Colorado Legislature Motivated to Revise AI Act, Says Gov. Polis
With a fight brewing over the future of Colorado AI regulation, Gov. Jared Polis (D) sees “clear motivation in the legislature” to craft a balanced policy, he said in an emailed statement prior to the special session starting Thursday. Colorado lawmakers plan to weigh four proposals to amend or repeal the state’s comprehensive AI law. Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez (D) and Rep. Brianna Titone (D), who co-authored the Colorado AI Act, rallied support for their proposed “Colorado AI Sunshine Act” at a livestreamed press conference Wednesday.
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.
Three other proposals were submitted by Sen. Mark Baisley (R), Rep. Ron Weinberg (R) and a bipartisan group of legislators including Rep. William Lindstedt (D). Baisley seeks to repeal the Colorado AI Act, while Weinberg wants to delay the measure and significantly narrow its scope. Privacy Daily previewed the four proposals Tuesday (see 2508190050).
Polis said he “will work with anyone to find the right path forward on AI for Colorado – including the development of a new policy framework that addresses bias while also spurring innovation, a delay of implementation, or some combination.”
“There is clear motivation in the legislature to take action now to protect consumers and promote innovation, all without creating new costs for the state or unworkable burdens for Colorado businesses and local governments, and I thank legislators for taking the issue so seriously, and applaud the work that’s being done in both chambers,” added the governor. “There’s still work to do, and we will continue to work with legislators, stakeholders and advocates to find an excellent outcome for the state during the special session.”
At the press conference, Rodriguez said an unregulated industry has opposed AI rules like a “kid running with scissors.”
However, consumers want AI regulated, said Titone. “We want to put substantive policy in place that actually does something, and that's what we're about to do with the” proposed AI Sunshine Act, she said. While Titone said the proposed amendments address all the concerns with the original AI Act, she predicted opposition will continue.
"We will have to do everything that's in our power to get a good policy through,” said Titone. “The compromises that we feel people are trying to make on our policy seem to be a lot like the policies that they're proposing, and that's not really [an] acceptable compromise as far as I'm concerned."
Two other Democratic state reps supported the Rodriguez-Titone approach during the press conference. "Let's pass the AI Sunshine Act, because when decisions shape our lives, transparency isn't an option," said Rep. Manny Rutinel. "It's justice." Rep. Javier Mabrey said the bill merely seeks explanations for consequential decisions made by AI. "We should not be giving this technology special treatment."
Many consumer and labor advocates endorsed the Rodriguez-Titone proposal, affixing their logos at the bottom of a fact sheet about the AI Sunshine Act, including the Colorado chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, AFL-CIO and AARP, Denver-based nonprofit Towards Justice and national groups like Consumer Reports, Consumer Federation of America and Center for Democracy & Technology.
The Rodriguez-Titone legislation provides “bare minimum protections that can be implemented to protect Coloradans and ensure that corporations don’t continue to use these life-altering technologies in the dark,” the fact sheet said. “A further delay in (or weakening of) essential transparency and accountability protections for people subjected to algorithmic decisions would harm all Coloradans.”
Nina DiSalvo, Towards Justice policy director, opposed the alternative proposal by Lindstedt. That bill “muddies the water on Coloradans' ability to protect themselves against violations of existing consumer protection laws,” while restating existing law requiring businesses operating in Colorado to comply with the state’s anti-discrimination statute, she emailed us. DiSalvo added that the proposal “requires disclosure of chat bots in such narrow circumstances as to be a nearly meaningless protection.”
DiSalvo said she expects the AI bills will be introduced Thursday when the special session opens and that at least one could be heard that day.
The Software and Information Industry Association opposes the Rodriguez-Titone bill but supports Weinberg's proposal to narrow and delay AI regulations in Colorado, a SIIA spokesperson said.
The mix of proposals suggests there is bipartisan support for revising the state law, Paul Lekas, SIIA senior vice president of global public policy, said in an emailed statement. Like Polis, said Lekas, "we have concerns that the law, if left unchanged, will create compliance challenges that do little to strengthen consumer protections and in the process hurt competition and cut off Colorado from the benefits of AI innovation."
"The debate about Colorado’s law highlights the ongoing risk of a patchwork of state rules that confuse consumers and burden innovators," added Lekas. "We believe a national, risk-based framework is still the better path forward."
"TechNet has been working closely with the sponsors of the main AI bills being considered in the special session, and we’re encouraged by the progress toward a negotiated outcome," said Andrew Wood, executive director for Colorado and central U.S., in an emailed statement. "It’s critical that lawmakers act this week to prevent the disastrous consequences of [the current Colorado AI Act] from taking effect in February."
The Colorado attorney general's office, which would have to make rules under some of the proposals, declined to comment Wednesday.