ARTICLE
9 October 2025

Senate Bill 53: A Move Toward Transparency And Reporting Requirements For Large Developers Of AI Models

JL
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Contributor

Focused on employment and labor law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.’s 1,000+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients’ goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee.
California's Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 53, which creates a comprehensive regulatory framework for advanced AI. The law takes effect January 1, 2026.
United States California Technology
Eric J. Felsberg’s articles from Jackson Lewis P.C. are most popular:
  • with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
  • with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Business & Consumer Services and Environment & Waste Management industries

California's Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 53, which creates a comprehensive regulatory framework for advanced AI. The law takes effect January 1, 2026.

SB 53 is designed to govern what it calls "frontier" AI models, which are large, cutting-edge systems built by major developers with substantial resources. The central aim of the law is to balance these competing realities: encouraging innovation while protecting public safety and property from catastrophic risks.

Overview

Although SB 53 is directed at the developers of advanced AI systems, the law's requirements will inevitably affect the businesses that depend on these technologies.

Under the law, developers must now publish a "frontier AI framework" that explains their risk management practices. They are also required to release transparency reports before introducing new or substantially updated models. These reports must contain detailed risk assessments, strategies for mitigation, and independent third-party evaluations.

In addition, the law imposes strict incident reporting obligations. If a developer discovers a "critical safety incident," it must be reported within fifteen days. If the incident presents an imminent risk of death or serious injury, the report must be submitted within twenty-four hours. For employers, this means that AI vendors may need to temporarily adjust or even suspend services to comply with these requirements, potentially affecting continuity of business operations.

The legislation also imposes serious financial consequences for non-compliance. Any violation can result in civil penalties of up to one million dollars per instance, enforced by the Attorney General. Businesses that rely on AI providers should therefore be prepared for the possibility that vendors who fail to meet these standards could face enforcement actions that disrupt their services.

SB 53 introduces several important legal definitions that determine when these rules apply. A "frontier model" is defined by the amount of computing power used in its training, while "catastrophic risk" refers to scenarios that could cause mass casualties or more than one billion dollars in property damage. The law also identifies "critical safety incidents" as failures or risks that could threaten life or cause serious harm. These definitions are critical because they establish the threshold at which developers, and by extension their customers, are subject to the most stringent requirements.

Whistleblower Protections

Another significant component of SB 53 is its treatment of whistleblowers. The law protects employees who raise concerns about catastrophic risks or violations. These protections include strong anti-retaliation measures, anonymous reporting options, and the ability for employees to seek injunctive relief in court. For employers, this provision highlights the need to create internal reporting systems that allow employees to express concerns about AI use safely and without fear of reprisal. Failing to do so may not only undermine compliance but also damage workplace trust.

Preemption

The law is written to ensure that its provisions apply consistently across California. It preempts local regulations that might otherwise conflict and includes clauses to ensure broad application and resilience against legal challenges. In practice, this means employers can expect uniform rules across the state rather than a patchwork of differing local ordinances.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More