Automated decision systems.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal and, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and requires the department to, among other things, bring civil actions to enforce the act. This bill would, among other things, require, as prescribed, a deployer, as defined, and a developer of an automated decision system, as defined, to perform an impact assessment on any automated decision system before the system is first deployed and annually thereafter that includes, among other things, a statement of the purpose of the automated decision system and its intended benefits, uses, and deployment contexts. The bill would require a deployer or a developer to provide any impact assessment that it performed to the Civil Rights Department and would exempt an impact assessment provided to the department from the California Public Records Act, as prescribed. This bill would require a deployer to, prior to an automated decision system making a consequential decision, as defined, or being a substantial factor, as defined, in making a consequential decision, notify any natural person that is subject to the consequential decision that an automated decision system is being used and to provide that person with specified information. The bill would require a deployer that has deployed an automated decision system to make, or be a substantial factor in making, a consequential decision concerning a natural person, to provide to the natural person, among other things, an opportunity to correct any incorrect personal data. The bill would, if a consequential decision is made solely based on the output of an automated decision system, require a deployer to, if technically feasible, accommodate a natural person's request to not be subject to the automated decision system and to instead be subject to an alternative selection process or accommodation, as prescribed. This bill would prohibit a deployer from using an automated decision system if an impact assessment identifies a reasonable risk of algorithmic discrimination, which the bill would define to mean the condition in which an automated decision system contributes to unlawful discrimination, including differential treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, national origin, limited English proficiency, disability, veteran status, genetic information, reproductive health, or any other classification protected by state or federal law, until that risk has been mitigated. The bill would also prohibit a developer from making available to potential deployers an automated decision system until the risk of algorithmic discrimination has been mitigated. This bill would authorize the Civil Rights Department to bring a civil action against a deployer or developer for a violation of the bill and would authorize a court to award, only in an action for a violation involving algorithmic discrimination, a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation. The bill would require the Civil Rights Department to, before commencing an action for injunctive relief, provide 45 days' written notice to a deployer or developer of the alleged violations of the bill and would provide a deployer or developer a specified opportunity to cure those violations, if the deployer or developer provides the person who gave the notice an express written statement, under penalty of perjury, that the violation has been cured and that no further violations shall occur. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.