State Laws Affecting Frontier US AI Companies
Bill page — California

SB 53 · Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act

Enacted — effective 1 Jan 2026
A plain-language summary laid over the statute. Every row below opens the text it comes from. California is the baseline every other state on this site is measured against.
Version read
Enacted text
Citation
Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025
Effective
2026-01-01
Last verified
1 August 2026
Baseline
This page is the baseline

High-level summary

Ordered by novelty · open a row for detail · the cite jumps to the text
California SB 53 is the baseline every other state is measured against — the published frontier AI framework, plus a transparency report at every deployment, plus quarterly internal-use catastrophic-risk summaries to Cal OES, plus 15-day critical-incident reporting cut to 24 hours when death is imminent, plus whistleblower protection keyed to danger rather than to a legal violation, plus $1M-per-violation enforcement the Attorney General alone can bring.
Baseline — CA
What harm is being regulated: the catastrophic-risk definition.
Binds you if
Definitional: sets the harm floor — 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single incident.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(c)(1) →
Baseline — CA
What counts as a critical safety incident.
Binds you if
Definitional: sets the trigger for every reporting duty in the chapter.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(d) →
Baseline — CA
Who is covered: 10^26 FLOP for the model, $500M revenue for the developer.
Binds you if
These three definitions decide whether any duty in the chapter reaches you at all.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(h)-(j) →
Baseline — CA
Write, follow, and publish a frontier AI framework covering ten topics.

SB 53 was the first enacted state statute aimed specifically at frontier-AI transparency; every later state framework requirement is measured against this text.

Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer — a >10^26 FLOP model trainer whose group revenue exceeded $500M last year.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a) →
Baseline — CA
Annual framework review; material modifications republished within 30 days.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer with a published framework.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(b) →
Baseline — CA
Transparency report at every deployment (all frontier developers).
Binds you if
Binds you if you are any frontier developer deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model — the $500M revenue floor does not apply to this paragraph.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(1) →
Baseline — CA
Large developers must add catastrophic-risk assessment summaries and results.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2) →
Baseline — CA
Disclosure only: say how far third-party evaluators were involved — no audit required.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer publishing a transparency report.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2)(C) →
Baseline — CA
System card or model card counts as compliance.
Binds you if
Applies to any frontier developer already publishing a system card or model card.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(3)-(4) →
Baseline — CA
Quarterly internal-use catastrophic-risk summaries to Cal OES.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer using your own frontier models internally.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(d) →
Baseline — CA
The nearest thing to a substantive duty: do not lie about catastrophic risk.
Binds you if
Binds every frontier developer as to statements about catastrophic risk; the framework-compliance limb binds large frontier developers only.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(e) →
Baseline — CA
Redaction allowance, with a stated justification and five-year retention.
Binds you if
Applies to any frontier developer publishing documents to comply with § 22757.12.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(f) →
Baseline — CA
Cal OES must run a reporting mechanism open to developers AND the public.
Binds you if
Duty on the state; the public-facing half is what lets non-developers report incidents.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(a) →
Baseline — CA
Cal OES must build a confidential channel for internal-use assessments.
Binds you if
Duty on the state, not on developers; it is the receiving end of § 22757.12(d).
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(b) →
Baseline — CA
15 days to report a critical safety incident to Cal OES.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are any frontier developer that discovers a critical safety incident involving one of your frontier models.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(1) →
Baseline — CA
24 hours when the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious injury.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a frontier developer whose critical safety incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(2) →
Baseline — CA
Incident reports, internal-use assessments, and whistleblower reports are exempt from the Public Records Act.
Binds you if
Applies to every report filed under the chapter or under Lab. Code ch. 5.1.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(f) →
Baseline — CA
Cal OES publishes an annual anonymized, aggregated incident report from 2027.
Binds you if
Duty on the state; it is the only public-facing output of the incident system.
Effective
2027-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(g) →
Baseline — CA
Federal-equivalence safe harbor (OES may designate substantially equivalent federal rules).
Binds you if
Applies to any frontier developer that declares intent to comply via a designated federal law, regulation, or guidance document.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(h) →
Baseline — CA
Department of Technology must revisit the thresholds every year.
Binds you if
Duty on the state; it is the mechanism by which the compute and revenue floors can move.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(a) →
Baseline — CA
Attorney General publishes an annual anonymized report on covered-employee reports from 2027.
Binds you if
Duty on the state; covers reports the AG has reviewed since the preceding report.
Effective
2027-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(d) →
Baseline — CA
Up to $1,000,000 per violation, recoverable only by the Attorney General.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer that failed to publish or transmit a required document, made a prohibited statement, failed to report an incident, or failed to follow your own framework.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15 →
Baseline — CA
Who is protected: the covered-employee definition.
Binds you if
Definitional, and narrow: risk-facing staff only, not every employee.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107(b) →
Baseline — CA
No contract or policy may silence, and no developer may retaliate against, a covered employee.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are any frontier developer with employees responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing critical-safety-incident risk.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(a) →
Baseline — CA
Developers must post or annually deliver written notice of these rights.
Binds you if
Binds every frontier developer employing covered employees, including remote ones.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(d) →
Baseline — CA
Large developers must run an anonymous internal channel with monthly status updates.
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(e) →
Baseline — CA
Contributing-factor standard, clear-and-convincing rebuttal, and attorney's fees.
Binds you if
Applies in any civil action a covered employee brings under § 1107.1.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(f)-(g) →
Baseline — CA
CalCompute: a consortium to design a public cloud computing cluster.
Binds you if
Binds nobody in industry; it stands up a 14-member state consortium, and § 11546.8(k) makes the section operative only upon a budget appropriation.
Effective
2026-01-01
Cal. Gov. Code § 11546.8(a) (SB 53, SEC. 3) →
Baseline — CA
SB 53 preempts local frontier-AI catastrophic-risk rules adopted on or after Jan 1, 2025.
Binds you if
Applies to cities, counties, municipalities, and local agencies — it removes their authority on this subject, and does not bind developers.
Effective
2026-01-01
SB 53, SEC. 5(f) →
↑ Summary

The Act

Enacted text, verbatim · quoted in statute order
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(c)(1)
Baseline — CA
Source →
What harm is being regulated: the catastrophic-risk definition
(c) (1) “Catastrophic risk” means a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier developer’s development, storage, use, or deployment of a frontier model will materially contribute to the death of, or serious injury to, more than 50 people or more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in damage to, or loss of, property arising from a single incident involving a frontier model doing any of the following: (A) Providing expert-level assistance in the creation or release of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon. (B) Engaging in conduct with no meaningful human oversight, intervention, or supervision that is either a cyberattack or, if the conduct had been committed by a human, would constitute the crime of murder, assault, extortion, or theft, including theft by false pretense. (C) Evading the control of its frontier developer or user.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Definitional: sets the harm floor — 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single incident.
Goes to
n/a — definition.
Duty
mandatory
Category
thresholds-scoping

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(c)(1) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(d)
Baseline — CA
Source →
What counts as a critical safety incident
(d) “Critical safety incident” means any of the following: (1) Unauthorized access to, modification of, or exfiltration of, the model weights of a frontier model that results in death or bodily injury. (2) Harm resulting from the materialization of a catastrophic risk. [risk of 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single frontier-model incident — § 22757.11(c)] (3) Loss of control of a frontier model causing death or bodily injury. (4) A frontier model that uses deceptive techniques against the frontier developer to subvert the controls or monitoring of its frontier developer outside of the context of an evaluation designed to elicit this behavior and in a manner that demonstrates materially increased catastrophic risk.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Definitional: sets the trigger for every reporting duty in the chapter.
Goes to
n/a — definition.
Duty
mandatory
Category
incident-reporting

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(d) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(h)-(j)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Who is covered: 10^26 FLOP for the model, $500M revenue for the developer
(h) “Frontier developer” means a person who has trained, or initiated the training of, a frontier model, with respect to which the person has used, or intends to use, at least as much computing power to train the frontier model as would meet the technical specifications found in subdivision (i). (i) (1) “Frontier model” means a foundation model that was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations. (2) The quantity of computing power described in paragraph (1) shall include computing for the original training run and for any subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, or other material modifications the developer applies to a preceding foundation model. (j) “Large frontier developer” means a frontier developer that together with its affiliates collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) in the preceding calendar year.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
These three definitions decide whether any duty in the chapter reaches you at all.
Goes to
n/a — definitions.
Duty
mandatory
Category
thresholds-scoping

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(h)-(j) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Write, follow, and publish a frontier AI framework covering ten topics
(a) A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose group revenue topped $500 million last year — § 22757.11(j)] shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework that applies to the large frontier developer’s frontier models and describes how the large frontier developer approaches all of the following: (1) Incorporating national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. (2) Defining and assessing thresholds used by the large frontier developer to identify and assess whether a frontier model has capabilities that could pose a catastrophic risk, [risk of 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single frontier-model incident — § 22757.11(c)] which may include multiple-tiered thresholds. (3) Applying mitigations to address the potential for catastrophic risks based on the results of assessments undertaken pursuant to paragraph (2). (4) Reviewing assessments and adequacy of mitigations as part of the decision to deploy a frontier model or use it extensively internally. (5) Using third parties to assess the potential for catastrophic risks and the effectiveness of mitigations of catastrophic risks. (6) Revisiting and updating the frontier AI framework, including any criteria that trigger updates and how the large frontier developer determines when its frontier models are substantially modified enough to require disclosures pursuant to subdivision (c). (7) Cybersecurity practices to secure unreleased model weights from unauthorized modification or transfer by internal or external parties. (8) Identifying and responding to critical safety incidents. (9) Instituting internal governance practices to ensure implementation of these processes. (10) Assessing and managing catastrophic risk resulting from the internal use of its frontier models, including risks resulting from a frontier model circumventing oversight mechanisms.
SB 53 was the first enacted state statute aimed specifically at frontier-AI transparency; every later state framework requirement is measured against this text.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer — a >10^26 FLOP model trainer whose group revenue exceeded $500M last year.
Goes to
The public: the framework goes on the developer's own website, clearly and conspicuously.
Duty
mandatory
Category
frontier-ai-framework
First in the nation
fpf.org ↗

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(b)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Annual framework review; material modifications republished within 30 days
(b) (1) A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose group revenue topped $500 million last year — § 22757.11(j)] shall review and, as appropriate, update its frontier AI framework at least once per year. (2) If a large frontier developer makes a material modification to its frontier AI framework, the large frontier developer shall clearly and conspicuously publish the modified frontier AI framework and a justification for that modification within 30 days.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer with a published framework.
Goes to
The public: the modified framework and a justification go on the developer's website.
Duty
mandatory
Category
frontier-ai-framework

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(b) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(1)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Transparency report at every deployment (all frontier developers)
(c) (1) Before, or concurrently with, deploying [making the model available to a third party for use, modification, copying, or combination with other software — the statutory defined term is “Deploy,” § 22757.11(e)] a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] shall clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a transparency report containing all of the following: (A) The internet website of the frontier developer. (B) A mechanism that enables a natural person to communicate with the frontier developer. (C) The release date of the frontier model. (D) The languages supported by the frontier model. (E) The modalities of output supported by the frontier model. (F) The intended uses of the frontier model. (G) Any generally applicable restrictions or conditions on uses of the frontier model.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are any frontier developer deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model — the $500M revenue floor does not apply to this paragraph.
Goes to
The public: published on the developer's internet website.
Duty
mandatory
Category
transparency-reports

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(1) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Large developers must add catastrophic-risk assessment summaries and results
(2) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose group revenue topped $500 million last year — § 22757.11(j)] shall include in the transparency report required by paragraph (1) summaries of all of the following: (A) Assessments of catastrophic risks from the frontier model conducted pursuant to the large frontier developer’s frontier AI framework. (B) The results of those assessments. (C) The extent to which third-party evaluators were involved. (D) Other steps taken to fulfill the requirements of the frontier AI framework with respect to the frontier model.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model.
Goes to
The public: folded into the same published transparency report.
Duty
mandatory
Category
transparency-reports

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2)(C)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Disclosure only: say how far third-party evaluators were involved — no audit required
(C) The extent to which third-party evaluators were involved.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer publishing a transparency report.
Goes to
The public, inside the transparency report.
Duty
mandatory
Category
independent-verification

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2)(C) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(3)-(4)
Baseline — CA
Source →
System card or model card counts as compliance
(3) A frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] that publishes the information described in paragraph (1) or (2) as part of a larger document, including a system card or model card, shall be deemed in compliance with the applicable paragraph. (4) A frontier developer is encouraged, but not required, to make disclosures described in this subdivision that are consistent with, or superior to, industry best practices.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Applies to any frontier developer already publishing a system card or model card.
Goes to
The public: no separate document required.
Duty
mandatory
Category
transparency-reports

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(3)-(4) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(d)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Quarterly internal-use catastrophic-risk summaries to Cal OES
(d) A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose group revenue topped $500 million last year — § 22757.11(j)] shall transmit to the Office of Emergency Services [the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)] a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk [risk of 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single frontier-model incident — § 22757.11(c)] resulting from internal use of its frontier models every three months or pursuant to another reasonable schedule specified by the large frontier developer and communicated in writing to the Office of Emergency Services with written updates, as appropriate.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer using your own frontier models internally.
Goes to
The Office of Emergency Services — NOT public; § 22757.13(f) exempts these from the California Public Records Act.
Duty
mandatory
Category
internal-use-risk

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(d) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(e)
Baseline — CA
Source →
The nearest thing to a substantive duty: do not lie about catastrophic risk
(e) (1) (A) A frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about catastrophic risk [risk of 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single frontier-model incident — § 22757.11(c)] from its frontier models or its management of catastrophic risk. (B) A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose group revenue topped $500 million last year — § 22757.11(j)] shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about its implementation of, or compliance with, its frontier AI framework. (2) This subdivision does not apply to a statement that was made in good faith and was reasonable under the circumstances.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds every frontier developer as to statements about catastrophic risk; the framework-compliance limb binds large frontier developers only.
Goes to
Enforced by the Attorney General via § 22757.15; not a report to anyone.
Duty
mandatory
Category
minimum-bar-standards

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(e) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(f)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Redaction allowance, with a stated justification and five-year retention
(f) (1) When a frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] publishes documents to comply with this section, the frontier developer may make redactions to those documents that are necessary to protect the frontier developer’s trade secrets, the frontier developer’s cybersecurity, public safety, or the national security of the United States or to comply with any federal or state law. (2) If a frontier developer redacts information in a document pursuant to this subdivision, the frontier developer shall describe the character and justification of the redaction in any published version of the document to the extent permitted by the concerns that justify redaction and shall retain the unredacted information for five years.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Applies to any frontier developer publishing documents to comply with § 22757.12.
Goes to
The public sees the redacted version plus a description of the redaction's character and justification; the unredacted original is retained for five years.
Duty
mandatory
Category
transparency-reports

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(f) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(a)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Cal OES must run a reporting mechanism open to developers AND the public
(a) The Office of Emergency Services [the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)] shall establish a mechanism to be used by a frontier developer or a member of the public to report a critical safety incident [the four-limb list at § 22757.11(d): weight exfiltration causing death or injury, materialized catastrophic risk, loss of control causing death or injury, or a model deceiving its developer to subvert controls] that includes all of the following: (1) The date of the critical safety incident. (2) The reasons the incident qualifies as a critical safety incident. (3) A short and plain statement describing the critical safety incident. (4) Whether the incident was associated with internal use of a frontier model.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Duty on the state; the public-facing half is what lets non-developers report incidents.
Goes to
The Office of Emergency Services; open to a frontier developer or a member of the public.
Duty
mandatory
Category
incident-reporting

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(a) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(b)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Cal OES must build a confidential channel for internal-use assessments
(b) (1) The Office of Emergency Services [the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)] shall establish a mechanism to be used by a large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose group revenue topped $500 million last year — § 22757.11(j)] to confidentially submit summaries of any assessments of the potential for catastrophic risk resulting from internal use of its frontier models. (2) The Office of Emergency Services shall take all necessary precautions to limit access to any reports related to internal use of frontier models to only personnel with a specific need to know the information and to protect the reports from unauthorized access.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Duty on the state, not on developers; it is the receiving end of § 22757.12(d).
Goes to
The Office of Emergency Services, access limited to personnel with a specific need to know.
Duty
mandatory
Category
internal-use-risk

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(b) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(1)
Baseline — CA
Source →
15 days to report a critical safety incident to Cal OES
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] shall report any critical safety incident [the four-limb list at § 22757.11(d): weight exfiltration causing death or injury, materialized catastrophic risk, loss of control causing death or injury, or a model deceiving its developer to subvert controls] pertaining to one or more of its frontier models to the Office of Emergency Services [the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)] within 15 days of discovering the critical safety incident.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are any frontier developer that discovers a critical safety incident involving one of your frontier models.
Goes to
The Office of Emergency Services — not public; exempt from the Public Records Act under § 22757.13(f).
Duty
mandatory
Category
incident-reporting

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(1) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(2)
Baseline — CA
Source →
24 hours when the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious injury
(2) If a frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] discovers that a critical safety incident [the four-limb list at § 22757.11(d): weight exfiltration causing death or injury, materialized catastrophic risk, loss of control causing death or injury, or a model deceiving its developer to subvert controls] poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury, the frontier developer shall disclose that incident within 24 hours to an authority, including any law enforcement agency or public safety agency with jurisdiction, that is appropriate based on the nature of that incident and as required by law.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a frontier developer whose critical safety incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury.
Goes to
An authority with jurisdiction — including any law enforcement or public safety agency — chosen by the nature of the incident, not only Cal OES.
Duty
mandatory
Category
incident-reporting

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(2) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(f)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Incident reports, internal-use assessments, and whistleblower reports are exempt from the Public Records Act
(f) A report of a critical safety incident submitted to the Office of Emergency Services [the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)] pursuant to this section, a report of assessments of catastrophic risk from internal use pursuant to Section 22757.12, and a covered employee [an employee responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing risk of critical safety incidents — Lab. Code § 1107(b)] report made pursuant to Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 1107) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Labor Code are exempt from the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Applies to every report filed under the chapter or under Lab. Code ch. 5.1.
Goes to
Nobody — this is the provision that keeps the reports non-public.
Duty
mandatory
Category
incident-reporting

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(f) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(g)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Cal OES publishes an annual anonymized, aggregated incident report from 2027
(g) (1) Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Office of Emergency Services [the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)] shall produce a report with anonymized and aggregated information about critical safety incidents that have been reviewed by the Office of Emergency Services since the preceding report. (2) The Office of Emergency Services shall not include information in a report pursuant to this subdivision that would compromise the trade secrets or cybersecurity of a frontier developer, public safety, or the national security of the United States or that would be prohibited by any federal or state law. (3) The Office of Emergency Services shall transmit a report pursuant to this subdivision to the Legislature, pursuant to Section 9795, and to the Governor.
Effective
2027-01-01
Binds you if
Duty on the state; it is the only public-facing output of the incident system.
Goes to
The Legislature and the Governor; anonymized and aggregated, so indirectly the public.
Duty
mandatory
Category
incident-reporting

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(g) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(h)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Federal-equivalence safe harbor (OES may designate substantially equivalent federal rules)
(h) The Office of Emergency Services [the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)] may adopt regulations designating one or more federal laws, regulations, or guidance documents that meet all of the following conditions for the purposes of subdivision (i): (1) (A) The law, regulation, or guidance document imposes or states standards or requirements for critical safety incident reporting that are substantially equivalent to, or stricter than, those required by this section. (B) The law, regulation, or guidance document described in subparagraph (A) does not need to require critical safety incident reporting to the State of California. (2) The law, regulation, or guidance document is intended to assess, detect, or mitigate the catastrophic risk. [risk of 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single frontier-model incident — § 22757.11(c)]
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Applies to any frontier developer that declares intent to comply via a designated federal law, regulation, or guidance document.
Goes to
The Office of Emergency Services receives the declaration of intent under § 22757.13(i)(1).
Duty
rulemaking
Category
incident-reporting

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(h) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(a)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Department of Technology must revisit the thresholds every year
(a) On or before January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Department of Technology shall assess recent evidence and developments relevant to the purposes of this chapter and shall make recommendations about whether and how to update any of the following definitions for the purposes of this chapter to ensure that they accurately reflect technological developments, scientific literature, and widely accepted national and international standards: (1) “Frontier model” so that it applies to foundation models at the frontier of artificial intelligence development. (2) “Frontier developer” so that it applies to developers of frontier models who are themselves at the frontier of artificial intelligence development. (3) “Large frontier developer” so that it applies to well-resourced frontier developers.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Duty on the state; it is the mechanism by which the compute and revenue floors can move.
Goes to
The Legislature, by report under Gov. Code § 9795 (§ 22757.14(c)).
Duty
mandatory
Category
thresholds-scoping

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(a) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(d)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Attorney General publishes an annual anonymized report on covered-employee reports from 2027
(d) (1) Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall produce a report with anonymized and aggregated information about reports from covered employees made pursuant to Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 1107) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Labor Code that have been reviewed by the Attorney General since the preceding report. (2) The Attorney General shall not include information in a report pursuant to this subdivision that would compromise the trade secrets or cybersecurity of a frontier developer, confidentiality of a covered employee, [an employee responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing risk of critical safety incidents — Lab. Code § 1107(b)] public safety, or the national security of the United States or that would be prohibited by any federal or state law. (3) The Attorney General shall transmit a report pursuant to this subdivision to the Legislature, pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code, and to the Governor.
Effective
2027-01-01
Binds you if
Duty on the state; covers reports the AG has reviewed since the preceding report.
Goes to
The Legislature and the Governor; anonymized and aggregated.
Duty
mandatory
Category
whistleblower

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(d) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15
Baseline — CA
Source →
Up to $1,000,000 per violation, recoverable only by the Attorney General
(a) A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose group revenue topped $500 million last year — § 22757.11(j)] that fails to publish or transmit a compliant document required to be published or transmitted under this chapter, makes a statement in violation of subdivision (e) of Section 22757.12, fails to report an incident as required by Section 22757.13, or fails to comply with its own frontier AI framework shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) per violation. (b) A civil penalty described in this section shall be recovered in a civil action brought only by the Attorney General.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer that failed to publish or transmit a required document, made a prohibited statement, failed to report an incident, or failed to follow your own framework.
Goes to
The Attorney General, in a civil action. No private right of action.
Duty
mandatory
Category
enforcement

Read Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15 on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Lab. Code § 1107(b)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Who is protected: the covered-employee definition
(b) “Covered employee” means an employee responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing risk of critical safety incidents.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Definitional, and narrow: risk-facing staff only, not every employee.
Goes to
n/a — definition.
Duty
mandatory
Category
whistleblower

Read Cal. Lab. Code § 1107(b) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(a)
Baseline — CA
Source →
No contract or policy may silence, and no developer may retaliate against, a covered employee
(a) A frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] shall not make, adopt, enforce, or enter into a rule, regulation, policy, or contract that prevents a covered employee [an employee responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing risk of critical safety incidents — Lab. Code § 1107(b)] from disclosing, or retaliates against a covered employee for disclosing, information to the Attorney General, a federal authority, a person with authority over the covered employee, or another covered employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the reported issue, if the covered employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses either of the following: (1) The frontier developer’s activities pose a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk. [risk of 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single frontier-model incident — § 22757.11(c)] (2) The frontier developer has violated Chapter 25.1 (commencing with Section 22757.10) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are any frontier developer with employees responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing critical-safety-incident risk.
Goes to
The Attorney General, a federal authority, a person with authority over the employee, or another covered employee with authority to investigate or correct.
Duty
mandatory
Category
whistleblower

Read Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(a) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(d)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Developers must post or annually deliver written notice of these rights
(d) A frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] shall provide a clear notice to all covered employees of their rights and responsibilities under this section, including by doing either of the following: (1) At all times posting and displaying within any workplace maintained by the frontier developer a notice to all covered employees of their rights under this section, ensuring that any new covered employee [an employee responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing risk of critical safety incidents — Lab. Code § 1107(b)] receives equivalent notice, and ensuring that any covered employee who works remotely periodically receives an equivalent notice. (2) At least once each year, providing written notice to each covered employee of the covered employee’s rights under this section and ensuring that the notice is received and acknowledged by all of those covered employees.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds every frontier developer employing covered employees, including remote ones.
Goes to
Covered employees, by workplace posting or by acknowledged annual written notice.
Duty
mandatory
Category
whistleblower

Read Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(d) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(e)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Large developers must run an anonymous internal channel with monthly status updates
(e) (1) A large frontier developer [a frontier developer whose group revenue topped $500 million last year — § 22757.11(j)] shall provide a reasonable internal process through which a covered employee [an employee responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing risk of critical safety incidents — Lab. Code § 1107(b)] may anonymously disclose information to the large frontier developer if the covered employee believes in good faith that the information indicates that the large frontier developer’s activities present a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk [risk of 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single frontier-model incident — § 22757.11(c)] or that the large frontier developer violated Chapter 25.1 (commencing with Section 22757.10) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, including a monthly update to the person who made the disclosure regarding the status of the large frontier developer’s investigation of the disclosure and the actions taken by the large frontier developer in response to the disclosure. (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the disclosures and responses of the process required by this subdivision shall be shared with officers and directors of the large frontier developer at least once each quarter. (B) If a covered employee has alleged wrongdoing by an officer or director of the large frontier developer in a disclosure or response, subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to that officer or director.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds you if you are a large frontier developer.
Goes to
The developer itself; disclosures and responses go to officers and directors at least quarterly, excluding any officer or director accused of wrongdoing.
Duty
mandatory
Category
whistleblower

Read Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(e) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(f)-(g)
Baseline — CA
Source →
Contributing-factor standard, clear-and-convincing rebuttal, and attorney's fees
(f) The court is authorized to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of this section. (g) In a civil action brought pursuant to this section, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by this section was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the covered employee, [an employee responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing risk of critical safety incidents — Lab. Code § 1107(b)] the frontier developer [anyone who has trained, or started training, a model above the 10^26 FLOP line — § 22757.11(h)] shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the covered employee had not engaged in activities protected by this section.
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Applies in any civil action a covered employee brings under § 1107.1.
Goes to
The court; a successful plaintiff may recover reasonable attorney's fees.
Duty
mandatory
Category
whistleblower

Read Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(f)-(g) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Cal. Gov. Code § 11546.8(a) (SB 53, SEC. 3)
Baseline — CA
Source →
CalCompute: a consortium to design a public cloud computing cluster
(a) There is hereby established within the Government Operations Agency a consortium that shall develop, pursuant to this section, a framework for the creation of a public cloud computing cluster to be known as “CalCompute.”
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Binds nobody in industry; it stands up a 14-member state consortium, and § 11546.8(k) makes the section operative only upon a budget appropriation.
Goes to
The Legislature, by report due on or before January 1, 2027 (§ 11546.8(f)); the consortium dissolves on submission.
Duty
mandatory

Read Cal. Gov. Code § 11546.8(a) (SB 53, SEC. 3) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

SB 53, SEC. 5(f)
Baseline — CA
Source →
SB 53 preempts local frontier-AI catastrophic-risk rules adopted on or after Jan 1, 2025
(f) This act preempts any rule, regulation, code, ordinance, or other law adopted by a city, county, city and county, municipality, or local agency on or after January 1, 2025, specifically related to the regulation of frontier developers with respect to their management of catastrophic risk. [risk of 50+ deaths or serious injuries, or $1B+ in property damage, from a single frontier-model incident — § 22757.11(c)]
Effective
2026-01-01
Binds you if
Applies to cities, counties, municipalities, and local agencies — it removes their authority on this subject, and does not bind developers.
Goes to
n/a — preemption clause.
Duty
mandatory

Read SB 53, SEC. 5(f) on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

Full text ↗

Every quotation above is machine-checked against the archived official text before this page is built. Passages of the act outside the frontier-model duties this site tracks are not quoted here — read the whole the act on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗.

✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(c)(1)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(c)(1)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(c) (1) “Catastrophic risk” means a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier developer’s development, storage, use, or deployment of a frontier model will materially contribute to the death of, or serious injury to, more than 50 people or more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in damage to, or loss of, property arising from a single incident involving a frontier model doing any of the following: (A) Providing expert-level assistance in the creation or release of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon. (B) Engaging in conduct with no meaningful human oversight, intervention, or supervision that is either a cyberattack or, if the conduct had been committed by a human, would constitute the crime of murder, assault, extortion, or theft, including theft by false pretense. (C) Evading the control of its frontier developer or user.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(d)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(d)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(d) “Critical safety incident” means any of the following: (1) Unauthorized access to, modification of, or exfiltration of, the model weights of a frontier model that results in death or bodily injury. (2) Harm resulting from the materialization of a catastrophic risk. (3) Loss of control of a frontier model causing death or bodily injury. (4) A frontier model that uses deceptive techniques against the frontier developer to subvert the controls or monitoring of its frontier developer outside of the context of an evaluation designed to elicit this behavior and in a manner that demonstrates materially increased catastrophic risk.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(h)-(j)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.11(h)-(j)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(h) “Frontier developer” means a person who has trained, or initiated the training of, a frontier model, with respect to which the person has used, or intends to use, at least as much computing power to train the frontier model as would meet the technical specifications found in subdivision (i). (i) (1) “Frontier model” means a foundation model that was trained using a quantity of computing power greater than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations. (2) The quantity of computing power described in paragraph (1) shall include computing for the original training run and for any subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, or other material modifications the developer applies to a preceding foundation model. (j) “Large frontier developer” means a frontier developer that together with its affiliates collectively had annual gross revenues in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) in the preceding calendar year.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(a) A large frontier developer shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework that applies to the large frontier developer’s frontier models and describes how the large frontier developer approaches all of the following: (1) Incorporating national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. (2) Defining and assessing thresholds used by the large frontier developer to identify and assess whether a frontier model has capabilities that could pose a catastrophic risk, which may include multiple-tiered thresholds. (3) Applying mitigations to address the potential for catastrophic risks based on the results of assessments undertaken pursuant to paragraph (2). (4) Reviewing assessments and adequacy of mitigations as part of the decision to deploy a frontier model or use it extensively internally. (5) Using third parties to assess the potential for catastrophic risks and the effectiveness of mitigations of catastrophic risks. …

Continue on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(b)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(b)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(b) (1) A large frontier developer shall review and, as appropriate, update its frontier AI framework at least once per year. (2) If a large frontier developer makes a material modification to its frontier AI framework, the large frontier developer shall clearly and conspicuously publish the modified frontier AI framework and a justification for that modification within 30 days.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(1)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(1)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(c) (1) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a frontier developer shall clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a transparency report containing all of the following: (A) The internet website of the frontier developer. (B) A mechanism that enables a natural person to communicate with the frontier developer. (C) The release date of the frontier model. (D) The languages supported by the frontier model. (E) The modalities of output supported by the frontier model. (F) The intended uses of the frontier model. (G) Any generally applicable restrictions or conditions on uses of the frontier model.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(2) Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a large frontier developer shall include in the transparency report required by paragraph (1) summaries of all of the following: (A) Assessments of catastrophic risks from the frontier model conducted pursuant to the large frontier developer’s frontier AI framework. (B) The results of those assessments. (C) The extent to which third-party evaluators were involved. (D) Other steps taken to fulfill the requirements of the frontier AI framework with respect to the frontier model.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2)(C)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(2)(C)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(C) The extent to which third-party evaluators were involved.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(3)-(4)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(c)(3)-(4)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(3) A frontier developer that publishes the information described in paragraph (1) or (2) as part of a larger document, including a system card or model card, shall be deemed in compliance with the applicable paragraph. (4) A frontier developer is encouraged, but not required, to make disclosures described in this subdivision that are consistent with, or superior to, industry best practices.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(d)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(d)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(d) A large frontier developer shall transmit to the Office of Emergency Services a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk resulting from internal use of its frontier models every three months or pursuant to another reasonable schedule specified by the large frontier developer and communicated in writing to the Office of Emergency Services with written updates, as appropriate.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(e)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(e)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(e) (1) (A) A frontier developer shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about catastrophic risk from its frontier models or its management of catastrophic risk. (B) A large frontier developer shall not make a materially false or misleading statement about its implementation of, or compliance with, its frontier AI framework. (2) This subdivision does not apply to a statement that was made in good faith and was reasonable under the circumstances.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(f)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(f)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(f) (1) When a frontier developer publishes documents to comply with this section, the frontier developer may make redactions to those documents that are necessary to protect the frontier developer’s trade secrets, the frontier developer’s cybersecurity, public safety, or the national security of the United States or to comply with any federal or state law. (2) If a frontier developer redacts information in a document pursuant to this subdivision, the frontier developer shall describe the character and justification of the redaction in any published version of the document to the extent permitted by the concerns that justify redaction and shall retain the unredacted information for five years.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(a)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(a)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(a) The Office of Emergency Services shall establish a mechanism to be used by a frontier developer or a member of the public to report a critical safety incident that includes all of the following: (1) The date of the critical safety incident. (2) The reasons the incident qualifies as a critical safety incident. (3) A short and plain statement describing the critical safety incident. (4) Whether the incident was associated with internal use of a frontier model.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(b)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(b)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(b) (1) The Office of Emergency Services shall establish a mechanism to be used by a large frontier developer to confidentially submit summaries of any assessments of the potential for catastrophic risk resulting from internal use of its frontier models. (2) The Office of Emergency Services shall take all necessary precautions to limit access to any reports related to internal use of frontier models to only personnel with a specific need to know the information and to protect the reports from unauthorized access.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(1)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(1)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(c) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a frontier developer shall report any critical safety incident pertaining to one or more of its frontier models to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days of discovering the critical safety incident.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(2)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(c)(2)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(2) If a frontier developer discovers that a critical safety incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury, the frontier developer shall disclose that incident within 24 hours to an authority, including any law enforcement agency or public safety agency with jurisdiction, that is appropriate based on the nature of that incident and as required by law.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(f)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(f)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(f) A report of a critical safety incident submitted to the Office of Emergency Services pursuant to this section, a report of assessments of catastrophic risk from internal use pursuant to Section 22757.12, and a covered employee report made pursuant to Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 1107) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Labor Code are exempt from the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code).
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(g)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(g)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(g) (1) Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Office of Emergency Services shall produce a report with anonymized and aggregated information about critical safety incidents that have been reviewed by the Office of Emergency Services since the preceding report. (2) The Office of Emergency Services shall not include information in a report pursuant to this subdivision that would compromise the trade secrets or cybersecurity of a frontier developer, public safety, or the national security of the United States or that would be prohibited by any federal or state law. (3) The Office of Emergency Services shall transmit a report pursuant to this subdivision to the Legislature, pursuant to Section 9795, and to the Governor.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(h)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.13(h)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(h) The Office of Emergency Services may adopt regulations designating one or more federal laws, regulations, or guidance documents that meet all of the following conditions for the purposes of subdivision (i): (1) (A) The law, regulation, or guidance document imposes or states standards or requirements for critical safety incident reporting that are substantially equivalent to, or stricter than, those required by this section. (B) The law, regulation, or guidance document described in subparagraph (A) does not need to require critical safety incident reporting to the State of California. (2) The law, regulation, or guidance document is intended to assess, detect, or mitigate the catastrophic risk.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(a)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(a)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(a) On or before January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Department of Technology shall assess recent evidence and developments relevant to the purposes of this chapter and shall make recommendations about whether and how to update any of the following definitions for the purposes of this chapter to ensure that they accurately reflect technological developments, scientific literature, and widely accepted national and international standards: (1) “Frontier model” so that it applies to foundation models at the frontier of artificial intelligence development. (2) “Frontier developer” so that it applies to developers of frontier models who are themselves at the frontier of artificial intelligence development. (3) “Large frontier developer” so that it applies to well-resourced frontier developers.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(d)
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.14(d)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(d) (1) Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall produce a report with anonymized and aggregated information about reports from covered employees made pursuant to Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 1107) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Labor Code that have been reviewed by the Attorney General since the preceding report. (2) The Attorney General shall not include information in a report pursuant to this subdivision that would compromise the trade secrets or cybersecurity of a frontier developer, confidentiality of a covered employee, public safety, or the national security of the United States or that would be prohibited by any federal or state law. (3) The Attorney General shall transmit a report pursuant to this subdivision to the Legislature, pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code, and to the Governor.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15
California SB 53
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(a) A large frontier developer that fails to publish or transmit a compliant document required to be published or transmitted under this chapter, makes a statement in violation of subdivision (e) of Section 22757.12, fails to report an incident as required by Section 22757.13, or fails to comply with its own frontier AI framework shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) per violation. (b) A civil penalty described in this section shall be recovered in a civil action brought only by the Attorney General.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Lab. Code § 1107(b)
California SB 53
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107(b)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(b) “Covered employee” means an employee responsible for assessing, managing, or addressing risk of critical safety incidents.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(a)
California SB 53
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(a)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(a) A frontier developer shall not make, adopt, enforce, or enter into a rule, regulation, policy, or contract that prevents a covered employee from disclosing, or retaliates against a covered employee for disclosing, information to the Attorney General, a federal authority, a person with authority over the covered employee, or another covered employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the reported issue, if the covered employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses either of the following: (1) The frontier developer’s activities pose a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk. (2) The frontier developer has violated Chapter 25.1 (commencing with Section 22757.10) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(d)
California SB 53
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(d)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(d) A frontier developer shall provide a clear notice to all covered employees of their rights and responsibilities under this section, including by doing either of the following: (1) At all times posting and displaying within any workplace maintained by the frontier developer a notice to all covered employees of their rights under this section, ensuring that any new covered employee receives equivalent notice, and ensuring that any covered employee who works remotely periodically receives an equivalent notice. (2) At least once each year, providing written notice to each covered employee of the covered employee’s rights under this section and ensuring that the notice is received and acknowledged by all of those covered employees.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(e)
California SB 53
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(e)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(e) (1) A large frontier developer shall provide a reasonable internal process through which a covered employee may anonymously disclose information to the large frontier developer if the covered employee believes in good faith that the information indicates that the large frontier developer’s activities present a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk or that the large frontier developer violated Chapter 25.1 (commencing with Section 22757.10) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code, including a monthly update to the person who made the disclosure regarding the status of the large frontier developer’s investigation of the disclosure and the actions taken by the large frontier developer in response to the disclosure. (2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the disclosures and responses of the process required by this subdivision shall be shared with officers and directors of the large frontier developer at least once each quarter. …

Continue on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov ↗

✕
CASource text — Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(f)-(g)
California SB 53
Cal. Lab. Code § 1107.1(f)-(g)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(f) The court is authorized to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of this section. (g) In a civil action brought pursuant to this section, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by this section was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the covered employee, the frontier developer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the covered employee had not engaged in activities protected by this section.
✕
CASource text — Cal. Gov. Code § 11546.8(a) (SB 53, SEC. 3)
California SB 53
Cal. Gov. Code § 11546.8(a) (SB 53, SEC. 3)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(a) There is hereby established within the Government Operations Agency a consortium that shall develop, pursuant to this section, a framework for the creation of a public cloud computing cluster to be known as “CalCompute.”
✕
CASource text — SB 53, SEC. 5(f)
California SB 53
SB 53, SEC. 5(f)·leginfo.legislature.ca.gov, official text ↗
(f) This act preempts any rule, regulation, code, ordinance, or other law adopted by a city, county, city and county, municipality, or local agency on or after January 1, 2025, specifically related to the regulation of frontier developers with respect to their management of catastrophic risk.