California State Senator Scott Wiener has proposed new legislation to regulate AI.

This comes after Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto of a similar bill last year. The amendments to Senate Bill 53 include transparency requirements for AI companies developing advanced models.

If passed, the bill would require companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic to publicly disclose their safety and security protocols.

These protocols must evaluate the potential risks associated with their technology. Companies would also need to report “critical safety incidents,” such as data breaches, to the California Attorney General.

The legislation aims to protect whistleblowers within AI organizations.

This initiative comes after recent federal developments that halted efforts to prevent states from enacting their own AI regulations.

Several major AI firms, including Meta, Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic, already publish safety guidelines voluntarily.

.source-ref{font-size:0.85em;color:#666;display:block;margin-top:1em;}a.ask-tia-citation-link:hover{color:#11628d !important;background:#e9f6f5 !important;border-color:#11628d !important;text-decoration:none !important;}@media only screen and (min-width:768px){a.ask-tia-citation-link{font-size:11px !important;}}

🔗 Source: Bloomberg

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ California leads state-level AI regulation amid federal inaction

California’s evolving approach to AI regulation reflects a broader tension between state and federal governance in emerging technologies.

SB 53 follows a pattern established by California’s landmark Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which was initiated by real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart after a conversation with a Google engineer about data collection practices 1.

The state’s leadership in tech regulation comes as the U.S. Senate recently blocked efforts to preempt states from enacting their own AI regulations, creating space for California to set precedents that could influence national standards.

This regulatory approach mirrors historical patterns where states have served as “laboratories of democracy” in areas like privacy, environmental protection, and consumer safety before federal frameworks emerge.

SB 53’s focus on transparency requirements rather than liability represents a strategic pivot after Governor Newsom’s veto of the more stringent SB 1047, which would have held developers liable for mass casualty events caused by their AI systems 2.

2️⃣ Tech industry shapes regulation through resistance and voluntary standards

The evolution from SB 1047 to the current SB 53 demonstrates how industry opposition effectively influences regulatory outcomes in emerging technology fields.

Despite SB 1047 passing with bipartisan support in the legislature, intense opposition from over 130 startup founders and tech companies successfully prevented its implementation through gubernatorial veto 3.

This opposition included tactics such as a push poll conducted by the California Chamber of Commerce that presented biased language to influence public opinion against the bill 4.

Simultaneously, major AI companies have preemptively adopted voluntary safety measures—Meta, Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic already publish safety guidelines for their models—which SB 53 now seeks to standardize and codify rather than replace.

The shift from liability provisions in SB 1047 to transparency requirements in SB 53 reflects a compromise that aligns more closely with industry preferences while still advancing regulatory oversight.

3️⃣ Whistleblower protections emerge as crucial component in effective AI governance

Both SB 1047 and SB 53 include whistleblower protections, recognizing the essential role of internal oversight in identifying AI risks before they cause harm.

These provisions acknowledge that engineers and researchers within AI companies often have the most direct knowledge of potential risks and ethical concerns—similar to how whistleblowers have historically exposed issues in pharmaceuticals, finance, and other regulated industries.

The inclusion of these protections addresses the information asymmetry problem where regulators typically have less technical knowledge than the companies they regulate 3.

This approach aligns with recommendations from the Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, which emphasize transparency and accountability as foundational principles for AI governance 5.

By protecting those who speak out about safety concerns, these provisions create an additional layer of oversight beyond formal regulatory mechanisms, potentially allowing faster identification of emerging risks in rapidly evolving AI systems.

……