Skip to content

Menu

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

California Enacts Health AI Bill and Protections for Neural Data

By Libbie Canter & Elizabeth Brim on October 4, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On September 28, California’s governor signed a number of bills into law, including to regulate health care facilities’ use of artificial intelligence (“AI”).  This included AB 3030, which regulates certain California-licensed health care facilities’ use of AI and SB 1223, which amends the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to cover “neural data.”  We discuss each bill in turn below.

AB 3030

AB 3030 requires a health facility, clinic, physician’s office, or office of a group practice that uses generative AI to generate written or verbal patient communications pertaining to patient clinical information to provide certain disclosures to patients. 

In particular, AB 3030 requires the provision of “[a] disclaimer that indicates to the patient that the communication was generated by generative artificial intelligence.”  This disclaimer must be provided in a specific format, depending on the method through which the AI is interacting with the patient:

  • For written communications involving physical and digital media (e.g., letters, emails), the disclaimer must appear prominently at the beginning of each communication;
  • For written communications involving continuous only interactions (e.g., chat-based telehealth), the disclaimer must be prominently displayed through the interaction;
  • For audio communications, the disclaimer must be provided verbally at the start and the end of the interaction; and
  • For video communications, the disclaimer must be prominently displayed throughout the interaction.

In addition, regardless of the method of communication, AB 3030 requires that the AI-generated patient communications pertaining to patient clinical information include clear instructions describing how a patient may contact a health care provider, employee of the health facility, clinic, physician’s office, or office of a group practice, or other appropriate person.

However, AB 3030 does not apply to all patient communications that are generated using AI.  AI-generated communications that are read and reviewed by a human licensed or certified health care provider are not subject to these disclosure requirements in AB 3030.  In addition, AB 3030 does not regulate the use of AI for administrative matters.  AB 3030 applies only to communications pertaining to “patient clinical information,” which means “information relating to the health status of a patient . . . [and] does not include administrative matters, including, but not limited to, appointment scheduling, billing, or other clerical or business matters.”

SB 1223

SB 1223 amends the CCPA’s definition of “sensitive personal information” to include “a consumer’s neural data.”  “Neural data” is defined as “information that is generated by measuring the activity of a consumer’s central or peripheral nervous system, and that is not inferred from nonneural information.”  With the enactment of SB 1223, California becomes the second state, following Colorado, to amend its consumer privacy law to regulate neural data. 

Photo of Libbie Canter Libbie Canter

Libbie Canter is a member of the Communications & Media, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity, and Litigation Practice Groups. She represents and advises clients on matters before Congress and various federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.  She has…

Libbie Canter is a member of the Communications & Media, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity, and Litigation Practice Groups. She represents and advises clients on matters before Congress and various federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.  She has advised clients on a broad range of privacy issues, including data security breach matters, online and mobile marketing, and social networking policies for employers.  Her legislative work focuses on the areas of communications and media, privacy law, and cloud computing policy.

Read more about Libbie Canter
Show more Show less
Elizabeth Brim

Elizabeth Brim is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She is a member of the firm’s Health Care and Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Groups, advising clients on a broad range of regulatory and compliance issues. In addition, Elizabeth maintains an…

Elizabeth Brim is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She is a member of the firm’s Health Care and Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Groups, advising clients on a broad range of regulatory and compliance issues. In addition, Elizabeth maintains an active pro bono practice.

Read more about Elizabeth Brim
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Privacy & Data Security
  • Blog:
    Inside Privacy
  • Organization:
    Covington & Burling LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog logo
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog. All Rights Reserved.
Legal content Portal by LexBlog LexBlog Logo