Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Intelligence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee approves bill to create registry and standards for AI auditors
Summary
AB 1405, carried by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, would establish standards and a registry for AI auditors and require baseline transparency and ethics expectations; the committee passed the bill as amended to the Appropriations Committee.
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan presented AB 1405 as a framework intended to prepare California for future laws that might require third-party auditing of high‑risk artificial intelligence systems. The committee accepted author amendments and voted to pass the bill as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Bauer-Kahan said AB 1405 does not mandate audits of any particular AI tool; instead the bill would create criteria and a public registry of auditors so that future laws could rely on a common set of standards and a single place to locate qualified auditors. “This is a lightweight mechanism for oversight that can be shared across bills as they move through the process,” she said during her presentation.
Shay Brown, CEO and founder of Babble.ai and a board member of the International Association of Algorithmic Auditors, testified in support. Brown described industry practice in AI auditing and argued for a standard approach. "AI audits help ensure AI technologies not only comply with regulations, but also align with ethical and societal standards," Brown told the committee.
Support also came from advocates and privacy groups represented in the hearing, including representatives from the Transparency Coalition, Oakland-based advocacy groups, and Common Sense Media. No witnesses spoke in opposition during the hearing.
Some committee members raised practical concerns about state involvement in accrediting auditors. Member Patterson asked why the state should create a registry rather than relying on trade associations or voluntary industry standards. Bauer-Kahan and supporting witnesses pointed to prior local experiences — for example, New York City’s prior bias-audit mandate — as evidence that transparent lists and guidance help both auditors and organizations seeking audits.
Committee members suggested additional options, including convening a state auditor working group to propose specific criteria, or deferring to industry-developed accreditation while maintaining a public list. Bauer-Kahan said she intentionally placed the registry under the Government Operations committee (gov ops) rather than the California Privacy Protection Agency and reiterated that the bill is silent on which systems would require audits; that determination would be made by other bills or agencies.
AB 1405 passed the committee as amended and will move to the Appropriations Committee.
