California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB7

Introduced
12/2/24  
Refer
1/29/25  
Refer
3/6/25  
Refer
3/19/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Refer
4/9/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Refer
4/9/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
6/2/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
6/9/25  
Engrossed
6/2/25  
Refer
6/19/25  
Refer
6/9/25  
Refer
6/19/25  
Report Pass
6/26/25  
Refer
6/26/25  
Refer
6/26/25  

Caption

Employment: automated decision systems.

Impact

If enacted, SB 7 would amend existing labor laws by mandating employers to inform affected workers about decisions made via ADS and to allow them access to their data. This includes the right to correct any errors in data used by the ADS, significantly enhancing workers' control over their personal information. The bill also establishes strict guidelines around the use of ADS to prevent discriminatory practices and the relaying of personal information that could negatively affect workers.

Summary

Senate Bill 7, introduced by Senator McNerney, aims to regulate the use of automated decision systems (ADS) in employment contexts in California. The bill requires employers to provide written notice to workers if an ADS is used for employment-related decisions, which includes informing job applicants about its use in hiring. Additionally, employers must maintain an updated list of all ADS in use, ensuring transparency and accountability regarding the impact of these systems on workers' rights.

Sentiment

The discussions surrounding SB 7 highlight a mix of support and concern. Advocates argue that the bill enhances worker protections in an era where automated systems increasingly influence employment decisions. Conversely, some employers express concern regarding the potential compliance costs and operational complexities introduced by the bill’s requirements. This has led to a polarized view on the bill's necessity and practicality.

Contention

Key points of contention in the discussions include the balance between technological advancement in the workplace and the ensuring of worker protections against arbitrary decisions made by algorithms. Critics of the bill fear that stringent requirements might discourage the adoption of beneficial automated systems, while proponents insist these measures are necessary to safeguard individual rights. The requirement for employers to respond to appeals regarding decisions made by ADS within specified timelines also raised questions about the feasibility of such operational changes.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB2930

Automated decision systems.

CA SB892

Public contracts: automated decision systems: procurement standards.

CA AB331

Automated decision tools.

CA AB302

Department of Technology: high-risk automated decision systems: inventory.

CA SB1321

Employment Training Panel: employment training program: projects and proposals.

CA AB2687

Automated traffic enforcement systems.

CA AB171

Employment.

CA SB171

Employment.

CA AB130

Employment.

CA SB130

Employment.

Similar Bills

CA AB1221

Workplace surveillance tools.

CA AB1651

Worker rights: Workplace Technology Accountability Act.

MA H1873

Preventing a dystopian work environment

CA AB1331

Workplace surveillance.

MA H77

Fostering artificial intelligence responsibility

MA S35

Fostering artificial intelligence responsibility

VT H0114

An act relating to restricting electronic monitoring of employees and employment-related automated decision systems

VT H0262

An act relating to restricting electronic monitoring of employees and the use of employment-related automated decision systems