With just days left to make a decision, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) opted to veto a bill passed by the state legislature that would have created one of the most comprehensive regulatory frameworks for artificial intelligence in the United States. Newsom previously refrained from saying what he would do but had hinted that he had some concerns about the legislation, noting that he worried it could “have a chilling effect on the industry.” In a statement accompanying the veto, Newsom described the bill as “well-intentioned” but made a mistake by applying “stringent standards to even the most basic functions.”
If the bill were signed into law, it would be predominantly focused on improving AI safety. Businesses that create large AI models would have been required to perform safety tests and publicly disclose the safety protocols that prevent the models from being manipulated for negative use. These trials would have been required before the models could be released publicly. Third-party testing and creation of kill switches would have also been mandated to ensure a further reduction in risk. Companies that failed to take “reasonable care” could have faced lawsuits from the California attorney general for any “severe harm” caused by their models.
While advancing in the legislature, the measure was under significant scrutiny with industry members and some members of Congress urging Newsom to veto the bill. Given the pushback, the legislation was far from sure to pass in the final days of the legislative session. A smaller crop of industry members — including Elon Musk — and AI safety advocates had supported the initiative, arguing it was necessary to rein in AI advancements before they became uncontrollable. California State Senator Scott Wiener (D), the legislation’s lead sponsor, described the veto as “a setback for everyone who believes in oversight of massive corporations” in a statement posted on X.
Although Newsom’s veto represents a defeat for Wiener and his allies, it would not be surprising if Wiener tries to reignite the initiative in the next legislative session. The bill would have had far-reaching effects and created a de facto national AI safety standard due to California’s importance in the industry. If Wiener looks to try again, the question will be what changes he chooses to make to try to give the legislation a better chance at being signed by Newsom. A series of industry-friendly revisions already were made prior to passing the state legislature this year and Wiener may be reluctant to make more, potentially leaving the effort at an impasse in California.
Beyond California, several other states have advanced AI-related laws but nothing has approached the comprehensive nature of Wiener’s bill. Instead, most of these measures aim to tackle less controversial aspects of AI regulation, like requiring disclosure of the use of AI in political ads and limiting the use of AI in hiring. However, relatively few other states have seen copycat measures introduced, a trend that emerged in the past with California tech-related legislation like data privacy, which tends to be on the leading edge of policy debates. The most advanced was Colorado’s bill, signed into law earlier this year. It focused on limiting algorithmic discrimination but did not address the AI safety requirements in Wiener’s bill.
These state-level bills have become the primary focus for those looking to advance AI regulation as federal attempts in Congress have frequently stalled and defeated by gridlock, including some less controversial measures. Passage of California’s bill into law could have prompted federal action as lawmakers may have been eager to create their own regulations in response to the state’s action. This initiative would likely have been slow and not finished in the current Congress, but groundwork for future legislation may have been created. AI regulation continues to be a priority for lawmakers, but there is a lack of urgency to act for most, which makes negotiating difficult, particularly in an election year. Next year could prove different, but the prospects of legislation will depend on the outcome of this year’s elections and the other priorities lawmakers want to tackle.