23 Industry Groups Slam California AI Bill as 'Cost Driver'
A California AI bill on algorithmic discrimination would drive costs for businesses, said more than 20 state and national associations for tech and other industries in a joint letter to the state’s Senate Appropriations Committee last week. One of the groups, the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA), released the letter Tuesday.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
With similarities to the Colorado AI Act, AB-1018 by Assembly Privacy Committee Chair Rebecca Bauer-Kahan is one of several highly watched bills that remains active as the legislative session nears its end (see 2508150016).
However, the industry groups said AB-1018 “fails to focus on the stated objective of requirements on high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) to the detriment of every industry in the state of California, and from small business to large.”
The letter was signed by 23 groups, including SIIA, TechNet, Consumer Data Industry Association, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Security Industry Association, the Association of National Advertisers, the national wireless association CTIA and the California Chamber of Commerce.
“The bill broadly targets businesses of all sizes, across every industry, and regulates even lower risk applications of ADS, including those that are already in use, and is based on a skewed understanding of what constitutes discrimination under California law,” the groups wrote. “Such overreach not only exposes smaller businesses to significant -- if not devastating -- liability even for mere errors that caused no harm to consumers, but it would also hinder many beneficial uses of ADS.”
“Even with the recent deletion of the opt out requirements, the remaining notice requirements, the rights to correct and appeal, skewed discrimination standards, and third-party auditor requirements are still onerous, unworkable, unnecessary, and unjustified as a matter of public policy,” they added.
Another big issue, said the industry groups, is potential confusion with two sets of automated-decisions rules adopted this year by the California Privacy Protection Agency (see 2508050031) and the state’s Civil Rights Council (see 2506300056).
“With all these moving parts, it is difficult to foresee how such laws and regulations will layer on top of one another and whether there will be conflicting public policy around the use of such tools and technologies,” they wrote. “Our members are alarmed by the likelihood of conflict and confusion at the conclusion of these efforts that are being run in parallel to each other, without sufficient coordination or consideration of the other efforts underway.”