By David Stauss

Key point: The interim draft rules define when an ADMT output is a “de minimis factor,” create a rebuttable presumption that certain outputs materially influence consequential decisions, and clarify obligations in multiparty arrangements.

On October 6, 2026, the Colorado Attorney General published interim draft rules implementing the Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology (“ADMT”) Act (SB 189). The office also published an accompanying “cover page with additional considerations.” The office published the interim draft rules approximately two months after filing draft rules with the Colorado Secretary of State and less than a month before its formal rulemaking hearing scheduled for October 26, 2026. According to the office, the interim draft rules were published after the office received over 60 written comments. The office will continue to accept written comments until the October 26 hearing.

Notably, the office’s cover page addresses comments that have asked for a grace period before starting enforcement when the law goes into effect January 1, 2027. The office declined to provide a grace period but stated that the office’s “policy has been to focus on egregious and intentional violations of the law.” The office stated that it “recognizes that there will be a period of time during which entities will be working to come into compliance and will exercise appropriate discretion in enforcement of the laws.”

The interim draft rules make changes to nearly all of the rules’ provisions. Below, we provide a summary of the changes to the materially influence and multiparty arrangement rules, which are perhaps the most significant changes. Please see our prior article for an analysis of the Colorado ADMT Act and initial draft rules.

The interim draft rules also operationalize HB 1263 – the Chatbot Safety Act – which the Colorado legislature passed earlier this year. However, this article does not analyze those rules.

New Rules for the Materially Influence Standard

As discussed in our prior article, the law applies where ADMT materially influences a consequential decision. The law defines “materially influence” to mean “an ADMT output is a non-de minimis factor that is used in making a consequential decision” and “an ADMT output affects the outcome of a consequential decision, including by constraining, ranking, scoring, recommending, classifying, or otherwise meaningfully altering how a consequential decision is made.” It “does not include incidental, trivial or clerical uses.” This definition is vague, particularly because it does not define what constitutes a “non-de minimis factor.”

The initial draft rules did not contain a definition for “de minimis factor”; however, the accompanying notice of hearing identified two different materially influence standards (including two definitions of “de minimis factor”) and asked for comments on them.

The interim draft rules now define “de minimis factor” to mean “a factor that is not a substantial factor in the Consequential Decision.” The rules explain that a “factor may be a De Minimis Factor if other relevant factors independent of the ADMT output played a significantly larger role in the Consequential Decision.” The interim draft rules identify six “examples of considerations” that should be taken into account when deciding whether an ADMT output is a de minimis factor:

1. Whether the consequential decision maker reviewed the ADMT output before making the consequential decision, and whether the consequential decision was consistent with the ADMT output.
2. Whether the consequential decision maker reviewed and analyzed other information, including primary evidence, independent of the ADMT output before making the consequential decision.
3. Whether the consequential decision maker had the subject matter understanding to make the consequential decision based on other relevant information.
4. Whether the consequential decision maker had the authority to make or change the consequential decision based on their independent review and analysis.
5. Whether the deployer’s marketing, procurement contracts, internal policies, or training materials describe or direct that the ADMT output be used as a primary or determinative basis for the decision, or train personnel to treat the output as authoritative.
6. Whether the ADMT processes a volume, type, or complexity of personal data that a decision maker could not reasonably review or replicate independently in the time available to make the decision.

The interim draft rules also add a new Rule 6 that creates a standard for when an ADMT output is presumed to materially influence a consequential decision and provides sector-specific examples of when an ADMT output is considered to have materially influenced a consequential decision.

As to the presumption, an ADMT output is presumed to materially influence a consequential decision if it “constrains an option set, sets a threshold, or produces a rank, score, classification, recommendation, prediction, or other inference that: (a) pertains to the individual about whom the decision is being made; (b) is reviewed by the decision-maker, or is used to screen data made available to the decision maker, before or during the decision-making process; and (c) is consistent with the outcome of the” consequential decision. The presumption can be rebutted by evidence that the ADMT output was a de minimis factor.

The sector-specific examples cover the use of ADMT outputs in education, employment, lease or purchase of real estate, and financial or lending services.

New Multiparty Arrangement Rules

The notice of rulemaking hearing that accompanied the initial draft rules raised numerous questions as to how the rules should address multiparty arrangements. For example, such arrangements could include instances in which the deployer does not directly operate the ADMT that materially influences the consequential decision, such as a deployer’s use of a resume screening tool developed by a third party.

The interim draft rules develop this concept through new requirements set forth in Rule 4.3. The interim draft rules also remove the definition of and rules regarding midstream developers and incorporate those concepts into a revised Rule 4.2, dealing with developer obligations in multiparty arrangements. Rule 4.3 provides that the deployer remains responsible for fulfilling all of its obligations when it hires a third party to run a covered ADMT on its behalf. However, a deployer may contract with the third party to require it to perform functions that assist the deployer in fulfilling its obligations.