PubLedge

Deployers would have been required to notify consumers before using a high-risk artificial intelligence system in a consequential decision and, after an adverse decision, provide the principal reasons, an opportunity to correct incorrect personal data, and an appeal with human review where technically feasible. The obligation is retained from the predecessor Colorado SB 24-205 framework. Predecessor operative history remains unresolved; SB 26-189 section 5 qualifies replacement timing, and signature alone does not establish when predecessor duties ceased or whether they operated.

What Counts

• Pre-decision notice identifying the high-risk system's role and the nature of the consequential decision
• Plain-language explanation of the principal reasons for an adverse decision
• Disclosure of the data types and sources used in the adverse decision
• A working process to correct incorrect personal data
• An appeal process with human review where technically feasible

What Does Not Count

• Treating the enacted consumer-rights bundle as currently operative after SB 24-205 was superseded
• Notice delivered only after the consequential decision
• A correction channel that does not feed into reconsideration
• An automated rerun presented as human review
• An explanation that omits the system's contribution to the adverse decision

Implementing Legal Instruments