SI safety in California

Key dates

Introduced

Jan 7, 2025

Signed or adopted

Sep 29, 2025

Effective

Jan 1, 2026

Next step · in 54 days

January 1, 2027

First annual Cal OES report on critical safety incidents, Attorney General whistleblower report and Department of Technology review of frontier definitions due

Scope

Developers that train frontier models above 10^26 operations; large frontier developers, with over $500 million in annual revenue, carry the heaviest duties.

Penalties

Civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation, enforced only by the California Attorney General.

What it requires

• Large developers publish a frontier SI framework, review it yearly and post material changes within 30 days
• Publish a transparency report before deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model
• Report critical safety incidents to Cal OES within 15 days, or within 24 hours if there is imminent risk of death or serious injury
• Large developers send Cal OES summaries of internal catastrophic risk assessments every three months
• Protect whistleblowers, with an anonymous internal reporting channel at large developers

Sources

1. SB 53: Artificial intelligence models: large developers CalMatters Digital Democracy
2. California SB 53: Frontier AI Law Explained CASRAI · Sep 19, 2026
3. OpenAI wants California to toughen the AI law it once fought The Next Web · Aug 24, 2026

Key dates

Introduced

Feb 21, 2025

Signed or adopted

Sep 9, 2026

Effective

Jan 1, 2027

Next step · in 174 days

May 1, 2027

Executive Order N-9-26 target for posting criteria for independent verification organizations (statutory deadline January 1, 2028)

Scope

SI auditors seeking state designation as independent verification organizations; use of them by developers is voluntary.

Penalties

No penalties: this measure has no binding enforcement.

What it requires

• Government Operations Agency sets application, suspension and qualification criteria by January 1, 2028
• Agency convenes working groups that include engineers and SI safety experts
• Designated organizations file annual reports with the agency and the Legislature
• No one is required to use an organization or be audited; an audit is relevant but not conclusive in harm lawsuits

Sources

1. SB 813: Independent verification organizations CalMatters Digital Democracy
2. California Finalizes Next Wave of State AI and Privacy Regulation WilmerHale · Oct 5, 2026

Key dates

Introduced

n/a

Signed or adopted

Sep 18, 2026

Effective

Sep 18, 2026

Next step · in 8 days

November 16, 2026

Government Operations Agency recommendations due on onsite audits, a frontier model kill switch and loss of control incident reporting

Scope

California state agencies; the recommendations are not binding and any new duties for frontier SI developers would need legislation.

Penalties

No penalties: this measure has no binding enforcement.

What it requires

• Recommend periodic onsite audits by independent verification organizations inside large frontier developers
• Recommend independent verification of safety frameworks, transparency reports and risk assessments
• Recommend a kill switch for frontier models whose effectiveness is verified on an ongoing basis
• Recommend expanding critical safety incident reporting to loss of control incidents
• Post criteria for independent verification organizations by May 1, 2027

Sources

1. Newsom sets November 16 deadline to study frontier AI kill switch PPC Land · Sep 20, 2026
2. California AI Governance: What Executive Order N-9-26 Means RadarFirst · Sep 23, 2026
3. Newsom orders California agencies to develop new AI safety plans after rejecting tougher law CalMatters · Sep 18, 2026