Public Comment

Colorado enacted SB26-189, the Automated Decision-Making Technology Act, which repeals and reenacts earlier AI consumer-protection provisions. The new law covers automated decision-making technology used in consequential decisions, including decisions related to education, employment, housing, lending, insurance, health care, essential government services, and public benefits. The policy dispute is whether Colorado’s narrower framework is a smarter, more workable AI rule or a retreat from stronger protections. Supporters of a narrower law say businesses and agencies need rules they can understand and follow. Critics worry that automated systems can still quietly shape jobs, loans, housing, and benefits without enough testing, disclosure, or anti-discrimination protection. Colorado should regulate the decision, not the hype. If software helps decide whether someone gets a job, loan, apartment, or benefit, the rules need to be understandable and enforceable.

What risk matters most as Colorado rewrites its AI decision rules?

Overall results

1
58% support · excluded by 14%
7

If an automated system screens people for jobs, housing, loans, or benefits, Colorado should require bias checks, not just paperwork.

2
54% support · excluded by 9%
7

A patchwork of state AI laws is hard for employers and developers. Congress should set one national rule.

3
53% support · excluded by 6%
7

A rule that companies can understand is more useful than a sweeping law everyone spends years trying to interpret.

4
44% support · excluded by 11%
8

A person should know when software played a meaningful role and should have a path to human review.

5
39% support · excluded by 9%
7

When housing, jobs, and public benefits are at stake, Colorado should not let systems operate first and ask questions later.

About the author