O F F I C E O F L E G I S L A T I V E R E S E A R C H
P U B L I C A C T S U M M A R Y
Page 1
PA 23-16—sSB 1103
General Law Committee
Appropriations Committee
AN ACT CONCERNING AR TIFICIAL INTELLIGENC E, AUTOMATED
DECISION-MAKING AND PERSONAL DATA PRIVAC Y
SUMMARY: This act requires the executive and judicial branches to (1) annually
do an inventory of all their systems that employ artificial intelligence (AI) and (2)
make policies and procedures on developing, procuring, using, and assessing
systems that use AI. It also requires them to publicly post the inventory and policies
and procedures online.
Beginning February 1, 2024, the act prohibits the executive and judicial
branches from implementing any system that uses AI unless they have done an
impact assessment to make sure the system will not result in any unlawful
discrimination or disparate impact against specified people or groups of people
based on actual or perceived characteristics (e.g., age and race).
It also establishes a 21-member working group to make recommendations to
the General Law Committee on certain AI issues. Among other things, the working
group must engage stakeholders and experts on how to develop best practices for
the ethical and equitable use of AI in state government.
Separately, the act prohibits state contracting agencies from entering a contract
unless it has a provision requiring the business to comply with the consumer data
privacy law.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2023, except the working group provision is effective
upon passage and the consumer data privacy provision is effective October 1, 2023.
§§ 1-3 & 5 — AI DEFINITION
Under the act, “AI” means (1) a set of techniques, including machine learning,
designed to approximate a cognitive task or (2) an artificial system that meets
certain criteria. These criteria are as follows:
1. performs tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances without
significant human oversight or can learn from experience and improve
performance when exposed to data sets;
2. is developed in any context, including software or physical hardware, and
solves tasks requiring human-like perception, cognition, planning, learning,
communication, or physical action; or
3. is designed to (a) think or act like a human, including a cognitive
architecture or neural network, or (b) act rationally, including an intelligent
software agent or embodied robot that achieves goals using perception,
planning, reasoning, learning, communication, decision-making, or action.
O L R P U B L I C A C T S U M M A R Y
Page 2 of 5
§§ 1 & 3 — AI INVENTORY
The act requires the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), beginning
by December 31, 2023, to annually do an inventory of all systems that employ AI
that executive branch state agencies use. It also requires the judicial branch,
beginning by this same date, to do an annual inventory of systems it uses. A state
agency is any executive branch department, board, council, commission, or
institution, including the offices of the governor, lieutenant governor, state
treasurer, attorney general, secretary of the state, and state comptroller and all
operations of an executive branch agency that are funded by the General Fund or a
special fund (CGS § 4d-1).
The act requires that each inventory include at least the following information
for each system:
1. the name of the system and its vendor, if any;
2. a description of the system’s general capabilities and uses; and
3. whether the system (a) was used to independently make, inform, or
materially support a conclusion, decision, or judgment and (b) underwent
an impact assessment before its implementation.
The act requires (1) DAS to make these inventories publicly available through
the state’s open data portal and (2) the judicial branch to make them available on
its website.
Ongoing Assessments
Beginning February 1, 2024, the act requires DAS to do ongoing assessments
of systems employing AI that state agencies use to make sure that no system will
result in any unlawful discrimination or disparate impact against specified people
or groups of people (see below). DAS must do these assessments following policies
and procedures the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) establishes (see
below).
Beginning on the same date, the act similarly requires the judicial branch to do
ongoing assessments for the same purpose.
§§ 2 & 3 — AI POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The act requires OPM to develop and establish policies and procedures by
February 1, 2024, on the development, procurement, implementation, utilization,
and ongoing assessment of systems that employ AI that state executive branch
agencies use. It separately requires the judicial branch, by this same date, to do the
same with respect to its systems that employ AI.
The act requires, at a minimum, that OPM’s and the judicial branch’s policies
and procedures include provisions that:
1. govern the procurement, implementation, and ongoing assessment of the
systems;
2. are sufficient to ensure that no system (a) results in any unlawful
discrimination against any person or group of people, or (b) has any O L R P U B L I C A C T S U M M A R Y
Page 3 of 5
unlawful disparate impact on any individual or group of individuals based
on any actual or perceived differentiating characteristic, including age,
genetic information, color, ethnicity, race, creed, religion, national origin,
ancestry, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital
status, familial status, pregnancy, veteran status, disability, or lawful source
of income;
3. require a state agency or the branch to assess a system’s likely impact before
implementing it; and
4. provide for DAS or the branch to do ongoing assessments of the systems to
ensure that no system results in any unlawful discrimination or disparate
impact described above.
The act allows OPM or the branch to revise the policies and procedures if the
OPM secretary or chief court administrator determines a revision is needed. OPM
and the branch must post the policies and procedures and any revision on their
websites.
Beginning February 1, 2024, the act prohibits state agencies and the judicial
branch from implementing any system that employs AI:
1. unless the agency or branch has done an impact assessment following the
policies and procedures to ensure the system will not result in any unlawful
discrimination or disparate impact or
2. if the agency head or the chief court administrator, as applicable, determines
that the system will result in any unlawful discrimination or disparate
impact.
§ 5 — AI WORKING GROUP
The act establishes a 21-member working group to make recommendations to
the General Law Committee on certain issues concerning AI. The working group
is part of the legislative branch and must engage stakeholders and experts to:
1. make recommendations on, and develop best practices for, the ethical and
equitable use of AI in state government;
2. make recommendations for the policies and procedures the act requires
OPM to establish (see above);
3. assess the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s
“Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” and similar materials and make
recommendations on (a) regulating AI’s use in the private sector based on,
among other things, the blueprint, and (b) adopting a Connecticut AI bill of
rights based on the blueprint; and
4. make recommendations on adopting other AI legislation.
Voting Members
Under the act, the working group includes the following 10 voting members
with their qualifications listed in the table below. In addition, all voting members
must have professional experience or academic qualifications in AI, automated
systems, government policy, or another related field. O L R P U B L I C A C T S U M M A R Y
Page 4 of 5
Working Group Voting Member Appointment and Qualifications
Appointing Authority Member Qualifications
House speaker Representative of industries developing AI
Senate president pro tempore Representative of industries using AI
House majority leader Academic with a concentration in the study
of technology and technology policy
Senate majority leader Academic with a concentration in the study
of government and public policy
House minority leader Representative of an industry association
for industries developing AI
Senate minority leader Representative of an industry association
for industries using AI
General Law Committee chairpersons (one
appointment each)
Not specified
Governor Two Connecticut Academy of Science and
Engineering (CASE) members
The act requires appointing authorities to make initial appointments within 30
days after the act’s passage (i.e., by July 7, 2023), and fill any vacancies. Any
working group action must be taken by a majority vote of all voting members
present, and no action may be taken unless at least 50% of voting members are
present.
Nonvoting Ex-Officio Members
The working group also includes 11 nonvoting, ex-officio members. These
members are the General Law Committee chairpersons and the following officials
or their designees:
1. attorney general;
2. state comptroller;
3. state treasurer;
4. DAS commissioner;
5. chief data officer;
6. Freedom of Information Commission executive director;
7. Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity and Opportunity
executive director;
8. chief court administrator; and
9. CASE executive director.
Chairpersons and Meetings
The act makes the General Law Committee chairpersons and the CASE
executive director the working group’s chairpersons. They must schedule the
group’s first meeting, to be held within 60 days after the act’s passage (i.e., by
August 6, 2023). O L R P U B L I C A C T S U M M A R Y
Page 5 of 5
The act requires the General Law Committee’s administrative staff to serve as
the working group’s administrative staff.
Report
The act requires the working group to submit a report on its findings and
recommendations to the General Law Committee by February 1, 2024. The
working group terminates on this date or the date it submits the report, whichever
is later.
§ 4 — CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY LAW
Beginning July 1, 2023, existing law (i.e., the consumer data privacy law) sets
a framework for controlling and processing personal data. The framework requires
a controller (i.e., an individual or legal entity that determines the purpose and means
of processing personal data) to limit the collection of personal data and establish
security practices, among other things. The law’s consumer data privacy
requirements generally apply to individuals and entities (1) doing business in
Connecticut or producing products or services targeted to Connecticut residents and
(2) controlling or processing personal data of numbers of consumers above set
thresholds during the previous calendar year. Regardless of any state law, the act
prohibits state contracting agencies from entering any contract with a business on
or after October 1, 2023, unless the contract has a provision requiring the business
to comply with all applicable provisions of the consumer data privacy law.
By law, a state contracting agency is an executive branch agency, board,
commission, department, office, institution, or council. The definition excludes (1)
the offices of the secretary of the state, state treasurer, state comptroller, and
attorney general with respect to their constitutional functions and (2) any state
agency with respect to contracts specific to the constitutional and statutory
functions of the Office of the State Treasurer (CGS § 4e-1).