California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act, barring employers from relying solely on artificial intelligence to fire or discipline workers and limiting AI as the principal basis for those decisions. When an employer relies primarily on AI output, the law requires a human reviewer to corroborate the decision. That puts a person between automated systems and workplace penalties.
Who Controls the Decision
Employers must use other information to support termination or disciplinary decisions, including managerial evaluations, peer reviews and personnel files. Affected employees must receive written notice that AI played the primary role, a description of the employee data the system used and a human contact who can explain the decision.
“No worker should ever be fired or disciplined by a machine, AI or not,” California State Senator Jerry McNerney, the bill’s author, told CNBC. “Artificial intelligence systems have the potential to boost productivity, but they’ve also made errors and misjudgments and exhibited bias. AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around.” McNerney, a Democrat, first introduced the act in 2025 after organized labor pushed to limit employers’ use of AI to take adverse action against workers.
Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO and lead sponsor of the act, spoke after Newsom signed it: “When working people organize, we get results. Workers across California have demanded that our state lead the way in regulating AI in our workplaces. And today, we see that begin to happen.” She added that workers and unions had “changed the national narrative on how Americans can fight back and win against AI taking over our jobs and workplaces.”
Labor’s Push and Business Opposition
Newsom vetoed an earlier version in October, even though it had cleared both chambers of the state Legislature with overwhelming majority support. He objected to a requirement that businesses notify workers in advance whenever an AI system could affect work conditions. “I share the author’s concern that in certain cases unregulated use of ADS [automated decision-making software] by employers can be harmful to workers,” Newsom said. He argued that the bill imposed “unfocused notification requirements on any business using even the most innocuous tools.”
When McNerney reintroduced the bill in February, he removed the advance-notice requirement and language extending protections to gig workers. Rideshare companies Uber and Lyft had criticized that language.
Business leaders continued to oppose SB 947. Robert Singleton, the Chamber of Progress’ senior director of policy and public affairs for California and US West, urged Newsom to veto it. He said the “critical term” — when an employer “primarily relies” on an automated decision system — lacked a definition, leaving employers without an objective standard. Singleton warned that uncertainty could discourage technology that improves consistency, identifies safety risks or helps managers make better-informed decisions.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the law a “strong step toward giving workers the protections they need in workplaces that use automated decisionmaking systems.” The organization said it would continue working with labor groups to “advance policies that protect human dignity in the workplace.”
A Wider Policy Fight
CNBC described SB 947 as the first law of its kind to become law. Illinois’ Public Act 103-0804 requires notice when employers use AI for specified employment purposes, but it doesn’t prohibit agentic digital systems from making employment decisions. In June, U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D.-Mass.) and Brian Schatz (D.-Hawaii), both Democrats, introduced federal legislation with the same name that would bar employers from “relying on automated decision systems to make work-related decisions.” CNBC said Markey’s bill was effectively dead on arrival. Similar measures had been proposed in New York, Louisiana and New Jersey, but those states hadn’t acted.
Newsom also signed an executive order earlier in September addressing potential existential risks from AI models “before it’s too late,” and a measure establishing a state framework for independent evaluation and auditing of AI models. He said the federal government was abdicating “its responsibility to protect Americans.” The Washington Post reported that Newsom signed laws on Wednesday aimed at protecting workers from AI threats, including potential job losses and workplace surveillance.
An OECD survey published late the previous year found algorithmic management software widely adopted across countries, with the highest reported adoption in the United States: 90% of U.S. managers said their firms had adopted at least one tool to “instruct, monitor or evaluate workers.” Former employees suing Meta alleged in a lawsuit filed in July that AI-assisted systems ranked and selected workers for layoffs, disproportionately affecting employees who had taken medical or family leave. Meta denied the allegations.
A July Gallup poll found 39% of Americans believed AI did more harm than good, up from 31% in 2025. A Pew Research study released in August found 71% thought AI would “take people’s jobs,” an increase of around 7% from around two years earlier. Steve Hilton, California’s Republican nominee for governor, supported SB 947. He wrote that “rules requiring human review and basic accountability” weren’t too burdensome, and said employers shouldn’t use AI to decide whether someone is fired, demoted, loses regular hours or is shut out of a program they rely on for income.