Skip to content

New Colorado law takes aim at AI bias

May 20, 2024

New Colorado legislation will add protections for consumers from artificial intelligence in a range of areas, including employment, but it has raised concerns. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill, SB205, into law on May 17, though he also issued a letter noting reservations about the legislation.

The law requires developers of AI to use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination, though it doesn’t take effect until February 2026. Law firm Seyfarth Shaw noted the Colorado law is the first to be approved when it comes to regulating the use of AI in employment.

In his signing letter, Polis wrote the law creates complex compliance and affirmative reporting requirements.

“Laws that seek to prevent discrimination generally focus on prohibiting intentional discriminatory conduct,” Polis wrote. “Notably, the bill deviates from that practice by regulating the results of AI system use, regardless of intent, and I encourage the legislature to reexamine this concept as the law is finalized before it takes effect in 2026.”

The Chamber of Progress, which describes itself as a center-left tech industry policy coalition, had sent a letter to Polis earlier this month urging him to the veto the bill. While agreeing that discrimination is wrong, the group said the legislation stifles innovation and represses competition.

“There’s a good reason that even Gov. Polis’s signing statement raises concerns about Colorado’s AI legislation: It threatens to wrap up the state’s tech economy in red tape,” Chamber of Progress founder and CEO Adam Kovacevich said in a press release after the signing. “Thankfully, there’s still time before this bill takes effect for state legislators to get AI regulations right.”

The US Chamber of Commerce had also called for Polis to veto the bill.

“Guardrails are important when gaps exist in existing laws and regulations, including in areas like AI,” according to the chamber’s letter. “However, no comprehensive analysis to determine regulatory gaps was undertaken before SB205 was introduced, and little attention was focused in this area as the bill proceeded through the legislative process.”