California’s state senate lately gave remaining approval to a brand new AI security invoice, SB 53, sending it to Governor Gavin Newsom to both signal or veto.
If this all sounds acquainted, that’s as a result of Newsom vetoed one other AI security invoice, additionally written by state senator Scott Wiener, final yr. However SB 53 is narrower than Wiener’s earlier SB 1047, with a concentrate on massive AI corporations making greater than $500 million in annual income.
I bought the possibility to debate SB 53 with my colleagues Max Zeff and Kirsten Korosec on the most recent episode of TechCrunch’s flagship podcast Fairness. Max believes that Wiener’s new invoice has a greater shot of turning into regulation, partly due to that massive firm focus, and since it’s been endorsed by AI firm Anthropic.
Learn a preview of our dialog about AI security and state-level laws under. (I’ve edited the transcript for size and readability, and to make us sound barely smarter.)
Max: Why do you have to care about AI security laws that’s passing a chamber in California? We’re getting into this period the place AI corporations have gotten essentially the most highly effective corporations on this planet, and that is going to be doubtlessly one of many few checks on their energy.
That is a lot narrower than SB 1047, which bought a variety of pushback final yr. However I believe SB 53 nonetheless places some significant rules on the AI labs. It makes them publish security studies for his or her fashions. If they’ve an incident, it principally forces them to report that to the federal government. And it additionally, for workers at these labs, if they’ve issues, provides them a channel to report that to the federal government and never face pushback from the businesses, though a variety of them have signed NDAs.
To me, this seems like a doubtlessly significant examine on tech corporations’ energy, one thing we haven’t actually had for the final couple of many years.
Techcrunch occasion
San Francisco
|
October 27-29, 2025
Kirsten: To your level about why it issues on the state degree, it’s vital to consider the truth that it’s California. Each main AI firm is just about, if not primarily based right here, it has a serious footprint on this state. Not that different states don’t matter — I don’t wish to be getting emails from the parents in Colorado or no matter — nevertheless it does matter that it’s particularly California as a result of it’s actually a hub of AI exercise.
My query for you, although, Max, is it simply looks as if there’s a variety of exceptions and carve-outs. It’s narrower, however is it extra difficult than the earlier [bill]?
Max: In some methods, sure. I’d say the principle carve-out of this invoice is that it actually tries to not apply to small startups. And principally, one of many predominant controversies across the final legislative effort from Senator Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco, who authored this invoice, lots of people mentioned it might hurt the startup ecosystem, which lots of people take concern with as a result of that’s such a booming a part of California’s economic system proper now.
This invoice particularly applies to AI builders which might be [generating] greater than $500 million [from] their AI fashions. This actually tries to focus on OpenAI, Google DeepMind, these massive corporations and never your run-of-the-mill startup.
Anthony: As I perceive it, should you’re a smaller startup, you do should share some security info, however not almost as a lot.
It’s [also] value speaking concerning the broader panorama round AI regulation and the truth that one of many massive adjustments between final yr and this yr is now we now have a brand new president. The federal administration has taken way more of a stance of no regulation and corporations ought to be capable of do what they need, to the extent that they’ve truly included [language] in funding payments saying states can’t have their very own AI regulation.
I don’t suppose any of that has handed to date, however doubtlessly they might attempt to get that by way of sooner or later. So this may very well be one other entrance by which the Trump administration and blue states are preventing.
Fairness is TechCrunch’s flagship podcast, produced by Theresa Loconsolo, and posts each Wednesday and Friday.
Subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, and all of the casts. You can also comply with Fairness on X and Threads, at @EquityPod.
{content material}
Supply: {feed_title}