractors is especially problematic in several respects. For example, it is not uncommon [for] ADS to flag inappropriate behavior, potential fraud, or other issues and to then have the company need to immediately terminate the relationship or terminate while there is an investigation that occurs. That would be prohibited under SB 947, even if that termination is necessary for employee or consumer safety, to stop a seller from selling counterfeit goods or defrauding customers, and more.

SB 947 will significantly increase litigation exposure and civil penalty liability for businesses by expanding the circumstances under which employers may be subject to enforcement actions. By creating new compliance obligations and record-keeping requirements, SB 947 effectively establishes additional bases for technical violations that could trigger costly lawsuits, civil penalties of $500 per violation, and enforcement proceedings. Even minor or inadvertent administrative errors could expose employers to substantial statutory penalties, attorney’s fees, and prolonged litigation.

Arguments in Opposition, unless amended: Several organizations oppose the bill unless amended. Their concerns are similar to those raised by the Chamber of Commerce, and they seek various amendments that effectively limit the breadth of the bill’s application by focusing more on high-risk uses of ADS.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Federation of Labor Unions (sponsor)

Alameda Labor Council
American Federation of Musicians, Local 7
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California
Association of California State Employees With Disabilities
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Nurses Association
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
California State Legislative Board of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division (SMART-TD)
California State Legislative Board of the Smart - Transportation Division
California Teachers Association
California Working Families Party
Center on Policy Initiatives
Central Coast Labor Council
Central Labor Council, Fresno-Madera-Tulare-Kings Counties
Communications Workers of America, District 9
County Employees Management Association
Electronic Frontier Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Inland Empire Labor Council
Kapor Center Advocacy
National Union of Healthcare Workers
North Bay Labor Council
North Valley Labor Federation
Oakland Privacy
Orange County Employees Association
Orange County Labor Federation
San Mateo County Central Labor Council
San Mateo Labor Council
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
Tech Oversight California
Techequity Action
Techequity Collaborative
United Auto Workers Region 6
What We Will

Opposition

American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association
American Staffing Association
Associated Equipment Distributors
Associated General Contractors of California
Associated General Contractors San Diego
Association of California Healthcare Districts
Association of California School Administrators
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
California Association of School Business Officials
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Broadband & Video Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Coalition on Workers Compensation
California County Superintendents
California Farm Bureau
California Fuels and Convenience Alliance
California Grocers Association
California Hospital Association
California Landscape Contractor's Association
California League of Food Producers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Special Districts Association
California Staffing and Recruiting Association
California Staffing Professionals
California State Association of Counties
California Trucking Association
California's Credit Unions
Chamber of Progress
Cinema Association of California
Civil Justice Association of California
County of Fresno
County of Kern
Family Business Association of California
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Leading Age California
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Business Federation
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Orange County Fire Authority
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Protect App-based Drivers & Services Coalition
Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM)
Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce
Rural County Representatives of California
Self Storage Association
SHRM California
Technet
Uber Technologies, INC.
Urban Counties of California
Western Growers Association

Oppose Unless Amended

Business Software Alliance
Gaslamp Quarter Association
Insights Association
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Restaurant Association
Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: June 23, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 947

Author:(McNerney) – As Amended Ver:June 16, 2026

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SENATE VOTE: 29-9

SUBJECT: Employment: automated decision systems

SYNOPSIS

Automated Decision Systems (ADS) are typically predictive artificial intelligence (AI) systems that produce simplified outputs – such as scores, classifications, or recommendations – to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking. ADS can process enormous datasets, identify hidden patterns, and make decisions with efficiency and scale that vastly exceeds human capabilities. But relying on ADS to make life-impacting decisions can be hazardous if deployed without proper oversight: the datasets they are trained on are often unrepresentative or contaminated with bias, the inferences they draw from those datasets are often inscrutable, and these systems can fail to accurately account for the complexity of human behavior. Without human-centered oversight, particularly in consequential contexts such as employment, housing, healthcare, and criminal justice, these impacts can be irreparable.

One especially impactful area in which ADS are being deployed at scale is employment. Employers are increasingly using ADS to manage workforce operations, including hiring, setting schedules, assigning tasks, and tracking performances, as well as for disciplinary purposes, such as automated tracking of workplace violations. This bill would establish a comprehensive set of requirements governing the use of ADS in the workplace by requiring human oversight and independent corroboration when employers use ADS for decisions that impact workers’ livelihoods. Certain types of ADS, such as those that infer sensitive information about workers or attempt to predict their behavior, are prohibited. And with respect to especially consequential decisions involving discipline, termination, or deactivation, the bill prohibits employers from relying solely on the ADS to make the decision. The bill also establishes anti-retaliation protections for workers and provides for enforcement by the Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors. The bill is a narrower version of SB 7 (McNerney, 2025), which was passed by the Legislature but ultimately vetoed by the Governor.

This bill is sponsored by the California Federation of Labor Unions AFL-CIO. It is supported by a large coalition of labor organizations and advocacy groups, including the California Nurses Association and TechEquity Action. Opponents include a broad coalition of industry groups led by California Chamber of Commerce.

This bill was previously heard by the Labor Committee, where it passed on a 5-1 vote. If passed by this committee, it will next be referred to the Judiciary Committee.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency (Privacy Agency) and vests it with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to implement and enforce the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. (Civ. Code § 1798.199.10.)
2. Requires the California Privacy Protection Agency to issue regulations governing access and opt-out rights with respect to businesses’ use of automated decisionmaking technology. (Civ. Code § 1798.185.)
   
3. Establishes the Civil Rights Department, and sets forth its statutory functions, duties, and powers. (Gov. Code § 12930.)
   
4. Establishes the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (Gov. Code § 12900 et seq.) Makes it an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, for an employer to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based upon specified characteristics, including race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status. (Gov. Code § 12940.)
   
5. Requires the California Department of Technology to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk ADS that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Defines the following terms:
   
   1. “Artificial intelligence” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.
      
   2. “Automated decision system” means a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons. “Automated decision system” does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data.
      
   3. “High-risk automated decision system” means an ADS that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisions that have a legal or similarly significant effect, including decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice. (Gov. Code § 11546.45.5.)
      

THIS BILL:

1. Defines, among other terms:
   
2. “ADS output” as any information, data, assumptions, predictions, scoring, recommendations, decisions, or conclusions generated by an ADS.
   
3. “Employer” as any person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, benefits, other compensation, hours, working conditions, access to work or job opportunities, or other terms or conditions of employment, of any worker. This shall include all branches of state government, including all cities, counties, charter counties, municipalities, charter municipalities, cities and counties, special districts, transit districts, the University of California upon agreement by the regents, the California State University, community college districts, school districts, or any other governmental entity, as well as a labor contractor of a person otherwise defined as an employer.
   
4. “Employment-related decision” as any decision by an employer that impacts wages, wage setting, benefits, compensation, work hours, work schedule, performance evaluation, hiring, discipline, promotion, termination, job tasks, skill requirements, work responsibilities, assignment of work, access to work and training opportunities, productivity requirements, workplace health and safety, and any other terms or conditions of employment.
   
5. “Predictive behavior analysis” as any system that predicts a worker’s behavior, beliefs, or intentions.
   
6. “Worker” as any natural person who is an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in any workplace.
   
7. “Worker data” as any information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with, a worker, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.
   
8. Prohibits an employer from using an ADS that does any of the following:
   
   1. Prevents compliance with or results in a violation of any federal, state, or local labor, occupational and safety, employment, or civil rights laws or regulations.
      
   2. Infers certain protected characteristics about a worker.
      
   3. Conducts predictive behavior analysis on a worker with the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision.
      
   4. Predict or take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights, including rights guaranteed by state and federal employment and labor law.
      
9. Prohibits an employer from relying solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision. If an employer primarily relies upon an ADS output to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, requires the employer to direct a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation into the decision. If the employer cannot corroborate the output, or the human reviewer concludes the output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, prohibits the employer from using the output to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker.
   
10. Grants workers the right to request and receive a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker’s data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision once every 12 months. Requires employers to provide that data in a manner that anonymizes customers, workers, and individuals’ personal information.
    
11. With respect to ADS used to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, requires the employer to provide the affected worker with a written post-use notice containing specified information at the time the employer informs the worker of the decision.
    
12. With respect to a data access request, requires an employer to provide the worker with a plain-language written document accessible away from the workplace that contains specified information, including the specific decision for which the employer used the ADS, the specific worker data that the ADS used, the specific ADS output produced by the ADS, any additional corroborating or supporting information used in addition to the ADS output in making the decision, the name of the vendor or entity that created the ADS and the product name of the ADS, and a copy of any completed impact assessments regarding the ADS in question.
    
13. Establishes anti-retaliation protections for workers who attempt to use their rights provided under the bill, as specified.
    
14. Grants enforcement authority to the Labor Commissioner or public prosecutors. An employer is subject to $500 per violation and claimants may seek damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs.
    
15. Provides that it does not preempt any city, county, or city and county ordinance that provides equal or greater protection to workers who are covered by the bill.
    
16. Specifies that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice and appeal under the bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar notice and appeal provisions related to automated decision systems used in employment-related decisions required under any other state law, other than employers that are businesses subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
    
17. Specifies that it does not apply to parties covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement explicitly waives this part in clear and unambiguous terms, expressly provides for the wages or earning, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of work, and provides protection from algorithmic management.
    
18. Provides that its provisions are severable.
    

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author:
   

Businesses are increasingly using AI to boost efficiency and productivity in the workplace. But there are currently no safeguards to prevent machines from unjustly or illegally impacting workers’ livelihoods and working conditions. SB 947 establishes post-use notifications when ADS is used in the workplace, and ensures employers have a human in the loop when making critical employment decisions.

SB 947 does not prohibit ADS in the workplace, rather it will establish guardrails to ensure that California businesses are not operated by robo bosses, because there will be a human in the loop. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.

1. Background. AI and GenAI. In brief, AI is the mimicking of human intelligence by artificial systems such as computers. AI uses algorithms – sets of rules – to transform inputs into outputs. Inputs and outputs can be anything a computer can process: numbers, text, audio, video, or movement. AI is not fundamentally different from other computer functions; its novelty lies in its application. Unlike traditional computer functions, AI can accomplish tasks that are normally performed by humans. AI that is trained on small, specific datasets to make recommendations and predictions is sometimes referred to as “predictive AI.” This differentiates it from GenAI, which is trained on massive datasets in order to produce detailed text and images. When Netflix suggests a TV show to a viewer, that recommendation is produced by predictive AI that has been trained on the viewing habits of Netflix users. When ChatGPT generates text in clear, concise paragraphs, it uses GenAI that has been trained on the written contents of the internet.
   
   Automated decision systems. Automated decision systems (ADS) typically use predictive AI to produce simplified outputs – such as scores, classifications, or recommendations – to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking.^[1] ADS can process enormous datasets, identify hidden patterns, and make decisions with efficiency and scale that vastly exceeds human capabilities. This has led to profoundly beneficial applications and breakthroughs.^[2]
   
   But relying on ADS can be hazardous if the systems are not trained carefully or tested thoroughly: the datasets they are trained on are often unrepresentative or contaminated with bias, the inferences ADS draw from those datasets are often inscrutable, and these systems can fail to accurately account for the complexity of human behavior. When deployed without proper oversight in consequential contexts such as employment, housing, healthcare, and criminal justice, the impacts of flawed ADS can be devastating.
   
   Algorithmic discrimination. There is a well-known saying in computer science: “garbage in, garbage out.” The performance of an ADS is directly impacted by the quality, quantity, and relevance of the data used to train it.^[3] If the data used to train the ADS contain bias, the tool’s outputs will be similarly biased:
   

Algorithmic discrimination occurs when automated systems contribute to unjustified different treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their race, color, ethnicity, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, gender identity, intersex status, and sexual orientation), religion, age, national origin, disability, veteran status, genetic information, or any other classification protected by law.^[4]

Over the past thirty years, industries and governmental entities have been forced to contend with this problem as they have attempted to introduce ADS into their workflows. In 2015, Amazon opted against automating their hiring process when they realized that their ADS-enabled system was excluding women from the pool of acceptable candidates because it had been trained to vet applicants by observing patterns in resumés submitted to the company over a 10-year period. Most came from men, a reflection of inequities across the tech industry.^[5]

Unsafe or ineffective systems. In addition to discriminatory outcomes, some ADS are unsafe or ineffective regardless of who the subjects of the tool’s prediction are. As Princeton researchers Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor put it bluntly in AI Snake Oil: “In contrast to generative AI, predictive AI often does not work at all.”^[6] The correlations that machine-learning ADS rely on may have little to do with the attributes they purportedly measure. Some hiring tools trained on videos of successful employees are used to assess the fitness of job applicants who are required to record video responses to specific prompts. Researchers have found that such tools can easily be manipulated by making simple changes to the subject’s appearance (such as wearing glasses) or to the background of the room (such as adding more books to a bookshelf), leading to increased scores. Journalist Hilke Schellmann found she was able to obtain consistently high scores despite responding to a hiring tool’s prompt by reading an irrelevant Wikipedia entry in German.^[7]

In another case, “[a] company installed AI-powered cameras in its delivery vans in order to evaluate the road safety habits of its drivers, but the system incorrectly penalized drivers when other cars cut them off or when other events beyond their control took place on the road. As a result, drivers were incorrectly ineligible to receive a bonus.”^[8]

Especially questionable are ADS that purportedly forecast individual human behavior. A recently released study compiled a list of 47 applications of ADS that use machine learning to predict the future behavior or outcomes for individuals in eight domains: criminal justice, healthcare, welfare, finance, education, workplace, marketing, and recommender systems. The study concluded that such tools frequently fall well short of their purported benefits. The authors argue that developers and deployers of such systems should have the burden of demonstrating that their tools are not harmful.^[9] As Narayanan and Kapoor write: “Accurately predicting people’s social behavior is not a solvable technology problem and determining people’s life chance on the basis of inherently faulty predictions will always be morally problematic.”^[10]

Robot bosses. Employers are increasingly using ADS to manage workforce operations, including hiring, setting schedules, assigning tasks, and tracking performances. Three key functions are 1) ranking workers, 2) predicting their future behavior or characteristics, and 3) giving directions to workers.

ADS tools that rank workers do so by scoring or comparing their performance, behavior, or traits using metrics such as productivity, accuracy, manager evaluations, and customer ratings. These systems often generate alerts or recommendations for employers, such as coaching prompts and suggested interventions. According to the UC Berkeley Labor Center, examples of these tools include:

• Centrical: A platform that collects real-time data on worker task completion, accuracy, training progress, and sales, and generates worker rankings, gamified scoring systems, and performance dashboards for managers.
  
• WorkTime: A platform that monitors office workers’ computer activity and generates productivity and distraction score rankings, with team and individual performance comparisons displayed on leaderboards or manager dashboards.
  
• Harver: A hiring platform that uses behavioral and personality assessments to score and rank job candidates by predicted fit, enabling employers to set cutoff thresholds and identify top job matches.^[11]
  

ADS tools that make predictions about worker behavior or characteristics use personal information to identify patterns and correlations in datasets about other workers to predict things such as performance, ability to work on teams, stress tolerance, likelihood of joining a union, or becoming pregnant. For example, Perceptryx “analyzes employee surveys and HR data to predict engagement, retention risk, and vulnerability to union organizing, using tools like a Union Vulnerability Index to flag high-risk groups or locations and inform employer response strategies.”^[12]

ADS tools that give workers directions about their job tasks use data from workplace surveillance devices to deliver real-time instructions on which tasks to perform and in what order. Examples, as described by the UC Berkeley Labor Center, include:

• Amadeus HoTSOS: A system used in hotels to direct housekeeping, maintenance, and guest service tasks. The platform sends real-time instructions to workers based on guest check-ins, service requests, or sensor data. As conditions shift, the system reorders tasks and reassigns them among staff.
  
• Trackforce: A system used in the security sector to dispatch real-time instructions to security guards. It assigns patrols, alarm responses, or site-specific checks based on live inputs like incidents or visitor activity. As new issues arise, the system updates workflows, verifies task completion order, and alerts supervisors to delays or deviations.^[13]
  

Blueprint for an AI bill of rights. In 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, which identifies five principles that should “guide the design, use, and deployment of automated systems to protect the American public in the age of artificial intelligence.”^[14] As summarized in the Blueprint, the principles are as follows:

• Safe and Effective Systems: You should be protected from unsafe or ineffective systems. Automated systems should be developed with consultation from diverse communities, stakeholders, and domain experts to identify concerns, risks, and potential impacts of the system. Systems should undergo pre-deployment testing, risk identification and mitigation, and ongoing monitoring that demonstrate they are safe and effective based on their intended use, mitigation of unsafe outcomes including those beyond the intended use, and adherence to domain-specific standards. Outcomes of these protective measures should include the possibility of not deploying the system or removing a system from use. Automated systems should not be designed with an intent or reasonably foreseeable possibility of endangering your safety or the safety of your community. They should be designed to proactively protect you from harms stemming from unintended, yet foreseeable, uses or impacts of automated systems. You should be protected from inappropriate or irrelevant data use in the design, development, and deployment of automated systems, and from the compounded harm of its reuse. Independent evaluation and reporting that confirms that the system is safe and effective, including reporting of steps taken to mitigate potential harms, should be performed and the results made public whenever possible.
  
• Algorithmic Discrimination Protections: You should not face discrimination by algorithms and systems should be used and designed in an equitable way. . . . Designers, developers, and deployers of automated systems should take proactive and continuous measures to protect individuals and communities from algorithmic discrimination and to use and design systems in an equitable way. This protection should include proactive equity assessments as part of the system design, use of representative data and protection against proxies for demographic features, ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities in design and development, pre-deployment and ongoing disparity testing and mitigation, and clear organizational oversight. Independent evaluation and plain language reporting in the form of an algorithmic impact assessment, including disparity testing results and mitigation information, should be performed and made public whenever possible to confirm these protections.
  
• Data Privacy: [. . .] Designers, developers, and deployers of automated systems should seek your permission and respect your decisions regarding collection, use, access, transfer, and deletion of your data in appropriate ways and to the greatest extent possible; where not possible, alternative privacy by design safeguards should be used [. . .] Enhanced protections and restrictions for data and inferences related to sensitive domains, including health, work, education, criminal justice, and finance, and for data pertaining to youth should put you first. In sensitive domains, your data and related inferences should only be used for necessary functions, and you should be protected by ethical review and use prohibitions. [. . .]
  
• Notice and Explanation: You should know that an automated system is being used and understand how and why it contributes to outcomes that impact you. Designers, developers, and deployers of automated systems should provide generally accessible plain language documentation including clear descriptions of the overall system functioning and the role automation plays, notice that such systems are in use, the individual or organization responsible for the system, and explanations of outcomes that are clear, timely, and accessible. Such notice should be kept up-to-date and people impacted by the system should be notified of significant use case or key functionality changes. You should know how and why an outcome impacting you was determined by an automated system, including when the automated system is not the sole input determining the outcome. [ . . . ]
  
• Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback: You should be able to opt out from automated systems in favor of a human alternative, where appropriate. Appropriateness should be determined based on reasonable expectations in a given context and with a focus on ensuring broad accessibility and protecting the public from especially harmful impacts. [ . . .]
  

The Legislature, via SCR 17 (Dodd, 2023), adopted these principles. These principles inform efforts to regulate ADS, including in this bill and other related bills such as AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan, 2025).

1. What this bill would do. This bill would establish a comprehensive set of requirements governing the use of ADS in the workplace by requiring human oversight and independent corroboration when employers use ADS for decisions that impact workers’ livelihoods. Key aspects of the bill follow.
   

Prohibited uses of ADS. The bill prohibits an employer from using an ADS that does any of the following:

• • Prevents compliance with or results in a violation of labor, occupational and safety, employment, or civil rights laws or regulations.
    
  • Infers certain protected characteristics about a worker.
    
  • Conducts predictive behavior analysis on a worker with the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision.
    
  • Predicts or takes adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights.
    

Right to access data. The bill requires an employer to allow a worker to access their own worker data collected or used by an ADS.

Provisions governing discipline, termination, or deactivation decisions. With respect to decisions involving discipline, termination, or deactivation, the bill requires employers to:

• • Not rely solely on the ADS when making such decisions. Employers must use human reviewers to conduct their own investigation and compile corroborating or supporting information for the decision.
    
  • Provide the affected worker with a written post-use notice at the time the employer informs the worker of the decision.
    
  • When responding to a data access request from a worker, provide to the worker with a written, plain language document using a simple and easy-to-use method that is accessible away from the workplace and that contains specified information.
    

Anti-retaliation provisions and enforcement. The bill establishes anti-retaliation protections for workers who attempt to use their rights provided under the bill, as specified. The bill grants enforcement authority to the Labor Commissioner or public prosecutors. An employer is subject to $500 per violation and claimants may seek damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs.

1. SB 7 comparison. SB 947 shares much of its language with SB 7 (McNerney, 2025). That bill was ultimately vetoed by the governor, who shared the following veto message:

I share the author’s concern that in certain cases unregulated use of ADS by employers can be harmful to workers. However, rather than addressing the specific ways employers misuse this technology, the bill imposes unfocused notification requirements on any business using even the most innocuous tools. This proposed solution fails to directly address incidents of misuse.

Moreover, this measure proposes overly broad restrictions on how employers may use ADS tools. For example, prohibiting an employer from using customer ratings as the primary input data for an ADS takes away a potentially valuable tool for rewarding high-performing employees. To the extent that customer reviews are unfairly or inappropriately used to make decisions about a worker, legislation should address those specific scenarios rather than ban this practice altogether.^[15]

Acknowledging these concerns, SB 947 is significantly narrower compared to SB 7. In contrast to its predecessor, SB 947:

• Does not include pre-use notice requirements for employers.
  
• Does not require employers to notify job applicants about their use of an ADS.
  
• Does not prohibit the use of customer ratings as the only or primary input source for making employment-related decisions, directly responding to a concern raised in the governor’s veto message.
  
• Requires specified information be provided to a worker who makes a data access request.
  
• Requires that if an employer cannot corroborate an ADS output, or a human reviewer has concluded that an ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer shall not use the ADS output to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker.
  
• Explicitly includes in its definition of “employer” the California State University, community college districts, and the University of California upon agreement by the regents.

1. Committee amendments. Both SB 947 and SB 7 contain the following exemption:

This part does not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government.

According to the author, the goal of this language is to exempt ADS with national security implications – for example, systems that make critical employment decisions with respect to the operation of aircraft in the national airspace. As written, however, the exemption is broad enough to encompass a wide range of non-national security activities. The author has agreed to replace this exemption with language adapted from AB 1883 (Bryan, 2026), which contains a narrower exemption addressing the same issue:

(a) This part shall not apply to the use of [an automated decision system] to the extent that use of the [system] is required by, or reasonably necessary to comply with, a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract relating to any of the following:

(1) The development of aircraft for use in the national airspace.

(2) The development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes.

(b) The exemption in this section applies only to the operations covered by a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract outlined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a).

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

A coalition of labor, tech industry oversight, and privacy organizations including California Federation of Labor Unions, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and TechEquity Action writes the following in support:

Employers’ drive to increase worker productivity and lower costs is nothing new. What is different today is the power, speed and scale, and secrecy of workplace technologies such as automated decision-making systems (ADS), often used for algorithmic or automated management. Employer use of ADS in the workplace is widespread. A 2025 ResumeBuilder survey of employers found that 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical decisions about workers, including raises, terminations, and layoffs. Of those, 20% let AI make final decisions without any human input or oversight. “Robot bosses” can do serious harm to workers. Endlessly increasing efficiency through eliminating routine tasks and increasing work speeds can lead to fatigue, burn-out, excessive injuries, and other harm, as seen in Amazon warehouses that relied on algorithms to implement speed quotas which forced workers to skip bathroom breaks and skirt safety measures.

. . .

SB 947 allows employers to use ADS, but requires human oversight and independent corroboration of firing, disciplinary, and deactivation decisions. Additionally, SB 947 prohibits employers from using an ADS to make employment related decisions on workers based on predictive analysis, thus protecting workers from being profiled and disciplined based on actions they have not committed. SB 947 will prevent the outsourcing of decisions that impact workers’ lives to machines. It allows for the use of technology and tools to make workplaces more productive and efficient but ensures human oversight to prevent abuse and mistakes.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

A coalition of business trade associations including California Chamber of Commerce, TechNet, CalBroadband, and the Civil Justice Association of California writes the following in opposition:

The bill broadly targets businesses of all sizes, across every industry, and regulates even low-risk applications of automated decision systems (ADS). Significantly, we are disappointed that the bill undoes many amendments taken in SB 7, its predecessor bill from 2025 that was vetoed, marking a step backwards in progress on this issue. SB 947 will drive up costs for consumers and employers because it would impose significant compliance burdens and any misstep would lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers. While we appreciate concerns over employees being unfairly disciplined or terminated solely based on automated tools, SB 947 is not tailored to those scenarios and does not consider the benefits of ADS technology. Unfortunately, we believe SB 947 will have an undesired chilling effect on technology and make it that much harder to develop the very tools that can help combat bias in decision making.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Faculty Association
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
California Working Families Party

Opposition

American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association Apca
American Staffing Association
Associated Equipment Distributors
Associated General Contractors of California
Associated General Contractors San Diego
Associated General Contractors, California
Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD)
Association of California School Administrators
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
California Association of Recreation & Park Districts
California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO)
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Broadband & Video Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Coalition on Workers Compensation
California County Superintendents
California Farm Bureau
California Fuels and Convenience Alliance
California Grocers Association
California Hospital Association
California Landscape Contractor's Association
California Landscape Contractors Association
California League of Food Producers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA)
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Retailers Association
California Special Districts Association
California Staffing and Recruiting Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
California Trucking Association
California's Credit Unions
Chamber of Progress
Cinema Association of California
Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)
County of Fresno
County of Kern
Family Business Association of California
Fresno County Board of Supervisors
Leadingage California
League of California Cities
Lyft
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Personal Insurance Federation of California
Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM)
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Self Storage Association
Shrm California
Society of Human Resources Management
Technet
Uber
Urban Counties of California (UCC)
Western Growers Association

Oppose Unless Amended

Business Software Alliance
Gaslamp Quarter Association
Insights Association
Long Beach Restaurant Association
Los Angeles County Business Federation (BIZFED) (UNREG)

Analysis Prepared by: Slater Sharp / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

1. Government Code section 11546.45.5(a)(1) defines an ADS as “a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons.” ↑

2. See e.g. Santariano & Metz, “Using A.I. to Detect Breast Cancer That Doctors Miss,” New York Times (Mar. 5, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/05/technology/artificial-intelligence-breast-cancer-detection.html. ↑

3. Rohit Sehgal, “AI Needs Data More Than Data Needs AI,” Forbes (Oct. 5, 2023), https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2023/10/05/ai-needs-data-more-than-data-needs-ai/. ↑

4. White House Archives, “Algorithmic Discrimination,” https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/algorithmic-discrimination-protections/. ↑

5. Jeffrey Dastin, “Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women,” Reuters (Oct. 9, 2018), https://www.reuters.com/article/amazoncom-jobs-automation/insight-amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSL2N1VB1FQ/. ↑

6. AI Snake Oil, supra, at p. 9. ↑

7. See Hilke Schellmann, The Algorithm: How AI Decides Who Gets Hired, Monitored, Promoted, and Fired and Why We Need to Fight Back Now (1st ed. 2024). ↑

8. Blueprint, supra, p. 17. ↑

9. Angelina Wang et al. 2023. “Against predictive optimization: On the legitimacy of decision-making algorithms that optimize predictive accuracy.” In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Chicago, IL, USA: ACM, 2023), 626. ↑

10. AI Snake Oil, supra, at p 15. ↑

11. Annette Bernhardt & Lisa Krege, “Electronic Monitoring and Automated Decision Systems: Frequently Asked Questions,” UC Berkeley Labor Center (May 2025), p. 2, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Electronic-Monitoring-and-Automated-Decision-Systems-FAQ.pdf. ↑

12. Id. at p. 3. ↑

13. Ibid. ↑

14. The White House, Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, (Oct. 2022), p. 14, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/ (Blueprint). Despite the use of the term “AI” in its title, the Blueprint focuses on ADS. ↑

15. Gavin Newsom, SB 7 Veto, (Oct. 13, 2025), https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/SB-7-Veto.pdf. ↑

Date of Hearing: June 10, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Liz Ortega, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 947

Author:(McNerney) – As Amended Ver:June 4, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 29-9

SUBJECT: Employment: automated decision systems

SUMMARY: Regulates an employer’s use of automated decision systems (ADS), as specified, including prohibiting an employer from relying solely on an ADS to make disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decisions. Specifically, this bill:

Regulates an employer’s use of ADS:

1. Prohibits an employer from using an ADS to do any of the following:
   1. Prevent compliance with or violate any federal, state, or local labor, occupational health and safety, employment, or civil rights laws or regulations.
   2. Infer a worker’s protected status under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (See (5) below in existing law.)
   3. Conduct predictive behavior analysis on a worker with the intention of using the analysis to make an employment-related decision.
   4. Predict or take adverse action against a worker for exercising their legal rights, including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by state and federal employment and labor law.
   5. Use or rely upon individualized worker data as inputs or outputs to inform compensation unless the employer can clearly demonstrate that any differences in compensation for substantially similar or comparable work assignments are based upon cost differentials in performing the task involved, or that the data was directly related to the tasks that the worker was hired to perform.
2. Prohibits an employer from relying solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision.
3. Requires the employer, if it primarily relies upon an ADS output to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision, to direct a human reviewer to conduct an independent investigation and compile corroborating or supporting information for the decision.
   1. Provides that “corroborating or supporting information” may include, but is not limited to, any of the following:
      1. Supervisory or managerial evaluations.
      2. Personnel files.
      3. Work product of workers.
      4. Peer reviews.
      5. Witness interviews, that may include relevant online customer reviews.
4. Prohibits, if an employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, or the human reviewer has concluded that the ADS output is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the employer from using the ADS output to discipline, terminate, or deactivate a worker.
5. Prohibits an employer from using customer ratings as the only or primary input data used to assist the employer to make employment-related decisions.
6. Provides that a worker shall have the right to request, and an employer shall provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker’s own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision. A worker is limited to one request every 12 months for a copy of their own data used by an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision.
   1. Requires worker data to be provided in a manner that anonymizes the customer’s, other workers’, or individual’s personal information.

Requires employers to provide affected workers with a post-use notice:

1. Requires an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written post-use notice at the time the employer informs the worker of the decision.
   1. Requires the notice to be written in plain language as a separate, stand-alone communication, in the language in which routine communications and other information are provided to workers, and provided via a simple and easy-to-use method, as specified.
2. Requires the post-use notice to contain all of the following information:
   1. That the employer primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decision with respect to the worker.
   2. That a human reviewer conducted an independent investigation and compiled evidence to corroborate the ADS output.
   3. Contact information for a human that the worker may contact for more information about the decision and the worker’s right to access a copy of their own data and corroborating evidence that was used in the decision.
   4. That the employer is prohibited from retaliating against the worker for exercising their rights under this bill.
3. Requires an employer, when responding to a data access request pursuant to (5) and (7) above, to provide to the worker a written, plain language document using a simple and easy-to-use method that is accessible away from the workplace containing all of the following:
   1. The specific decision for which the employer used the ADS.
   2. The specific worker data that the ADS used, and the specific ADS output produced by the ADS.
   3. Any additional corroborating or supporting information used in addition to the ADS output in making the decision.
   4. The name of the vendor or entity that created the ADS and the product name of the ADS.
   5. A copy of any completed impact assessments regarding the ADS in question.

Provides for enforcement and retaliation protections:

1. Prohibits employer discrimination and retaliation against any worker for exercising their rights under, or alleging a violation of, this bill, as specified.
2. Requires the Labor Commissioner (LC), and authorizes a public prosecutor, to enforce the provisions of the bill, as specified.
3. Authorizes, alternatively to enforcement by the LC or a public prosecutor, a worker, or their exclusive representative, who has suffered a violation to bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for damages caused by that adverse action.
4. Authorizes, in any civil action brought pursuant to subdivision (11) or (12) above in superior court in any county wherein the violation in question is alleged to have occurred, or wherein the person resides or transacts business, the petitioner to seek appropriate temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, including punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as part of the costs of any such action for damages.
5. Provides that an employer who violates this bill’s provisions shall be subject to a civil penalty of $500 per violation.

Additional provisions:

1. Provides that the bill’s provisions do not preempt any city, county, or city and county ordinance that provides equal or greater protection to workers who are covered by this bill.
2. Provides that, except as set forth in (17) below, an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice under this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar notice provisions related to ADS used for employment-related decisions required under any other state law.
3. Provides that, notwithstanding (16) above, an employer that is a business subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) of 2018 is subject to any privacy-related automated decisionmaking technology regulation duly adopted by the California Privacy Protection Agency (PPA). (See (2)-(4) below in existing law.)
4. Exempts from the provisions of this bill parties covered by a collective bargaining agreement if the agreement explicitly waives this part in clear and unambiguous terms, expressly provides for the wages or earning, working conditions, and other terms and conditions of work, and provides protection from algorithmic management.
5. Provides that the bill does not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government.
6. Includes a severability clause.

Definitions:

1. Defines certain terms, including:
   1. “ADS output” to mean any information, data, assumptions, predictions, scoring, recommendations, decisions, or conclusions generated by an ADS.
   2. “Artificial intelligence” or “AI” to mean an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.
   3. “Automated decision system” or “ADS” to mean any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons. An automated decision system does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data.
   4. “Employer” to mean any person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, benefits, other compensation, hours, working conditions, access to work or job opportunities, or other terms or conditions of employment, of any worker. This shall include all branches of state government, including all cities, counties, charter counties, municipalities, charter municipalities, cities and counties, special districts, transit districts, the University of California upon agreement by the regents, the California State University, community college districts, school districts, or any other governmental entity.
      1. “Employer” includes a labor contractor of a person defined as an employer under (d) above.
   5. “Employment-related decision” to mean any decision by an employer that materially impacts a worker’s wages, benefits, compensation, work hours, work schedule, performance evaluation, hiring, discipline, promotion, termination, job tasks, skill requirements, work responsibilities, assignment of work, access to work and training opportunities, productivity requirements, or workplace health and safety.
   6. “Individualized” to mean specific to an individual or group, band, class, or tier of individuals with particular personal characteristics, behaviors, or biometrics.
   7. “Predictive behavior analysis” to mean any system that predicts or modifies a worker’s behavior, beliefs, or intentions.
   8. “Worker” to mean any natural person who is an employee of, or an independent contractor providing service to, or through, a business or a state or local governmental entity in any workplace.
   9. “Worker data” to mean any information that identifies, relates to, or describes a worker, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), under the direction of the LC, within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and sets forth its powers and duties regarding the enforcement of labor laws. Labor Code § 79 et seq.
2. Establishes the CCPA, which grants consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, including enhanced notice, access, and disclosure; the right to deletion; the right to restrict the sale of information; and protection from discrimination for exercising these rights. It places attendant obligations on businesses to respect those rights. Civil Code § 1798.100 et seq.
3. Establishes the Consumer Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which amends the CCPA and creates the PPA, which is charged with implementing these privacy laws, promulgating regulations, and carrying out enforcement actions. Civil Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Proposition 24 (2020).
4. Requires the PPA to adopt regulations governing access and opt-out rights with respect to businesses’ use of automated decisionmaking technology, including profiling and requiring businesses’ response to access requests to include meaningful information about the logic involved in those decisionmaking processes, as well as a description of the likely outcome of the process with respect to the consumer. Civil Code § 1798.185(a)(15) and (d).
5. Makes it an unlawful employment practice, under FEHA, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, for an employer to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based upon specified characteristics, including race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status. Government Code § 12940.
6. Requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies, as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk ADS that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. As part of this review, requires the analysis to include descriptions of any alternatives to its use, the categories of data and personal information the ADS uses to make decisions, and measures that are in place to mitigate the risks of its use, including cybersecurity risk and the risk of inaccurate, unfairly discriminatory, or biased decisions of the ADS. Government Code § 11546.45.5.
7. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Artificial intelligence” means an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.
   2. “Automated decision system” means a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons. “Automated decision system” does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data. Government Code § 11546.45.5.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has yet to determine its administrative impacts that would result from this bill. However, based on the department’s costing of similar legislation, DIR’s annual administrative costs, at a minimum, would likely be in the millions of dollars (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund).
• This bill could result in an increased number of civil actions. Consequently, the bill could result in potentially significant cost pressures to the courts; the magnitude is unknown (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). The specific number of new actions that could be filed under the bill also is unknown; however, it generally costs about $10,500 to operate a courtroom for an eight-hour day. Courts are not funded on the basis of workload, and increased pressure on TCTF may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The proposed 2026-27 budget includes $70 million in ongoing support from the General Fund to continue to backfill TCTF for revenue declines.
• This bill could result in increased penalty revenue to the State. The magnitude is unknown.

COMMENTS: Note: this bill is triple referred to the Assembly Committees on Privacy and Consumer Protection, and Judiciary, upon passage out of this Committee.

Employers are increasingly using workplace surveillance such as electronic monitoring, as well as ADS, to not only surveil and collect data on workers, but to manage, and even terminate, workers. According to the UC Berkeley Labor Center, “Employers use electronic monitoring and automated decision systems to make a wide range of decisions about workers (including employees, independent contractors, and job applicants):

1. Wages and benefits
2. Hours and work schedules
3. Performance evaluations
4. Hiring, firing, discipline, and promotion
5. Job content, tasks, and responsibilities
6. Productivity requirements
7. Access to training opportunities
8. Workplace health and safety

Concrete examples of these decisions include terminating gig workers based on customer ratings, using wearable devices on construction sites to detect worker fatigue, setting daily productivity quotas in warehouses, and filtering out job candidates with flagged social media content.

Many workplace ADS tools make predictions about workers’ future behavior or characteristics. These computer programs identify patterns or correlations in large datasets about workers, and based on those patterns make predictions about an individual worker in a given workplace. Examples of these predictions include the probability that a worker will quit a job, struggle with performance, succeed in a promotion or work team, experience stress, join a union, pose a safety risk, or become pregnant.”^[1]

The author provides examples of ADS use in the employment setting:

1. Nurses who work through gig-nursing apps, such as ShiftKey, have had their wages and hours set by an algorithm, which has led to disparate pay between equally qualified nurses without any justification or reasoning.^[2]
2. A database developed by Coworker.org identified over 550 products currently available to employers for workforce management, including products that allow them to outsource decisions about workers’ working conditions, wages, and livelihoods to machines.^[3]
3. The ADS used by the employer of a California-based software developer terminated him due to an error in the system’s data. The system removed the worker’s access to enter the office space and his workstation, all without human intervention. The termination was ultimately resolved but not until after the worker missed three weeks of work without pay.^[4]
4. Uber Eats used ethnically-biased facial recognition technology that led to a driver’s suspension and a subsequent legal settlement. Uber Eats had not made the driver aware of the processes that led to his suspension from the app, nor provided an effective route to challenge this decision.^[5]

According to the author, “Businesses are increasingly using AI to boost efficiency and productivity in the workplace. But there are currently no safeguards to prevent machines from unjustly or illegally impacting workers’ livelihoods and working conditions. SB 947 establishes post-use notifications when ADS is used in the workplace, and ensures employers have a human in the loop when making critical employment decisions.

SB 947 does not prohibit ADS in the workplace, rather it will establish guardrails to ensure that California businesses are not operated by robo bosses, because there will be a human in the loop. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.”

The author adds that the measure supports equity, per HR 39 (Gipson, 2021) in that “predictive behavior analysis often results in discriminatory results which harms underserved and marginalized communities. SB 947 prohibits conducting predictive behavior analysis which protects our most vulnerable individuals from workplace discrimination.”

Furthermore, the author highlights a report from a national survey in 2024, which found that, while 40 percent of workers experience some form of automated task management, Black and Latino workers report higher rates of automated management technologies in their workplace, with 63 percent of Black and 52 percent of Latino workers versus only 35 percent of White workers subject to automated management.^[6]

Arguments in Support

The California Federation of Labor Unions, sponsor of this measure, states that “Employer use of ADS is increasingly used without oversight to make the decisions that impact workers’ paychecks. A 2025 ResumeBuilder survey of employers found that 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical decisions about workers, including raises, terminations, and layoffs. Of those, 20% let AI make final decisions without any human input or oversight.^[7] Algorithmic management can inflict serious harm to workers. Endlessly increasing efficiency through eliminating routine tasks and increasing work speeds can lead to fatigue, burn-out, excessive injuries, and other harm, as seen in Amazon warehouses that relied on algorithms to implement speed quotas which forced workers to skip bathroom breaks and skirt safety measures.”

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of business organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, states in opposition that “SB 947 will drive up costs for consumers and employers because it would impose significant compliance burdens and any misstep would lead to costly litigation for even the smallest of employers. While we appreciate concerns over employees being unfairly disciplined or terminated solely based on automated tools, SB 947 is not tailored to those scenarios and does not consider the benefits of ADS technology. Unfortunately, we believe SB 947 will have an undesired chilling effect on technology and make it that much harder to develop the very tools that can help combat bias in decision making.”

Prior and Related Legislation

SB 951 (Reyes) of 2026, among other things, would establish the California Worker Technological Displacement Act requiring an employer to provide at least a 90-day advanced written notice before any technological displacement. Pending in this Committee.

SB 1248 (Cabaldon) of 2026 would have imposed certain restrictions on the use of an ADS by a state agency to confer services including, among other things, the issuance of professional licenses and provision of public benefits. Among the restrictions, the bill would have prohibited the use of an output from the system as the sole basis for an adverse service determination and requires the state agency to verify the accuracy of the system’s outputs and to promote nondiscrimination in its use, as specified. Held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1883 (Bryan) of 2026 would prohibit an employer from using certain types of workplace surveillance tools, or using workplace surveillance tools to violate or prevent compliance with laws, or infer information about a worker’s legally-protected status or activities. Pending referral in the Senate.

AB 1898 (Schultz) of 2026 would, among other things, have required an employer to provide a written notice to an employee that a workplace AI tool, as defined, was used to assist the employer in making employment-related decisions or to surveil the workplace. Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2027 (Ward) of 2026 would have regulated the use of worker data by an employer, vendor acting on behalf of an employer, or a vendor providing services to an employer under a contract. Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2148 (Muratsuchi) of 2026, among other things, would have prohibited a certificated or classified employee of a local educational agency or an academic or classified employee of a segment of public postsecondary education from being dismissed, suspended, disciplined, reassigned, transferred, or otherwise retaliated against a) for refusing to use, refusing to deploy, or refusing to direct students to, any form of educational technology, or b) based on any information on that employee that is transmitted, acquired, collected, or produced via AI or ADS output. These provisions were subsequently amended out of the bill, which is pending in the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee.

SB 7 (McNerney) of 2025 would have regulated the use of ADS in the employment setting. Among other things, this bill would have 1) required an employer to provide a written notice that an ADS is in use at the workplace to all workers that will foreseeably be directly affected by the ADS; 2) prohibited in some instances and in others limits the use of an ADS by an employer; 3) provided worker anti-retaliation protections for exercising their rights under these provisions; and 4) specified enforcement provisions that include penalties and relief for violations. Vetoed by Governor Newsom.

SB 420 (Padilla) of 2025 would have regulated the use of “high-risk ADS,” including requirements on developers and deployers to perform impact assessments on their systems. The bill would have established the right of individuals to know when an ADS has been used, details about the systems, and an opportunity to appeal ADS decisions, where technically feasible. SB 420 was subsequently amended to remove this version of the bill.

AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan) of 2025 would create a comprehensive regime designed to ensure human oversight over ADS that are used in "consequential decisions" – those that materially impact an individual's rights, opportunities, or access to critical resources or services – in order to mitigate bias and unreliability in these systems. On the Senate inactive file.

AB 1331 (Elhawary) of 2025 would prohibit an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool to monitor workers in off-duty areas, including their personal residence and vehicle, with an exception for worker safety purposes, and provides a civil penalty for each employee per violation. On the Senate inactive file.