Global AI Monitor
Preview

United States – California (US-CA) · Module Detail

United States – California: Authorities & Enforcement

← Full United States – California overview Build report with United States – California Request deeper dive

#

AB 2013 - Generative AI training data transparency (Applies since 2026-01-01): Requires developers of publicly available generative AI systems to post documentation about training data on their websites on or before January 1, 2026 and on each new or substantially modified release; under challenge in X.AI v.

11 instruments · 7 obligations · 47 claims · Next: (Department of Technology first annual recommendations on frontier definitions due)

11 instruments (11 current) · 7 obligations · 47 claims · 6 milestones

Instruments

  • AB 2013 - Generative AI training data transparency Applies since 2026-01-01

    Requires developers of publicly available generative AI systems to post documentation about training data on their websites on or before January 1, 2026 and on each new or substantially modified release; under challenge in X.AI v. Bonta.

    Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified
  • AB 2655 - Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024 (enjoined as to X Corp. and Rumble) Adopted 2024-09-17; valid from 2025-01-01

    Requires large online platforms to block or label materially deceptive election content in specified periods and provide reporting procedures. On 2025-08-20 the Eastern District of California declared it preempted by 47 U.S.C. section 230 as applied to X Corp. and Rumble and permanently enjoined enforcement against them; the statute remains on the books.

    Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified · Official text
  • AB 2839 - Elections: deceptive media in advertisements (2024; enjoined as to named plaintiffs) In force since 2024-09-17

    Urgency statute adding Elections Code section 20012 (120-day pre-election ban on malicious distribution of materially deceptive election content). On 2025-08-29 the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment to the plaintiff in Kohls v. Bonta and permanently enjoined enforcement against the named plaintiffs; AB 502 (2026) later amended section 20012.

    Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified · Official text
  • AB 325 - Cartwright Act: common pricing algorithms Adopted 2025-10-06; valid from 2026-01-01

    Adds Business and Professions Code section 16729 making it unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm as part of a restraint of trade, or to coerce adoption of its recommended prices; adds a plausibility pleading standard for Cartwright Act complaints.

    Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified · Official text
  • Attorney General Legal Advisory on the Application of Existing California Laws to Artificial Intelligence Published 2025-01-13

    Attorney General advisory of 13 January 2025 stating that the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, competition, civil rights and privacy laws apply to AI developers, deployers and users, including liability for supplying AI products known or likely to be used to violate the law. A companion advisory covers health care.

    Regulatory expectation · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified · Official text
  • California AI Transparency Act (SB 942), as amended In force since 2025-01-01

    Requires covered generative AI providers to offer a free verification tool and embed latent disclosures in AI-generated image, video and audio content; operative August 2, 2026 after AB 853 delayed it and then amended by SB 1000 and AB 2713.

    Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified
  • Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence Adopted 2025-12-11; entry into force not recorded

    Federal executive order directing a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws and Commerce to evaluate them; does not itself preempt state law and is binding on federal agencies only.

    Binding · Authority: U.S. Department of Justice - AI Litigation Task Force, U.S. Department of Commerce · Verified · Official text
  • FTC proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (implied preemption of state laws requiring deceptive outputs) Draft, no legal force

    Proposed FTC policy statement under EO 14365 section 7 asserting that section 5 bars deceptive AI outputs even where a state law requires them and that state law is impliedly preempted to the extent it conflicts; names California only in a quoted fact-sheet footnote. Comments closed 31 July 2026; no final statement found.

    Authority: U.S. Federal Trade Commission · Verified · Official text
  • Proposed initiative 25-0034A1 - Regulates certain large AI companies (California AI Safety Commission) Draft, no legal force

    Proposed initiative statute that would create a seven-member California AI Safety Commission requiring safety plans and pre-notification of capability expansions from certain large AI companies; cleared for signature collection on 2026-02-04 and not on the 2026-06-25 certified ballot list.

    Authority: California Secretary of State · Verified · Official text
  • SB 1000 - CAITA amendments (covered-provider threshold removed, disclosure verification tool) In force since 2026-09-30

    Deletes the 1,000,000-user threshold from the covered-provider definition, renames the detection tool a disclosure verification tool, drops the manifest-disclosure option and takes effect immediately as an urgency statute.

    Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified
  • Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53) In force since 2026-01-01

    Requires large frontier developers to publish and follow a frontier AI framework, publish transparency reports, and report critical safety incidents to Cal OES, with Attorney General civil penalties up to $1,000,000 per violation.

    Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified · Official text

Obligations

  • Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.4.1

    Violation of the platform-provenance prohibition in section 22757.3(d) is subject to a $50,000 civil penalty per violation recoverable by the AG, a city attorney or county counsel.

    prohibition · Applies to: other · SB 1000 - CAITA amendments (covered-provider threshold removed, disclosure verification tool)
  • EO 14365 Sec. 3

    The Attorney General must establish within 30 days an AI Litigation Task Force whose sole responsibility is to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with the Order's policy.

    other · Applies to: other · Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
  • EO 14365 Sec. 4

    The Secretary of Commerce must publish within 90 days an evaluation of existing state AI laws identifying onerous laws.

    documentation · Applies to: other · Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
  • Bus. & Prof. Code § 16729(a)-(b)

    A person may not use or distribute a common pricing algorithm (a methodology used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to influence price or commercial terms) as part of a restraint of trade, and may not coerce another person to adopt its recommended prices or commercial terms.

    prohibition · Applies to: other · AB 325 - Cartwright Act: common pricing algorithms
  • Elec. Code Div. 20, Ch. 7 (§ 20510 et seq.)

    A large online platform must develop and implement procedures to identify and remove, and to label, reported materially deceptive election content in specified periods around a California election. Enjoined as applied to X Corp. and Rumble.

    other · Applies to: other · AB 2655 - Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024 (enjoined as to X Corp. and Rumble)
  • Elec. Code § 20012 (as added by AB 2839)

    A person, committee or entity may not knowingly distribute, with malice, an election advertisement or communication containing materially deceptive content within 120 days before an election (and in specified cases 60 days after), subject to exemptions. Enjoined as to the named plaintiffs in Kohls v. Bonta.

    prohibition · Applies to: other · AB 2839 - Elections: deceptive media in advertisements (2024; enjoined as to named plaintiffs)
  • Proposed policy statement, request for comments

    The FTC invited public comments on the proposed statement until 31 July 2026; the statement itself imposes no obligation on businesses.

    other · Applies to: other · FTC proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (implied preemption of state laws requiring deceptive outputs)

Milestones

  • First AB 2013 training-data documentation due Met
    AB 2013 - Generative AI training data transparency
  • DOJ AI Litigation Task Force established by Attorney General memorandum Met
    Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
  • (conditional)Commerce evaluation of state AI laws due (90 days from EO; two secondary commentaries say it had not been published; no primary document found) Status not recorded
    Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
  • Comment period on the proposed FTC AI policy statement closes Met
    FTC proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (implied preemption of state laws requiring deceptive outputs)
  • CAITA operative (delayed from 2026-01-01 by AB 853) Met
    California AI Transparency Act (SB 942), as amended
  • Department of Technology first annual recommendations on frontier definitions due Upcoming
    Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53)
Claims and evidence (47)

  • Derived: Probable Civil penalty does not exceed $1,000,000 per violation.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Civil penalties under SB 53 are recoverable only in a civil action brought by the Attorney General.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable Civil penalty of $5,000 per violation, with each day a discrete violation.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 2 Aug 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable Violators of section 22757.3(d) face $50,000 per violation.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 30 Sep 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • SB 1000 (Becker), Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.4.1(a)(1)A violator of subdivision (d) of Section 22757.3 shall be liable for a civil penalty in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) per violation

  • The date of Ninth Circuit oral argument in X.AI LLC v. Bonta is disputed between November 18, 2026 (CAIDP notice) and July 16, 2026 (law-firm article).

    Confidence: Disputed · As of 18 Nov 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Tom Kemp is Executive Director of CalPrivacy.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • About CalPrivacy (CPPA) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · About CalPrivacy, opening paragraphThe California Privacy Rights Act established a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to implement and enforce the law.

  • Kevin Kish is quoted as Civil Rights Department Director.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Rob Bonta is California Attorney General.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • AG Bonta launches investigation into xAI and Grok (2026-01-14) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Press release openingCalifornia Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced opening an investigation into the proliferation of nonconsensual sexually explicit material produced using Grok, an AI model developed by xAI.

  • Caroline Thomas Jacobs is listed as Cal OES Director.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • Cal OES - Office of the Director T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Office of the Director page### Caroline Thomas Jacobs Director ### Vacant Chief Deputy Director ### Ian Bastek Chief Deputy Director

  • Gavin Newsom is Governor.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable Private plaintiffs recover the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation; no statutory ceiling.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable Up to $5,000 per affected child (negligent) and $15,000 per affected child (intentional).

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • SB 1119 (Padilla), Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 21816(a)(1)(A)-(B)A civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per affected child for each negligent violation. (B) A civil penalty of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per affected child for each intentional violation.

  • Derived: Probable The Attorney General and public prosecutors enforce SB 1119 (injunctive relief by the Attorney General only), and harmed children have a private right of action.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • SB 1119 (Padilla), Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 21816(a)(1)(A)-(B)A civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per affected child for each negligent violation. (B) A civil penalty of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per affected child for each intentional violation.
    • SB 1119 (Padilla), Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 21816(b)(1)A child who suffers an actual harm as a result of a violation of paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (d) of Section 21812, or a parent or guardian acting on behalf of that child, may bring a civil action against the operator

  • Derived: Probable Up to $5,000 for an initial violation and $10,000 for each subsequent violation.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • AB 1609 (Zbur), Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22628(b)A large private business that violates this chapter shall be liable for a civil penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for an initial violation, and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.

  • Derived: Probable Public prosecutors enforce the customer service chatbot requirements.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • AB 1609 (Zbur), Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22628(b)A large private business that violates this chapter shall be liable for a civil penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for an initial violation, and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.

  • Derived: Probable The Government Operations Agency administers the independent verification organization framework.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable Civil penalty of $500 per violation.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jul 2027 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce the automated decision system provisions.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jul 2027 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable Penalty of up to $500 for each violation.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Violations of AB 489 are enforced by the relevant health care professional licensing board or enforcement agency.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The California Privacy Protection Agency enforces the ADMT regulations.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • About CalPrivacy (CPPA) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · About CalPrivacy, opening paragraphThe California Privacy Rights Act established a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to implement and enforce the law.

  • Derived: Probable CalPrivacy may impose an administrative fine of up to $2,500 per violation, or $7,500 per intentional violation, for CCPA violations the ADMT regulations implement.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable The Attorney General may recover civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, or $7,500 per intentional violation, under the CCPA title.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Executive Order 14365 was issued December 11, 2025.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 11 Dec 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Binding on federal officials; directs, but does not itself effect, preemption of state AI laws.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 11 Dec 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The Attorney General must establish within 30 days an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws, and Commerce must publish within 90 days an evaluation identifying onerous state AI laws.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 11 Dec 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable EO 14365 directs federal action against state AI laws, including California laws, without itself preempting them.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 11 Dec 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • A proposed initiative creating a California AI Safety Commission was cleared to circulate for signatures on February 4, 2026.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 4 Feb 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The measure has no force; it is not among the 14 measures the Secretary of State certified for the November 3, 2026 ballot on June 25, 2026.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 25 Jun 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Cleared to begin collecting petition signatures on 2026-02-04.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 4 Feb 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable Cartwright Act violations carry corporate fines up to $6,000,000 or the gain-based amount if greater, and private plaintiffs may recover three times their damages.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The Attorney General enforces the Cartwright Act alongside private plaintiffs; AB 325 lowers the pleading threshold for complaints.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • AB 325 chaptered bill text (Stats. 2025, Ch. 338) - leginfo billNavClient T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 16756.1in a complaint for any violation of this chapter, it is sufficient to contain factual allegations demonstrating that the existence of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce is plausible

  • Derived: Probable Statutory damages rise to $50,000, or $250,000 for a malicious violation, and public attorneys may sue.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources
    • AB 621 chaptered bill text (Stats. 2025, Ch. 673) - leginfo billNavClient T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Legislative Counsel's DigestThis bill would increase the maximum statutory damages available to a depicted individual to $50,000 if the violation was not malicious and $250,000 for a malicious violation and would authorize certain public attorneys to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions

  • Derived: Probable The Attorney General may recover civil penalties of up to $2,500 per affected child for negligent and $7,500 per affected child for intentional violations.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The Attorney General enforces the Digital Age Assurance Act in a civil action.

    Confidence: Probable · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The Fair Political Practices Commission administers and implements the Political Reform Act, including section 84514.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable On 2025-08-20 the Eastern District of California entered judgment declaring AB 2655 preempted by section 230 as applied to X Corp. and Rumble and permanently enjoining its enforcement against them.

    Confidence: Uncertain · As of 20 Aug 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable On 2025-08-29 the Eastern District of California permanently enjoined enforcement of AB 2839 against the named plaintiffs in Kohls v. Bonta.

    Confidence: Uncertain · As of 29 Aug 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The Attorney General issued a legal advisory on AI and existing California law on January 13, 2025.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 13 Jan 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The advisory states the Attorney General's view of existing law; it is guidance, not a new rule.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 13 Jan 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The Attorney General states that the Unfair Competition Law applies equally to AI and that suppliers may be liable if they know or should know their AI will be used unlawfully.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 13 Jan 2025 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The FTC proposed an AI policy statement in a Federal Register document filed on July 6, 2026.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 7 Jul 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The statement is proposed and a policy statement has no force of law.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 7 Jul 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The proposed statement asserts implied preemption of conflicting state law and that section 5 applies even when deception is used to comply with state law.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 7 Jul 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable The proposed statement targets state laws requiring altered AI outputs; California appears only in a quoted footnote and no California statute is named.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 7 Jul 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • Derived: Probable A platform failing to comply may face FTC civil penalties of $53,088 per violation.

    Confidence: Confirmed · As of 19 May 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources

  • The Federal Trade Commission enforces the notice and takedown obligations as a violation of an FTC rule.

    Confidence: Probable · As of 19 May 2026 · evidenced
    Evidence and sources