SB 947 adds employment automated decision system protections
Oct 4, 2026 edition · GC-2026-0227 · Published 2026-10-04 · Version 2 · Final
SB 947 establishes limits on employment automated decision systems beginning July 1, 2027. Discipline or termination cannot rely solely on a system, and primary reliance requires human corroboration, a postuse notice and access to a description of the employee’s own input data.
What happened
California enacted SB 947 on September 30, adding Labor Code provisions that become operative July 1, 2027. An employer may not use an automated decision system to violate labor, safety, employment or civil-rights law, infer protected status, or predict and take adverse action for exercising legal rights. Discipline or termination cannot rely solely on an ADS. If the employer primarily relies on its output, a human must corroborate the decision using input data or other relevant information. An uncorroborated output, or one the reviewer finds inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, cannot be used for that decision. The definition covers qualifying computational outputs that assist or replace human discretion and materially affect people, with listed exclusions such as calculators, databases, firewalls and access-management tools.
When primary ADS reliance leads to discipline or termination, the employer must give a separate plain-language postuse notice when communicating the decision. The notice must explain the reliance and human corroboration, identify a human contact and the employee’s data-description right, and state the retaliation prohibition. An employee may request a meaningful, objective description of their own data used by the ADS, with other people’s information anonymized. A collective bargaining exception requires an explicit clear waiver, specified employment terms and protection from algorithmic management; collective bargaining coverage alone is insufficient. The law also preserves applicable CalPrivacy automated-decisionmaking regulations despite its limited protection against duplicate state notices and provides a narrow federally required defense-related exception.
Scope and timing
- Authority status
- Final
- Applicability
- Potentially applicable
- Audience
- Health systems, Provider networks, Health-tech
- Jurisdiction
- California
- Recorded date
- 2027-07-01
- Date type
- implementation
Why it matters
The human step requires corroboration, so a routine approval click may not establish that a consequential output was checked. HR, management and vendors need access to the supporting information and a notice process before the July 2027 operative date. Broad use of automation does not make every tool or decision subject to the same provision.
Recommended action
Inventory covered employment systems and identify where disciplinary or termination decisions primarily rely on them. Design a human corroboration process that can reject unreliable outputs, a separate postuse notice and an employee data-description response. Review retaliation protections, third-party privacy, collective bargaining terms and other applicable privacy regulations with counsel.
Sources
- SB947 enacted final textOfficial · California Legislature · 2026-09-30 · Source review 2026-10-05
Complete edition and supplemental material
This finding in the complete approved report →Regulatory horizons, CIA trends and implementation trackers remain in the full report.
Read the entire Compliance Sweep report →