Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances Artificial Intelligence Act after heavy testimony on consumer protections and business impacts
Summary
House Bill 60 would create a New Mexico regulatory framework for so-called high-risk AI systems that make consequential decisions. The committee voted 4–2 (plus one not recorded) to report the measure with a do-pass recommendation after extensive testimony from civil-rights groups, industry associations and privacy advocates.
Representative Chandler introduced House Bill 60, the ‘‘Artificial Intelligence Act,’’ describing it as a transparency, oversight and consumer-protection framework for AI systems that make consequential decisions in areas such as employment, housing, lending, health care and education.
“Some systems can be black boxes that embed and reproduce bias,” said Dr. Chris Moore of the Santa Fe Institute during committee testimony, giving examples of hiring and clinical‑decision systems that produced discriminatory outcomes when their training data reflected historical bias. Dr. Moore and other supporters urged transparency, disclosure to deployers and a duty of care for developers and deployers of high-risk systems.
The bill defines a “high‑risk” AI system as one that “is a substantial factor in making” a consequential decision — decisions with material, legal, or similar effects on consumers — and requires both developers and deployers to take reasonable steps to avoid “algorithmic discrimination.” Developers would have to provide deployers documentation setting out intended uses, limitations and risk-mitigation measures; deployers would have to post descriptions of high-risk systems used to make consequential decisions, notify consumers when a high-risk system is used in an individual decision, provide consumers explanatory information when an adverse decision is made, and offer a right to correct incorrect data.
Supporters — including civil-rights groups (ACLU of New Mexico), community-advocacy organizations and some academic and tech-policy experts — said the bill would help detect and limit bias and preserve opportunities in education, employment and housing. The ACLU’s policy director said HB 60 “doesn’t limit the use of AI; it simply says it cannot be used in a discriminatory way.” Several supporters asked the committee to move quickly because AI adoption is accelerating.
Opponents included insurance trade associations, business groups and technology-policy groups that raised three principal concerns: (1) the bill could create overlapping regulation for industries already regulated (notably insurance), (2) in the absence of a comprehensive state privacy law the bill may create gaps or legal uncertainty about data use, and (3) private rights of action and some notice requirements could create litigation risk and chill innovation. Representatives of insurers asked for carve-outs or coordination with the state superintendent of insurance; chambers and tech-industry groups urged a unified interstate or federal approach.
Several witnesses urged the committee to preserve trade‑secret protections for model code and to limit disclosure to information needed to assess bias and risk. The sponsor said the bill includes confidentiality protection for trade secrets and that the DOJ would have rulemaking authority — testimony and the bill set a rulemaking timeline and an effective-window for parts of the law to allow agencies and regulated parties time to prepare.
Committee members asked detailed operational questions about definitions (what qualifies as consequential, what is a substantial factor), who inputs data into reporting systems, how remediation and expiration will work, and how the law would interact with federal statutes and statutes administered by other state agencies such as the Superintendent of Insurance. Several members said the bill’s technical language and breadth will require careful rulemaking; the sponsor said she would work with stakeholders and the Department of Justice on rulemaking.
On a roll call the committee voted to report HB 60 with a do-pass recommendation (recorded as 4 yes, 2 no, 1 not recorded/absent). The vote followed a long series of pro and con statements from privacy advocates, civil‑rights organizations, insurers, chambers of commerce, technology associations and university representatives.
Ending: The committee advanced HB 60 to further consideration with directions for rulemaking and stakeholder consultation; the bill is likely to return with technical edits to address insurance regulation, privacy and precise notice and enforcement mechanics.
