Colorado ADMT Rulemaking Hearing Highlights Key Areas of Debate Ahead of January 1 Effective Date
On October 26, 2026, the Colorado Department of Law (Department) held a rulemaking hearing on proposed rules implementing Colorado’s Automated Decision-Making Technology Act (ADMT Act) and Chatbot Safety Act (Chatbot Act), which will impose significant new obligations on companies in Colorado starting January 1, 2027.
The hearing followed the Department’s August 11 proposed rules and October 6 interim draft (Proposed Rules), which drew hundreds of comments from a variety of stakeholders. As previously discussed, for the ADMT Act, the Proposed Rules intend to clarify obligations for developers and deployers, disclosure and reporting requirements, and consumer rights. For the Chatbot Act, the Proposed Rules intend to clarify obligations for disclosures, age assurance, protections for minors, safeguards against certain prohibited content and interactions, and annual reporting. The proposed rules are currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, although stakeholders continue to request more time to implement the complex new rules.
The hearing drew wide interest with testifying stakeholders ranging from industry groups, consumer advocates, and individual consumers. Hearing testimony predominantly focused on the ADMT rulemaking, raising several issues that could significantly affect implementation of the Proposed Rules, including: when automated decision-making technology “materially influences” a consequential decision, what constitutes meaningful human review, the interaction of the rules with existing regulatory requirements, and whether businesses will have sufficient time to comply. Below, we highlight key themes from the hearing and what stakeholders can expect next.
Key Themes from the Hearing
The Definition of “Materially Influence” Remains Contested. Stakeholders differed on when ADMT “materially influences” a consequential decision, particularly when an automated output and independent human review produce the same result. Some urged the Department to base the standard on reliance on ADMT and its independence from human oversight, rather than treating an ADMT output alone as evidence of material influence. Others supported the Proposed Rules’ current presumptive approach for certain types of ADMT outputs. Commenters also requested clarification on the evidence needed to demonstrate independent human decision-making such that the ADMT output is not a material influence.
Commenters Seek Clarity on Meaningful Human Review and Consumer Notices. The hearing also highlighted questions on what constitutes meaningful human review in response to a consumer request, including whether the focus should be on the independence and quality of the review or whether the reviewer ultimately changes the outcome. Testimony also focused on the practical implementation of consumer correction, reconsideration, and adverse-outcome disclosure requirements. Some commenters requested greater flexibility in correcting inaccurate information and re-running decisions, while financial-sector commenters raised concerns about duplicative or potentially conflicting Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requirements. Financial institutions also supported exemptions for consumer reports, noting that the Colorado Privacy Act already includes an FCRA exemption. By contrast, consumer advocates cautioned against changes that could weaken consumers’ ability to understand adverse decisions or correct the information used in them.
Multiparty Arrangements Raise Implementation Questions. Testimony from stakeholders also explained that multiparty ADMT arrangements may present additional compliance challenges, particularly where information needed to satisfy an obligation is held by another entity. Stakeholders sought clarification on how responsibilities should be allocated among developers, deployers, midstream developers, and other vendors, as well as how the proposed requirements interact with existing regulatory frameworks in areas including financial services, consumer reporting, health care, mortgages, and insurance.
Operators Focus on Practical Implications of Chatbot Requirements. Separate from the ADMT-related Proposed Rules, the testimony from operators of conversational AI services highlighted distinct compliance considerations they face under the proposed Chatbot Act rules, particularly around age assurance and protections for minors. This testimony also emphasized the need for a risk-based approach to safeguards addressing emotional dependence and engagement-based features, including consideration of technical feasibility and the risks presented by different services.
Industry Representatives Seek Additional Time to Comply. With the rules currently scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027, implementation timing was another significant concern raised in the hearing testimony. Industry representatives sought additional time and flexibility to implement the final requirements, including transition periods, staged implementation, and good-faith compliance approaches. The Department did not discuss changing the final-rule adoption date or a phased applicability schedule during the hearing.
What’s Next
Given the approaching January 1, 2027, effective date, the Department has a limited amount of time to release the final rules. Businesses should closely monitor the final rules to assess what obligations are included, and ensure compliance by the designated deadline.
***
Wiley’s Artificial Intelligence and Privacy, Cyber & Data Governance practices counsel clients on compliance issues, risk management, and regulatory and policy approaches, and we engage with key government stakeholders in this quickly developing area. Please reach out to the authors with any questions.
