California's No Robo Bosses Act: Newsom bans AI-only firings, and orders the state to keep calling it "artificial intelligence"

California employers will not be allowed to fire or discipline workers based solely on an AI system's decision, under a law Governor Gavin Newsom signed on 30 September. SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act of 2026, becomes operative on 1 July 2027 and requires a human to corroborate any such decision that leans mainly on AI. Newsom vetoed an earlier version last year; this time he signed it alongside 12 other AI bills and an executive order keeping the term "artificial intelligence" in California, a jab at the White House's new "super intelligence" label.

What is California's No Robo Bosses Act (SB 947)?

It is a state law that stops employers from letting an automated decision system fire or discipline workers on its own. SB 947, introduced by Senator Jerry McNerney in February and sponsored by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, adds a new part to California's Labor Code titled "Automated Decision Systems in the Workplace." The governor's office and McNerney describe it as the first law of its kind in the country.

The law defines an automated decision system as "any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons." Spam filters, firewalls, antivirus software, calculators and databases are excluded.

"No worker should ever be fired or disciplined by a robo boss," McNerney said.

Can employers in California use AI to fire workers?

Yes, as an aid, but not as the decision-maker. "An employer shall not rely solely on an ADS when making a disciplinary or termination decision," the law says. If an employer "primarily relies" on what an AI system produced, it must "direct a human to corroborate the decision" using the underlying data or other information, such as supervisory evaluations, personnel files, work product, peer reviews or witness interviews.

If the human cannot corroborate the AI output, or concludes it is "inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading," the employer may not use it. The law also bars employers from using AI to infer a worker's protected status or to predict and punish workers for exercising their legal rights.

What must employers tell workers fired or disciplined with AI?

That AI was the main basis, that a human checked it, and whom to ask. An employer that primarily relied on an AI system must give the worker a written "postuse notice" at the time of the decision, in plain language, as a separate communication. It must say the employer primarily relied on an automated decision system, that a human reviewed and corroborated the output, give a human contact, and state that retaliation is prohibited.

Workers can also request "a meaningful, objective description of the employee's own data used by the ADS," with other people's personal information anonymised.

When does the No Robo Bosses Act take effect?

On 1 July 2027. "This part shall become operative on July 1, 2027," says Section 1526.7 of the enrolled bill. Some coverage gives 1 January 2027; the enrolled text we read applies the July date to the whole new part, including the ban on AI-only decisions.

What are the penalties under the No Robo Bosses Act?

$500 per violation, plus damages and fees in court. The Labor Commissioner can investigate, order temporary relief and issue citations, and a public prosecutor can bring a civil action. Plaintiffs can seek injunctions, punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees, the law says, and retaliating against a worker who uses these rights is prohibited.

The burden of proof falls on the employer. Once a worker shows an AI system was used in the decision, the employer must show it did not primarily rely on it, or that it followed the corroboration and notice rules.

Who is exempt from SB 947?

Two groups. Workers under a collective bargaining agreement are excluded if the agreement explicitly waives the law, sets wages and working conditions, and "provides protection from algorithmic management." And the law does not apply where an AI system is required by a federal statute, regulation or binding contract for developing aircraft for the national airspace or for national security, military, space or defence purposes. Public employers, labour contractors and farm labour contractors are covered.

Why did Newsom veto the first No Robo Bosses Act?

Because he found it too broad. In October 2025 he vetoed SB 7, which would have limited AI in discipline, termination and scheduling decisions. His veto letter objected to "unfocused notification requirements" that would have reached businesses using "the most innocuous tools," according to law firm Fisher Phillips, and said future legislation should target specific employer actions.

SB 947 is narrower: it covers discipline and termination only, and its notice duty applies only where an employer primarily relied on AI. That comparison is ours, from the two bills' scope as reported and as written.

What other AI laws did Newsom sign on 30 September?

Twelve more, listed by his office. Among them: SB 951 requires employers to disclose when a mass layoff, relocation or termination is caused by an AI system; AB 1331 and AB 1883 restrict workplace surveillance, including banning surveillance tools in workplace bathrooms; SB 574 stops lawyers from fully handing core legal work such as drafting briefs to AI; AB 2713 and SB 1000 strengthen the California AI Transparency Act; and AB 1864 requires gene synthesis companies to verify customers. "By signing these four first-in-the-nation bills, Governor Newsom has shown the country how we can begin to put guardrails on AI at work," said Lorena Gonzalez of the California Federation of Labor Unions, referring to SB 947, SB 951, AB 1331 and AB 1883.

Why did California order AI to be called artificial intelligence?

As a rebuke to the White House. Alongside the bills, Newsom signed an executive order "permanently declaring Artificial Intelligence to be called 'Artificial Intelligence' in California," his office said, and the governor's statement opened: "Super intelligence is clearly not coming from the White House – that's why California continues to lead."

The day before, President Trump and six AI companies had signed a voluntary "White House Accord on Super Intelligence", and on 25 September the White House said Trump and Xi Jinping had agreed to use "super intelligence" in place of "artificial intelligence", which we covered in our item on the accord and the FTC probe and our US-China hotline item. The contrast is the story of the week in AI policy: a federal pledge with no penalties, and a state law with a $500-per-violation fine.