Specialist-model research desk
Map the obligations and dates that could change a procurement decision.
Signed 14 May 2026; relevant requirements begin 1 January 2027
Developers/deployers of covered ADMT materially influencing consequential decisions
Replace an old SB24-205 checklist; map documentation and human-review responsibilities
Rulemaking still shown as proposed; hearing scheduled 26 October 2026
Businesses potentially within the law
Check final rule text after the hearing; do not treat draft detail as settled
Effective 1 January 2026, with staggered compliance dates
Covered businesses and relevant processing activities
Distinguish risk-assessment duties from ADMT and audit deadlines
Compliance begins 1 January 2027 under CPPA’s final-rule announcement
Covered businesses using the defined ADMT for significant decisions
Prepare data/use inventory, notices and consumer-rights handling with counsel
Updated Commission timeline includes 2026 transparency and later high-risk dates
US firms within the Act’s territorial/product scope
Reclassify role/use and refresh contract schedules
Voluntary framework; NIST says version 1.0 is being revised
Organisations choosing or contractually required to use it
Record the version; do not claim NIST certification
Status as recorded in the supplied 26 October 2026 research. Applicability, exemptions and later developments require review.
Map the product’s actual use, data and geography before assigning obligations.
Sources: Colorado enacted-law summary, Colorado rulemaking page, CPPA announcement, Commission timeline and NIST status page.
SB26-189 repealed and reenacted the earlier provisions, focusing on automated decision-making technology used to materially influence consequential decisions.
The CCPA package’s effective date is not a single deadline for every obligation.
Potentially, if the product or its use falls within the Act’s territorial scope.
Data-protection, contractual, intellectual-property and sector requirements can apply regardless of the adaptation method.
Review the exact base-model licence, redistribution conditions, acceptable-use terms and teacher-output permissions.
These are diligence requests, not a claim that each is mandated identically by every law.
The following is an editorial work plan, not a statutory deadline:.
Short answers to the questions buyers ask.
Read →11 / REFERENCEEvidence gaps and limits that still need resolving.
Read →12 / REFERENCEThe research’s own quality scores and limitations.
Read →13 / REFERENCETrace the section’s claims to the original sources.
Read →Recent official updates are prioritised and older dates corrected. Scope boundaries and unresolved legal status are explicit; this is not a complete legal opinion or a claim of compliance.