DENVER — Colorado’s first-in-nation law targeting algorithmic discrimination in artificial intelligence systems has been delayed for a second time, leaving businesses that deploy AI in hiring, lending, insurance, and housing uncertain whether to invest in compliance for a law that may be gutted, preempted, or enforced as written.
The Colorado AI Act, signed by Gov. Jared Polis in May 2024 as SB 24-205, was originally set to take effect February 1, 2026. After a special session collapsed in August 2025, lawmakers pushed the date to June 30, 2026 by passing SB 25B-004. The 2026 regular session is now the third attempt at getting the law right. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has not initiated formal rulemaking, and a December 2025 executive order from President Trump explicitly names Colorado’s law as an example of excessive state regulation targeted for federal action.
The law targets “high-risk” AI systems: predictive algorithms that make or substantially assist in making consequential decisions about individuals. Those decisions span eight domains, including employment, lending, housing, insurance, healthcare, education, government benefits, and legal services. The law does not cover generative AI tools like ChatGPT that create content rather than make decisions about people.
Companies that develop high-risk AI systems must document how those systems function, their limitations, known risks, and training data. They must notify the attorney general within 90 days if they discover algorithmic discrimination, according to Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher.
Companies that deploy those systems face additional obligations: implementing risk management programs aligned with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework or ISO/IEC 42001 standards, conducting annual impact assessments, disclosing AI involvement in decisions, providing plain-English explanations for adverse outcomes, and offering human review of AI decisions.
Violations carry penalties of up to $20,000 each, treated as deceptive trade practices. Enforcement authority rests exclusively with the Colorado Attorney General and district attorneys. There is no private right of action, meaning individual consumers cannot sue under the law.
The law does include safe harbor provisions. Organizations that meet specified compliance standards receive a rebuttable presumption of reasonable care and an affirmative defense against discrimination claims. A mandatory one-year cure period extends through June 30, 2027, giving companies time to fix violations discovered through their own compliance programs, according to Clark Hill PLC.
Gov. Polis signed the bill on May 17, 2024, but attached a letter expressing reservations about its complexity. The bill “creates a complex compliance regime for all developers and deployers of AI doing business in Colorado,” the governor wrote in his signing letter. He separately warned that state-level regulation “can have the effect to tamper innovation and deter competition in an open market.” He called for revisions before the law took effect and launched a 26-member task force in late 2024 that included lawmakers and lobbyists.
That effort did not produce a resolution. In August 2025, the legislature convened a special session with 27 bills, four targeting the AI Act. Proposals ranged from a comprehensive rewrite to total repeal. None succeeded.
A tentative compromise reached on a Sunday among consumer advocates, labor organizations, educators, and some technology representatives collapsed by Monday morning over liability standards for developers. Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez, who co-sponsored the original bill, said the failure came down to one thing: “Big tech didn’t like the bill because they don’t like the liability,” he told the Colorado Sun. Rep. Brianna Titone, the other original sponsor, removed her name from the delay bill in protest, stating that “big tech companies do not want to come to the table.”
With negotiations dead, the legislature passed a simple date change by wide margins: 32-2 in the Senate and 48-14 in the House. The bill was, as Clark Hill described it, a “find-and-replace” that swapped every instance of “February 1, 2026” with “June 30, 2026.”
Loren Furman, president and CEO of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, framed the delay as preferable to bad legislation, saying it meant “allowing Colorado businesses more time to work on the current AI law instead of pushing bad policy through a rushed special session process,” according to Clark Hill’s analysis.
In October 2025, Gov. Polis convened a second working group: 19 voting members and two non-voting members, according to Colorado Politics. Unlike the first group, this one excluded lawmakers and lobbyists and employed a professional facilitator. Only five members were retained from the original task force. Enforcement and liability allocation remain the central sticking points.
On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” that takes a deregulatory approach and explicitly names the Colorado AI Act as an example of harmful state regulation that the federal government intends to challenge.
The order directs the Department of Justice to form an AI Litigation Task Force to pursue legal action against states with AI laws the administration considers inconsistent with American AI dominance. The Department of Commerce must identify “onerous” state AI regulations by approximately March 11, 2026. The order also threatens to withhold federal broadband funding, including the $42 billion BEAD program, from states with AI laws deemed burdensome.
The executive order frames Colorado’s anti-discrimination requirements as mandating that entities “embed ideological bias within AI models,” according to an analysis by Epstein Becker Green.
Legal analysts have noted significant limitations on the order’s reach. Executive orders cannot overturn existing state law without an act of Congress or a court ruling. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass federal preemption legislation for state AI laws. It also considered and rejected a proposed decade-long moratorium on state AI regulations, as reported by Governing. Governors in Colorado, California, and New York have issued statements indicating the order will not stop them from passing or enforcing their own AI statutes.
The practical challenge for Colorado businesses is that they face a law that may take effect in four months but have received almost no guidance on how to comply.
The Colorado Attorney General’s Office published a pre-rulemaking considerations document in September 2024 and conducted a public comment period later that year. But formal notice-and-comment rulemaking has not begun. As of February 2026, the office has released no proposed rules, no sample forms, no compliance guidance, no impact assessment formats, and no definitions of “reasonable care.”
Legal advisors are telling companies to prepare anyway. Hudson Cook LLP advised rental housing and financial services firms to use the delay to secure developer documentation and finalize disclosure packages. Fisher Phillips identified 10 critical unanswered questions, including whether developers and deployers will remain equally liable and whether Colorado’s standards could become de facto national requirements for multistate employers.
The Common Sense Institute, a research organization that describes itself as “a non-partisan research organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of our economy,” projected significant economic consequences in its report “Unintended Costs: The Economic Impact of Colorado’s AI Policy.” Modeling a conservative 1% production cost increase across six impacted industries, the institute estimated approximately 40,000 job losses and over $4 billion in forgone GDP by 2030 among deployers in finance, housing, healthcare, education, insurance, and legal services. In the technology sector specifically, it projected up to 30,359 job losses and $5.5 billion in forgone GDP growth.
Consumer advocates counter that the cost of inaction is real. AI systems are already making consequential decisions about hiring, lending, and insurance for Colorado residents without oversight. The Center for Democracy and Technology has argued that each delay creates consumer vulnerability while liability questions remain unresolved. More than 70 AI-related laws passed in at least 27 states in 2025, and Illinois, California, and New York City have already implemented AI regulations in employment decisions while Colorado has delayed.
Several deadlines are converging. The Department of Commerce must complete its review of “onerous” state AI regulations by approximately March 11, 2026. The Colorado AI Act is currently set to take effect June 30, 2026. The 2026 regular session is actively considering amendments, with priorities including refining AI definitions to align with federal and other state standards, shifting more regulatory focus to developers rather than deployers, and clarifying consumer appeal rights.
Researchers at the University of Denver have urged the state to pivot toward “incremental policymaking” rather than sweeping reform, arguing that regulations need to protect people without creating heavy burdens that deter deployment. “What Colorado does next will shape whether it becomes a model or a lesson,” the university’s analysis concluded.
The national landscape continues to evolve around Colorado. Illinois’s HB 3773 took effect January 1, 2026, and California finalized AI employment regulations in October 2025. Similar bills are advancing in Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. Colorado’s law, once the most ambitious in the country, now risks being overtaken by states that moved forward while Colorado continued to deliberate.
—
WASHINGTON — The federal government’s signature homelessness strategy has presided over a 40 percent increase in homelessness nationwide and a near-doubling of chronic homelessness...
DENVER — The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration over the past year have pushed the weighted average U.S. tariff rate to 13.5%, up...
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday that President Trump cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, striking...