California Governor Vetoes AI Regulation Bill, Calls for More Targeted Approach
In a decision that has reignited debates over artificial intelligence (AI) regulation, California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday vetoed Senate Bill 1047, the proposed legislation aimed at safeguarding against the misuse of the technology. The bill, which had passed both houses of the state legislature with overwhelming support, was intended to be one of the first of its kind in the U.S., setting mandatory safety protocols for AI developers. Newsom’s veto has drawn sharp reactions from various stakeholders in the tech industry, academia, and political circles.
In his veto message, Newsom expressed concerns over the bill’s overly broad approach.
“While well-intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data,” Newsom wrote. “Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.”
Newsom called for a more targeted approach to AI regulation that also supports the potential benefits it could bring.
In defending his decision, Newsom also highlighted his ongoing collaboration with AI experts, such as Stanford professor Fei-Fei Li, who is often referred to as the “godmother of AI,” to create more science-based, empirical guidelines for regulating AI systems. Newsom stressed the need for a deeper understanding of “frontier models” — the most advanced AI systems — and their potential risks before enacting sweeping legislation.
The Debate Over AI Regulation
The veto has brought a range of reactions, underscoring the divisive nature of AI regulation. On one side, companies like Google and OpenAI welcomed Newsom’s decision. In a statement, Google praised the governor for ensuring that California remains at the forefront of developing “responsible AI tools,” adding that the tech giant looks forward to working with Newsom’s administration and the federal government to create appropriate safeguards. OpenAI applauded Newsom’s recognition of California’s leadership role in AI innovation and his efforts to engage state lawmakers on issues such as deepfakes, child safety, and AI literacy.
SB 1047 also faced sharp criticism from some organizations over its potential impact on the open source community. The Mozilla Foundation, the nonprofit behind the Mozilla Firefox browser, had previously called on Gov. Gavin Newsom to veto the bill.
“We see parallels between the early internet and today’s AI ecosystem, which is becoming increasingly closed and controlled by a few large tech companies,” the foundation wrote in an earlier blog post. “We are concerned that SB 1047 would accelerate this trend, harming the open source community and making AI less safe, not more.”
The veto has disappointed legislators and activists who saw the bill as a necessary first step toward reigning in unchecked AI development. State Senator Scott Wiener, who authored the bill, described the veto as a “missed opportunity” for California to lead on tech regulation, as it had done with data privacy and net neutrality. Wiener stressed that without stringent safeguards, the public remains vulnerable to the potential harms posed by rapidly advancing AI systems.
“This veto is a setback for everyone who believes in oversight of massive corporations that are making critical decisions that affect the safety and welfare of the public and the future of the planet,” Weiner wrote in a statement. “The companies developing advanced AI systems acknowledge that the risks these models present to the public are real and rapidly increasing. While the large AI labs have made admirable commitments to monitor and mitigate these risks, the truth is that voluntary commitments from industry are not enforceable and rarely work out well for the public. This veto leaves us with the troubling reality that companies aiming to create an extremely powerful technology face no binding restrictions from U.S. policymakers, particularly given Congress’s continuing paralysis around regulating the tech industry in any meaningful way.”
