Key point: Colorado’s attorney general has launched pre-rulemaking on the state’s new automated decision-making technology law and aims to publish draft regulations by the end of the summer.

On June 16, 2026, the Colorado attorney general’s office initiated pre-rulemaking activity on Colorado’s recently passed automated decision-making technology law (SB 189), which requires the attorney general to issue interpretive rules on certain topics before the law takes effect on January 1, 2027.

During this initial phase, which runs through July 13, the attorney general is accepting informal public input. To guide that input, the office published a considerations paper outlining the process, five guiding principles, and targeted questions for comment. Draft rules and a formal notice-and-comment period are expected by the end of the summer.

This article summarizes the pre-rulemaking process.

Rulemaking Topics

SB 189 requires the attorney general to adopt rules on two topics: (1) post-adverse outcome disclosure requirements, and (2) requirements for human review following an adverse outcome from a covered ADMT. The law also gives the attorney general discretionary authority to adopt rules clarifying the “materially influence” standard, as well as broader permissive rulemaking authority over the law as a whole.

Principle-Guided Rulemaking

The considerations paper identifies five principles to “help guide the rules”: (1) promote consumer rights; (2) clarify ambiguities; (3) facilitate efficient and expeditious compliance; (4) harmonize; and (5) allow for innovation.

Targeted Questions

The considerations paper identifies four areas of targeted questions:

• Definitions: Clarifying the definitions of materially influence, automated decision making technology, consequential decision, developer, and deployer.
• Post-adverse outcome disclosure requirements: Whether the definition of adverse outcome is clear and what the notice should contain, including sector-specific guidance.
• Consumer rights: What constitutes a “meaningful human review,” what factors should be considered in determining whether human review is commercially reasonable, and whether there should be deadlines for deployers to respond to requests to access and correct.
• Pre-use notice: What the notice should contain and what constitutes clear and conspicuous notice.

Takeaways

One should be cautious when trying to read too much into pre-rulemaking activities, but a few early signals are worth noting.

First, the considerations paper provides some initial insight into the areas the attorney general is considering for rulemaking. As noted, the law grants the attorney general permissive rulemaking authority “to implement and clarify” the entire law. The considerations paper at least suggests that the attorney general will focus on the specific areas identified above.

Second, the attorney general’s willingness to clarify the “materially influence” and “commercially reasonable” standards through rulemaking is good news for businesses. Both standards are ambiguous, and deployers would benefit from guidance on their application, including illustrative examples.

Third, the eventual rules on pre-use notice are likely to matter beyond Colorado. Illinois and Connecticut already require pre-use notice, albeit only in the employment context, and California’s ADMT regulations require pre-use notice in certain circumstances as well. The considerations paper signals the attorney general’s willingness to align Colorado’s approach with these other laws to ensure interoperability – consistent with the focus Colorado brought to its Colorado Privacy Act rulemaking.

Finally, although the considerations paper does not raise this issue directly, a willingness to clarify “adverse outcome” could help deployers resolve gray areas – for example, whether the search and filter tools commonly used in hiring trigger an adverse outcome.