Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Ai topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly panel advances bill barring companies from blaming AI for civil harms
Summary
The Assembly subcommittee advanced AB 316, a bill from Assemblymember Krell that would bar companies from using alleged AI autonomy as a defense in civil lawsuits. Proponents said the bill is a narrow ‘‘guardrail’’ to prevent defendants from shifting blame to autonomous systems; industry groups expressed careful opposition and want further talks.
Assemblymember Kevin Krell introduced AB 316 on the Assembly Judiciary subcommittee agenda, saying the bill would ‘‘provide guidance to our courts’’ and prevent defendants from blaming artificial intelligence for harms caused by products or services. “It’s simply a rail guard … that would govern future cases,” Krell said during the hearing.
Supporters — including Mark Berkman of the Organization for Social Media Safety and Leora Gershinson of the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy (California Common Cause project) — told the committee that AB 316 does not change plaintiffs’ burdens or create new causes of action but would prevent deployers and developers from asserting that an AI’s ‘‘alleged autonomy’’ eliminates human responsibility. “If you build an AI-powered feature … and it causes harm, you should not be able to claim that AI caused the harm, not you,” Berkman said.
Proponents pointed to recent examples of harms tied to AI-powered chatbots and features, and said the bill would preserve accountability while leaving the underlying negligence or liability standards to courts. Gershinson noted the bill is “a very small thing” that asks courts not to let defendants hide behind alleged machine autonomy.
Industry groups raised concerns. Robert Boykin of TechNet and Catherine Charles of the Chamber of Progress said they were in respectful opposition, describing ongoing discussions with the author’s office and expressing worry that the bill could affect liability rules in ways they are still negotiating. The bill’s author and several committee members said they would continue to work with stakeholders as the measure moves through the process.
During the hearing several members expressed support, calling the bill a common-sense first step as California continues larger work on AI regulation. The committee moved the bill forward; the subcommittee recorded the motion and later took a roll-call to advance the measure off the committee.
The bill’s text, as presented, does not change burdens of proof or create new causes of action. Supporters repeatedly emphasized that AB 316 leaves to courts and future legislation any questions about strict liability or other remedial frameworks.
Closing statements reiterated the narrow intent: maintain human accountability for harms, and prevent litigants from escaping responsibility by invoking alleged AI autonomy. The bill moved forward in committee for further consideration and stakeholder negotiation.
