Skip to content

Menu

Network by SubjectChannelsBlogsHomeAboutContact
AI Legal Journal logo
Subscribe
Search
Close
PublishersBlogsNetwork by SubjectChannels
Subscribe

California Senator Introduces AI Safety Bill

By Jennifer Johnson, Matthew Shapanka, Jayne Ponder & August Gweon on March 5, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On February 27, California State Senator Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) released the text of SB 53, reviving efforts to establish AI safety regulations in a state that is home to both Silicon Valley and the nation’s first comprehensive privacy law.  SB 53 proposes a significantly narrower approach compared to Senator Weiner’s Safe & Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models Act (SB 1047), which, despite having  passed both chambers of California’s legislature overwhelmingly last year, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed.  Instead, SB 53 focuses on rights for employee whistleblowers that work for developers of certain foundation models.

Like SB 1047, SB 53 focuses on developers of “foundation models” deemed to present a “critical risk.”  This would apply to AI models that are trained on broad sets of data, use “self-supervision in the training process,” and have a wide range of use cases.  The bill defines “developers” as persons that have trained at least one foundation model with a quantity of computational power that costs at least $100 million and defines “critical risks” as death or serious injury to more than 100 people, or more than $1 billion in damage, resulting from (1) the “creation or release” of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons, (2) a cyberattack, (3) conduct by a foundation model that would be criminal conduct if committed by a human, or (4) a foundation model “evading the control of its developer or user.” 

SB 53 would specifically protect employees of foundation model developers who disclose information to the California Attorney General, federal authorities, or other employees concerning potential critical risks posed by the developer’s activities or any alleged false or misleading statements about risk management practices.  The bill would prohibit developers from both preventing such disclosures and retaliating against employees who make such disclosures.  Additionally, developers would be required to provide clear notice to all employees of their rights under the bill.  Finally, SB 53 would require developers to establish internal processes for employees to anonymously disclose information to the developer regarding developer activities that pose critical risks, with monthly updates to disclosing employees on the status of investigations and quarterly updates to the developer’s officers and directors. 

By contrast, SB 53 lacks some of the broader safety and security requirements that were included in SB 1047, such as third-party safety audits, required shutdown capabilities, safety and security protocols, and incident reporting.  In vetoing SB 1047 last year, Governor Newsom criticized the bill’s attempt to impose stringent AI standards based on the “cost and number of computations needed to develop an AI model” and announced a Joint California Policy Working Group on AI Frontier Models to develop recommended AI guardrails.  The working group’s draft recommendations are expected in the coming weeks.

Notably, SB 53 provides for a private right of action for employees that permits the court to enjoin developer violations of SB 53’s requirements and grant reasonable attorney’s fees.

SB 53 is just the latest in a wave of AI legislation currently under consideration by state legislatures, including foundation model safety legislation introduced in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.  We will continue to monitor these developments across our Global Policy Watch, Inside Global Tech, and Inside Privacy blogs.

Photo of Jennifer Johnson Jennifer Johnson

Jennifer Johnson is co-chair of the firm’s Communications & Media Practice Group.  She represents and advises broadcast licensees, trade associations, and other media entities on a wide range of issues, including:  regulatory and policy advocacy; network affiliation and other programming agreements; media joint…

Jennifer Johnson is co-chair of the firm’s Communications & Media Practice Group.  She represents and advises broadcast licensees, trade associations, and other media entities on a wide range of issues, including:  regulatory and policy advocacy; network affiliation and other programming agreements; media joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions; carriage negotiations with cable, satellite and telco companies; media ownership and attribution; and other strategic, regulatory and transactional matters.

Ms. Johnson assists clients in developing and pursuing strategic business and policy objectives before the Federal Communications Commission and Congress and through transactions and other business arrangements.  Her broadcast clients draw particular benefit from her deep experience and knowledge with respect to network/affiliate issues, retransmission consent arrangements, and other policy and business issues facing the industry.  Ms. Johnson also assists investment clients in structuring, evaluating and pursuing potential media investments.  She has been recognized by Best Lawyers, Chambers USA, Legal 500 USA,Washington DC Super Lawyers, and the Washingtonian as a leading lawyer in her field.

Read more about Jennifer Johnson
Show more Show less
Matthew Shapanka

Matthew Shapanka draws on more than 15 years of experience – including on Capitol Hill, at Covington, and in state government – to advise and counsel clients across a range of industries on significant legislative, regulatory, and enforcement matters. He develops and executes…

Matthew Shapanka draws on more than 15 years of experience – including on Capitol Hill, at Covington, and in state government – to advise and counsel clients across a range of industries on significant legislative, regulatory, and enforcement matters. He develops and executes complex, multifaceted public policy initiatives for clients seeking actions by Congress, state legislatures, and federal and state government agencies, many with significant legal and political opportunities and risks.

Matt rejoined Covington after serving as Chief Counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, where he advised Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on all legal, policy, and oversight matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including federal election law and campaign finance, and oversight of the Federal Election Commission, legislative branch agencies, security and maintenance of the U.S. Capitol Complex, and Senate rules and regulations.

Most significantly, Matt led the Rules Committee staff work on the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act – landmark bipartisan legislation to update the antiquated process of certifying and counting electoral votes in presidential elections that President Biden signed into law in 2022.

As Chief Counsel, Matt was a lead attorney on the joint bipartisan investigation (with the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee) into the security planning and response to the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. In that role, he oversaw the collection review of documents, led interviews and depositions of key government officials, advised the Chairwoman and Committee members on two high-profile joint hearings, and drafted substantial portions of the Committees’ staff report on the attack. He also led oversight of the Capitol Police, Architect of the Capitol, Senate Sergeant at Arms, and executive branch agencies involved in implementing the Committees’ recommendations, including additional legislation and hearings.

Both in Congress and at the firm, Matt has prepared many corporate and nonprofit executives, academics, government officials, and presidential nominees for testimony at legislative, oversight, or nomination hearings before congressional committees, as well as witnesses appearing at congressional depositions and transcribed interviews. He is also an experienced legislative drafter who has composed dozens of bills introduced in Congress and state legislatures, including several that have been enacted into law across multiple policy areas.

In addition to his policy work, Matt advises and represents clients on the full range of political law compliance and enforcement matters involving federal election, campaign finance, lobbying, and government ethics laws, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s “Pay-to-Play” rule, as well as the election and political laws of states and municipalities across the country.

Before law school, Matt worked as a research analyst in the Massachusetts Recovery & Reinvestment Office, where he worked on all aspects of state-level policy, communications, and compliance for federal stimulus funding awarded to Massachusetts under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009. He has also worked for federal, state, and local political candidates in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Read more about Matthew Shapanka
Show more Show less
Photo of Jayne Ponder Jayne Ponder

Jayne Ponder is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group. Jayne’s practice focuses on a broad range of privacy, data security, and technology issues. She provides ongoing privacy and data protection…

Jayne Ponder is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group. Jayne’s practice focuses on a broad range of privacy, data security, and technology issues. She provides ongoing privacy and data protection counsel to companies, including on topics related to privacy policies and data practices, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and cyber and data security incident response and preparedness.

Read more about Jayne Ponder
Show more Show less
August Gweon

August Gweon counsels national and multinational companies on data privacy, cybersecurity, antitrust, and technology policy issues, including issues related to artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. August leverages his experiences in AI and technology policy to help clients understand complex technology developments, risks…

August Gweon counsels national and multinational companies on data privacy, cybersecurity, antitrust, and technology policy issues, including issues related to artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. August leverages his experiences in AI and technology policy to help clients understand complex technology developments, risks, and policy trends.

August regularly provides advice to clients for complying with federal, state, and global privacy and competition frameworks and AI regulations. He also assists clients in investigating compliance issues, preparing for federal and state privacy regulations like the California Privacy Rights Act, responding to government inquiries and investigations, and engaging in public policy discussions and rulemaking processes.

Read more about August Gweon
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    International
  • Blog:
    Global Policy Watch
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog logo
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog. All Rights Reserved.
Legal content Portal by LexBlog LexBlog Logo