TL;DR: Governor Newsom signed SB 947 and SB 951 on September 30, 2026. SB 947 (No Robo Bosses Act) bars sole reliance on an automated decision system for discipline or termination and takes effect July 1, 2027. SB 951 adds technology displacement disclosures to Cal/WARN layoff notices and takes effect January 1, 2027. Both are narrower than the committee drafts our August 19 article described.
Updated October 1, 2026. This article was first published on August 19 while both bills were still moving, and it described the committee drafts. We rewrote it from the enrolled text and two independent sources. The main corrections are listed under "What changed from the drafts".
California now has two new employer-facing AI laws, with different dates and different jobs to do. SB 947, authored by Sen. Jerry McNerney, limits how an employer uses an automated decision system, or ADS, to discipline or fire someone. SB 951 changes what a layoff notice must say when automation is behind the layoff. The governor's September 30 release lists both among the bills he signed. For the rest of that batch, see our September 30 signings tracker.
SB 947: The No Robo Bosses Act (operative July 1, 2027)
What counts as an ADS
The bill defines an automated decision system as a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics or artificial intelligence that issues an output, such as a score, classification or recommendation, used to assist or replace human decision making and that materially affects a person. Spam filters, firewalls and similar tools are excluded.
The test is not whether a vendor calls the tool AI. It is whether the tool produces an output that influences a discipline or termination decision. Tools that are likely to meet that description include performance platforms that score employees, attendance systems with automatic warnings, and productivity classifiers. Whether a particular product qualifies is a question for counsel.
What the signed text requires
- No sole reliance. An employer cannot rely solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision.
- Human corroboration. When an ADS plays a primary role, an employer must have a human corroborate the output. If corroboration fails or shows the output was inaccurate, the output cannot be used to justify the action.
- Written notice. The employee receives a written notice confirming that an ADS primarily drove the decision, that a human corroborated it, who to contact with questions, and that retaliation is prohibited.
- Prohibited uses. An ADS cannot be used to violate labor, occupational health or civil rights law, to infer an employee's protected status, or to predict and retaliate against workers who exercise legal rights.
- Enforcement. The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors can enforce. The civil penalty is $500 per violation, and civil actions can bring injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorney fees.
SB 951: Technology displacement notices (operative January 1, 2027)
SB 951 does not create a new notice or a new trigger. It amends Cal/WARN so that, when a mass layoff, relocation or termination is caused in whole or in substantial part by an AI system or other automated technology that replaces or automates jobs, the existing notice must carry extra information.
The notice must open with the line "This notice is for a technology displacement" and identify:
- the number, classification or occupation, and work location of the affected workers,
- the job functions that will be automated, and
- the specific category or type of AI system or automated technology that substantially caused the displacement.
Notice goes to the affected employees and, as under existing Cal/WARN practice, to the Employment Development Department, the local workforce development board and the chief elected official, 60 days before the order takes effect. The Employment Development Department will publish summaries of the notices it receives and quarterly statewide summaries of reported technology displacement. That public reporting is the part most employers have not planned for: a layoff you attribute to AI becomes a line in a state report.
What changed from the drafts
Our August 19 article and several law firm alerts written before the final amendments described features that we did not find in the enrolled text:
| Earlier description | Enrolled text we read |
|---|---|
| 90-day notice for AI-driven layoffs | Existing 60-day Cal/WARN notice |
| Trigger of 25 workers or 25 percent of the workforce | Existing Cal/WARN thresholds (covered establishment of at least 75 employees, layoff of at least 50 in 30 days) |
| Right of first bid for displaced workers, a dedicated penalty fund | Not found |
| SB 947 operative January 1, 2027 | Operative July 1, 2027 |
| Annual worker data request right and a ban on predictive behavior profiling | Not found in the summary we read; the prohibited uses are the three listed above |
We read the bill text through a summary tool and checked the dates and penalty against two independent sources, which agree. If a feature in your compliance plan comes from an earlier alert, check it against the chaptered text. The Cal/WARN penalty of up to $500 per day applies under our reading, but the bill does not spell out how it attaches to the new disclosures.
Newsom and the veto history
Newsom vetoed SB 7, a broader earlier version, in October 2025. His veto message called the notice requirements unfocused and pointed to forthcoming California Privacy Protection Agency rules on automated decision systems. SB 947 is narrower: discipline and termination only, and the human corroboration requirement applies only when an ADS plays a primary role. That narrowing is the likely reason it was signed.
What employers with California operations should do now
Step 1: Inventory your ADS tools. List every HR, workforce and performance tool that scores, flags or recommends, and mark which ones feed discipline or termination.
Step 2: Document the human. Before July 1, 2027, build the habit: who reviewed the output, what they looked at and what they decided. The statute asks for corroboration, so keep a record that shows it happened.
Step 3: Draft the SB 947 notice. Use the four fields the text requires: an ADS primarily drove the decision, a human corroborated it, a contact for questions, and a no-retaliation statement.
Step 4: Update your Cal/WARN template before January 1. Add the "technology displacement" header and the three disclosure fields, and decide who decides whether automation is a substantial cause. That is a legal and a communications decision, because the notice becomes public through the state summaries.
Step 5: Check what your vendors can tell you. If a vendor's tool scores your employees, ask what its output means and how a human could corroborate it. If the answer is "trust the score", you do not have a compliant process.
How these laws fit with other rules
SB 947 does not replace California's consumer-facing ADMT regulations, which cover consumer data uses. It sits alongside federal EEOC guidance, NYC Local Law 144's bias audit rule and FCRA provisions on automated background check scoring. Employers in several jurisdictions need one map that covers all of them. See the EEOC AI hiring guidance checklist, the NYC Local Law 144 employer guide and the California ADMT employer compliance templates.
Related Reading
Sources: California SB 947 bill text, California SB 951 bill text, CA Senate approves No Robo Bosses Act, California Legislature proposes 90-day AI layoff notice, AI Legislative Update August 14 2026, Regulating AI at work: SB 951 and SB 947, Crowell Moring SB 947 analysis
