{"id":33817,"date":"2026-05-10T17:48:13","date_gmt":"2026-05-10T17:48:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/33817\/"},"modified":"2026-05-10T17:48:13","modified_gmt":"2026-05-10T17:48:13","slug":"colorado-lawmakers-are-poised-to-scale-back-the-states-ai-regulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/33817\/","title":{"rendered":"Colorado lawmakers are poised to scale back the state’s AI regulations"},"content":{"rendered":"

After two years of task forces, collapsed deals, attempted overhauls and an Elon Musk lawsuit<\/a>, Colorado lawmakers are finally poised to rewrite \u2014 and scale back \u2014 the state\u2019s beleaguered artificial intelligence regulations.<\/p>\n

The latest legislation<\/a>, in contrast to those earlier stutter-starts, is flying through the legislature. By Saturday afternoon, Senate Bill 189<\/a> had met little resistance, had passed both chambers and was headed to Gov. Jared Polis\u2019 desk, as the clock ticks down to the annual legislative session\u2019s adjournment Wednesday night.<\/p>\n

The proposal represents a near-total rewrite of the state\u2019s initial attempt to protect Coloradans from being discarded by a discriminatory AI system when they apply for jobs, bank loans or housing. Passed into law in 2024, those rules \u2014 which haven\u2019t yet taken effect \u2014 have become a pi\u00f1ata for nearly every group with an interest in them. Lawmakers are now preparing to scale them back to a requirement that applicants be made aware when AI is involved in a consequential decision about their lives.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe amount of interest and money and scale of this stuff begs for some type of regulation,\u201d said Sen. Robert Rodriguez, a Denver Democrat who\u2019s been at the center of the AI negotiations since 2024. \u201c\u2026 It\u2019s important that we do safety stuff. Polling, bipartisanly, on data centers and all the other stuff \u2014 it is not going well, and people want us to do something.\u201d<\/p>\n

But figuring out the right something has been \u201ca complicated piece,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

In truth, the fight over the state\u2019s AI regulations has largely happened outside the House and Senate doors. Only a few lawmakers have been involved in the up-and-down negotiations over the past 24 months.<\/p>\n

The seesaw has more regularly been occupied by an array of tech and business groups, local venture capitalists and AI firms, hospitals and schools, and consumer protection and progressive groups. Those interests have sometimes\u2013competing and -overlapping goals, and they\u2019re also powerful enough to tank lawmakers\u2019 plans: After a would-be AI deal was announced by lawmakers in August, a howling lobby scuttled it within half a day<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Polis, who has called for a moratorium on state-level AI regulations, convened those outside forces in a closed-door task force to hammer out a negotiated armistice that could be delivered to the legislature for passage.<\/p>\n

With that framework now drafted into a bill, the legislature finds itself in odd, if not unprecedented, territory. Any changes risk fracturing the fragile truce among the legislative lobby, and the task force members have repeatedly pleaded with lawmakers to leave the bill as-is.<\/p>\n

Perhaps wary of another late-session fight over wonky AI regulations, legislators have largely obliged, and the bill has sailed through the Capitol at a brisk pace since it was introduced May 1. Through all of its votes in the Senate and House, only eight lawmakers \u2014 all Republicans \u2014 voted against it. A brief attempt to amend it beyond the bounds of the deal was voluntarily dropped Saturday.<\/p>\n

\u201cHopefully, everybody\u2019s happy,\u201d Rodriguez told reporters Thursday, \u201cand hopefully you\u2019re not coming back next year saying, \u2018Oh God, here we go again.\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n

A bill focused on decisions<\/p>\n

At its core, SB-189 is effectively a notification bill for companies and other entities that use AI in consequential decisions.<\/p>\n

Starting on Jan. 1, it would require those companies or agencies to disclose to people that AI will play a role in their job application, their college acceptance or their loan approval. The bill requires companies to provide \u201cclear and conspicuous notice\u201d to those consumers or applicants, but how that will work in practice isn\u2019t detailed in the measure itself.<\/p>\n

If an applicant\u2019s resume is rejected, the bill would allow that applicant to ask what personal data the system used. If that data was incorrect, then the consumer could correct that information and request that a human provide \u201cmeaningful review\u201d of the decision.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a marked shift from the current regulations<\/a>, which would require more intensive work by AI companies to curb bias if they took effect next month, as currently scheduled. That effective date has been delayed repeatedly to give lawmakers more time to work on changes.<\/p>\n

SB-189 \u201cputs it more on the individual to say, \u2018OK, instead of making sure that the systems are free of risk prior to them being deployed, what we\u2019re going to do is we\u2019re going to let you know these systems are used, some of the information about them, what categories of data is being used,\u2019 \u201d said Travis Hall, the state director for the Center for Democracy and Technology.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd if there\u2019s an adverse decision against you,\u201d he said, \u201cyou\u2019ll have some ability to correct it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Colorado\u2019s proposed retreat has drawn mixed reactions. Under the existing rules, companies were required to undertake impact assessments intended to blunt the potential that AI systems could discriminate against someone. But those assessments were among the most criticized parts of the rules \u2014 and though Rodriguez privately sought to bring them back into SB-189, doing so risked shattering the peace.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s been the big piece for the (venture capitalists) and the startups,\u201d who would struggle more to comply with the requirements than larger AI firms, Rodriguez explained. He thought that would have been a \u201cnice way to go,\u201d and it would\u2019ve provided some protections to companies that completed the assessments.<\/p>\n

Still, he agreed to drop it.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you ask me, that\u2019s the wrong choice,\u201d said Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat, a policy advisor at New York University\u2019s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights<\/a>.<\/p>\n

To her, SB-189 \u201cis very limited\u201d without the risk assessments \u2014 which, she argued, can prevent bias before it impacts someone trying to get healthcare or a bank loan. She was sympathetic to concerns from smaller companies, but she said the current law \u201cdoes very little compared to what it could be.\u201d<\/p>\n

Risk assessments \u201cmight be burdensome, but that doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019re not good,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Jim Samuel, an associate professor at Rutgers University who focuses on artificial intelligence and data science, was more supportive of the bill\u2019s approach.<\/p>\n

He argues that bias is inherent in data because humans are biased. AI can never be perfect, he said, because humans aren\u2019t perfect, and attempting to tweak the information that feeds into artificial intelligence would have unintended consequences.<\/p>\n

The best option, Samuel continued, was to provide transparency and education to consumers.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe need to ensure fairness. We need to ensure there\u2019s no injustice in our system,\u201d he said. \u201cSo if something like (AI-driven discrimination) comes to light, we need to already have regulations in place, which will protect the consumer. That\u2019s where transparency comes in. If my credit application is rejected, I need to have an explanation for why.\u201d<\/p>\n

He called for continued oversight of AI companies and refinement of laws to protect consumers. Echoing calls from some consumer groups, Hall, from the Center for Democracy and Technology, said SB-189 was a starting point.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not nothing, and it is a little bit like \u2014 crawl, walk, run,\u201d he said. The rules set to take effect next month were akin to walking, \u201cand we\u2019re going back a little bit to a crawl. But we\u2019re still moving forward. And it does provide some traction for accountability in these systems.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"SenatorsSenators listen during a hearing on an artificial intelligence regulations bill during a Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee meeting at the Colorado State Capitol Building in Denver on Tuesday, May 4, 2026. (Photo by AAron Ontiveroz\/The Denver Post)
\nNationwide interest<\/p>\n

As other states weigh AI regulations, Colorado\u2019s SB-189\u00a0is simultaneously broader and narrower than what\u2019s been adopted elsewhere, Hall said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a smattering of laws across the country, but they\u2019re narrow in scope,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Some address specific industries, like healthcare or insurance. Texas adopted a law similar to Colorado\u2019s soon-to-be-rewritten rules, though Hall said it applies mostly to government agencies, rather than the private sector. Connecticut lawmakers also just passed<\/a> an anti-bias AI law that\u2019s mostly focused on employment-based discrimination, and Illinois recently changed its human rights laws<\/a> to prohibit AI discrimination and require companies to notify consumers when AI is used.<\/p>\n

One uncertainty facing all of the states\u2019 attempts at regulation is the potential for federal intervention, whether from Congress or President Donald Trump\u2019s administration. In an executive order last year, Trump sought to undercut states\u2019 individual AI regulations, and specifically criticized Colorado\u2019s rules, as he caleld for a national AI framework. And last month, after Musk\u2019s xAI sued to challenge Colorado\u2019s earlier AI law, the Department of Justice joined his lawsuit<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Colorado lawmakers this year have taken aim at other areas where AI\u2019s tentacles have reached. The legislature has advanced bills regulating how the technology is used in healthcare<\/a> and in psychotherapy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another bill would place some guardrails around AI chatbots used by minors. All three of those measures have passed the full House and were advancing in the Senate as of Friday.<\/p>\n

The increased national and state focus comes as the public grows increasingly wary of AI.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo a certain extent, there\u2019s also a little bit of a cultural consciousness (and people) understanding the moment that we\u2019re in,\u201d Hall said.<\/p>\n

A Pew Research Center poll<\/a> from last summer found that only 10% of Americans were more excited than concerned about AI, while 50% were more concerned. More recently, a Quinnipiac University poll<\/a> from March found that though more people were using AI, more people were also growing concerned about it. Fifty-five percent said the technology was doing more harm than good.<\/p>\n

In a continuing call-to-arms for lawmakers, 74% of respondents also said the government was not doing enough to regulate AI.<\/p>\n

\u201cDoes this bill go far enough? Well, it depends on who you ask; I\u2019m pretty sure if you ask literally anybody who worked on it, the answer is no,\u201d Denver Rep. Jennifer Bacon, another of SB-189\u2019s sponsors, said before the final vote Saturday. \u201cBut it\u2019s a good starting place because we need to keep an eye out, not only on how businesses are developing but any potential impacts and harms that may be happening to any one of our constituents. And the only way we can do that is by what\u2019s in this bill.\u201d<\/p>\n

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"After two years of task forces, collapsed deals, attempted overhauls and an Elon Musk lawsuit, Colorado lawmakers are…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":33818,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[24,25,2039,794,2130,12525,2131,14619,39,11521,2444,18010,11713,76,140,1655,11687,21585,21485,21586,11761,597,1657,1668,49,21587,3776,7649,120,5284,2901,382,2853,6964,3842,3423,66,20141,21588,572,21589,464,11763,605,52,735,7585,1346,1162,9113,134,106,16001],"class_list":{"0":"post-33817","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-ai","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-artificial-intelligence","10":"tag-bank","11":"tag-college","12":"tag-colorado","13":"tag-colorado-legislature","14":"tag-colorado-news","15":"tag-connecticut","16":"tag-data-centers","17":"tag-democracy","18":"tag-democrat","19":"tag-denver","20":"tag-discrimination","21":"tag-education","22":"tag-elon-musk","23":"tag-employment","24":"tag-front-range","25":"tag-goals","26":"tag-god","27":"tag-good","28":"tag-gov","29":"tag-government","30":"tag-health","31":"tag-health-care","32":"tag-healthcare","33":"tag-hospitals","34":"tag-housing","35":"tag-human-rights","36":"tag-illinois","37":"tag-insurance","38":"tag-jared-polis","39":"tag-jobs","40":"tag-latest-headlines","41":"tag-lawsuit","42":"tag-money","43":"tag-new-york","44":"tag-news","45":"tag-nice","46":"tag-one","47":"tag-people","48":"tag-pew-research-center","49":"tag-politics","50":"tag-regulations","51":"tag-republican","52":"tag-research","53":"tag-review","54":"tag-schools","55":"tag-senate","56":"tag-startups","57":"tag-summer","58":"tag-technology","59":"tag-texas","60":"tag-wilson"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33817\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33818"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}