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.

If you have questions about compliance with SB 53 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Eric J. Felsberg Eric J. Felsberg

Eric J. Felsberg is a principal in the Long Island, New York office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Eric is the leader of the firm’s AI Governance and Bias Testing and Pre-Employment Assessments subgroups, as well as the Technology industry group. An early adopter…

Eric J. Felsberg is a principal in the Long Island, New York office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Eric is the leader of the firm’s AI Governance and Bias Testing and Pre-Employment Assessments subgroups, as well as the Technology industry group. An early adopter, Eric has long understood the intersection of law and technology and the influence artificial intelligence has on employers today and will have on the workforce of the future.

Recognized as a leading voice in the industry, Eric monitors laws, regulations and trends, providing practical advice and answers to emerging workplace issues before his clients even know to ask the questions. He partners with clients to develop AI governance models, and provides advice and counsel on AI use policies, ethics and transparency issues related to AI products, systems and services. Eric leverages his considerable knowledge of the technology and AI industries to create meaningful partnerships with developers and distributors of AI models and tools and owners of content and data used to train AI applications for the benefit of his clients. He delivers user-friendly counsel and training to employers on everyday employment and compliance issues arising from federal, state and local regulations.

Photo of Scott P. Jang Scott P. Jang

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with particular focus on class actions and complex litigation. Scott is a member of the firm’s California Class…

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with particular focus on class actions and complex litigation. Scott is a member of the firm’s California Class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Action group, as well as a member of the California Advice and Counsel resource group.

Scott’s litigation experience covers the full spectrum of employment law. He has experience defending employers against claims for alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair competition. He also has experience defending employers against various wage and hour claims, including claims for alleged overtime, meal and rest breaks, and business expense reimbursement. Scott’s trial practice includes having served as second chair in a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which a national beverage manufacturer fully prevailed on all claims for alleged misclassification. He has also served as first chair in several arbitrations for a national retailer for alleged wage and hour violations.