Two new laws create a framework for independent checks and a state list of AI auditors. The rules can improve accountability if auditors stay independent and publish useful evidence.
New to this? Read it in simple words
- Governor Gavin Newsom signed two California laws, SB 813 and AB 1405. They cover independent checks of AI systems.
- SB 813 creates rules for independent groups that check if AI follows state law. AB 1405 creates a state list of AI auditors.
- AB 1405 also sets rules for independence, openness, and honest work. An audit loses value if the auditor depends too much on the company it checks.
- OpenAI supported the two laws. That does not prove the rules are strong enough.
- Audit
- A careful, official check of whether something follows the rules or works as claimed.
The state is building an audit system
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 813 and Assembly Bill 1405. The state calls them first-in-the-nation steps for outside checks of AI systems. The laws add to earlier California rules for large AI developers.
SB 813 creates a framework for independent verification groups. These groups can check whether an AI system follows state law. AB 1405 creates a registry where people can find AI auditors.
The auditor law also sets standards for independence, openness, and honest work. This matters because an audit loses value when the reviewer depends too much on the company being checked.
California’s two laws create a verification framework and an auditor registry. Practical rules will decide how much trust they produce.
An audit needs a clear question
The word “audit” can cover many different tasks. One team may check bias in hiring software. Another may test cyber risks in a large model. A third may inspect records that show how a company handled a safety problem.
These checks need clear limits. An auditor should state which model version was tested, which data was used, and what the test could not measure. A simple pass mark can hide important problems.
Access also matters. An outside team cannot check a serious claim if it only sees a short company summary. Auditors may need test access, technical records, incident reports, and enough time to repeat important work.
Independence must work in practice
Many auditors are paid by the company they examine. That does not always make the work weak, but it creates a possible conflict. Rules should make payment, other business links, and past work visible.
The public also needs useful results. A report can protect trade secrets while still explaining the test, major risks, and limits. If every important detail stays private, the audit cannot build much public trust.
OpenAI supported the two laws and two other California bills. That support is relevant, but it does not prove the rules are strong enough. Companies and public-interest groups may want different details during implementation.
The laws create the structure for better checks. The next work is practical: approve qualified auditors, prevent conflicts, define useful tests, and publish enough evidence. A registry is the start of accountability, not the final result.
Sources
Every fact in this story comes from the sources below. Open them to check our work.
- 1Primary source · September 9, 2026Governor Newsom signs first-in-the-nation AI safeguards Governor of California
- 2Primary source · March 2025AB 1405 policy committee analysis California Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee
- 3
We used the governor’s release for the signed laws and their stated purpose. We read the legislative analysis for the registry background. We used OpenAI only to show industry support and do not treat that support as an independent review.