Colorado Becomes the First State to Enact Comprehensive AI Legislation


Colorado recently became the first U.S. state to enact its own comprehensive artificial intelligence (“AI”) legislation, SB 24-205 (the “Colorado AI Act” or “Act”). The Colorado AI Act applies to all “developers” and “deployers” of “high-risk artificial intelligence systems” that do business in Colorado, without any other applicability thresholds, and aims to protect all Colorado residents, including employees. The Act, which will take effect on February 1, 2026, imposes obligations relating to transparency and preventing algorithmic discrimination, requiring differing obligations for developers and deployers. In preparation, companies doing business in Colorado should assess whether any high-risk AI systems are being developed or used or will be developed or used by the company and take appropriate action to meet the Act’s requirements.

  1. Key Definitions

The Act defines “artificial intelligence systems” or “AI systems” as any machine-based system that, for any explicit or implicit objective, infers from the inputs the system receives how to generate outputs, including content, decisions, predictions, or recommendations that can influence physical or virtual environments.

“High-risk artificial intelligence systems” or “high-risk AI systems” are defined as any AI system that, when deployed, makes, or is a substantial factor in making a consequential decision. High-risk AI systems exclude those that are intended to (i) perform narrow procedural tasks; or (ii) detect decision-making patterns or deviations from prior decision-making patterns and are not intended to replace or influence human assessment or review. The statute also excludes certain technologies, such as anti-fraud, anti-malware, anti-virus, firewalls, cybersecurity software, and spam filtering, when they are not a substantial factor in making consequential decisions.

“Consequential decisions” are decisions that have a material legal or similarly significant effect on the provision or denial to any Colorado resident (“consumer”) of, or the cost or terms of: (a) education enrollment or opportunity; (b) employment or employment opportunity; (c) financial or lending services; (d) essential government services; (e) healthcare services; (f) housing; (g) insurance; and (h) legal services.

“Developers” are those doing business in Colorado that develop or intentionally and substantially modify an AI system.

“Deployers” are those doing business in Colorado that deploy a high-risk AI system.

“Algorithmic discrimination” means any condition in which the use of an AI system results in an unlawful differential treatment or impact that disfavors an individual or group of individuals on the basis of their actual or perceived age, color, disability, ethnicity, genetic information, limited proficiency in the English language, national origin, race, religion, reproductive health, sex, veteran status, or other classification protected under Colorado or federal laws. However, algorithmic discrimination excludes discrimination that may result from the use of a high-risk AI system for the sole purpose of self-testing their own systems to identify and rectify incidents or risks of discriminatory behavior/outputs or expanding an applicant, customer, or participant pool to increase diversity or redress historical discrimination.

  1. Developers v. Deployers

The Colorado AI Act requires developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination arising from the intended and contracted uses of the high-risk AI systems. Compliance with the Act’s requirements and any additional requirements that the Colorado Attorney General may adopt through regulations creates a rebuttable presumption that reasonable care was used. Both developers and deployers are subject to compliance audits by the Colorado Attorney General.

The Act also contains an AI incident reporting obligation. Developers are required to report to the Attorney General any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination in connection with a high-risk AI system. A deployer is required to report to the Attorney General if it discovers a high-risk AI system it has deployed has caused algorithmic discrimination. In each case, reports must be made to the Attorney General within 90 days of discovering such discrimination or risk of discrimination. Developers have the additional obligation of notifying all known deployers and other developers of the high-risk AI system.

Companies using high-risk AI systems are also subject to a number of transparency, disclosure, reporting, and other obligations depending on their role as a developer or deployer.

Developer Obligations

Developers must:

Deployer Obligations

Deployers must, with limited exceptions:

  1. Enforcement

Violations of the Colorado AI Act constitute an unfair trade practice under state law. However, the Act provides several affirmative defenses for violations, including complying with the latest RMF published by NIST or another substantially equivalent nationally recognized risk management framework for AI systems or any risk management framework for AI systems that the Colorado Attorney General may designate.

The Act does not provide for a private right of action and instead provides the Colorado Attorney General with exclusive enforcement authority. The Colorado Attorney General also has the authority to issue rules as necessary for the purpose of implementing and enforcing the Act.

  1. Key Takeaways

With over a quarter of U.S. state legislatures having considered some form of AI regulation in the last year, the Colorado AI Act as well as the European Union’s AI Act may spur other states to push through AI laws over the next few years much like states have passed comprehensive data privacy legislation since the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act in 2018. Companies doing business in Colorado, in preparation of the Colorado AI Act, should:


© 2025 Blank Rome LLP
National Law Review, Volume XIV, Number 156