California bans AI-only firings as 90% of US managers track workers

SB 947, signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom this week, blocks employers from firing or disciplining workers solely with AI — a rule that lands while 90% of US managers say their firms now run at least one tool to "instruct, monitor or evaluate workers," according to figures cited during the bill's passage.

What does SB 947 actually require?

The Act stops businesses from relying exclusively on "automated decision-making systems" for terminations or discipline. A human reviewer must now corroborate any AI output using managerial evaluations, peer reviews and personnel files.

Workers must receive written notice when AI was "primarily used" in their disciplinary or termination decision, a description of the data fed into the system, and a named human contact able to explain the outcome.

Author Jerry McNerney, a Democrat who first introduced the bill in 2025 after union pressure, told CNBC: "No worker should ever be fired or disciplined by a machine, AI or not. Artificial intelligence systems have the potential to boost productivity, but they've also made errors and misjudgments and exhibited bias."

Where does public sentiment sit?

A July Gallup poll found 39% of Americans believe AI does more harm than good, up 8 points from 31% in 2025. Pew Research, in an August study, put the share expecting AI to take jobs at 71% — roughly 7 points higher than two years ago.

The 90% manager figure is thought to reflect a far higher US deployment of workplace AI than in any other country. A May retail-sector survey captured Walmart and Amazon workers flagging concern that HR decisions are being automated.

Litigation is already testing those anxieties. Meta faces a July lawsuit in which former employees allege AI-assisted ranking tools selected workers for layoffs and disproportionately hit staff who took medical, family or maternity leave. Meta has denied the allegations.

What carve-outs and objections remain?

Newsom initially opposed the Act as overly broad. Amendments stripped out its heaviest obligations and shielded gig-heavy platforms such as Uber and Lyft.

Robert Singleton, senior director of policy and public affairs at the Chamber of Progress, wrote to Newsom earlier this month that "the bill's obligations generally apply when an employer 'primarily relies' on an automated decision system, but that critical term is never defined. Employers are given no objective standard for determining when a technology has moved from merely informing a decision to being a primary basis for it."

California Federation of Labor Unions president Lorena Gonzalez, the Act's lead sponsor, framed the win differently: "When working people organise, we get results. Workers across California have demanded that our state lead the way in regulating AI in our workplaces. And today, we see that begin to happen."

What does this mean for individual workers?

For California employees, the law converts AI oversight from a soft expectation into a documented, reviewable process. The notice requirement also generates a paper trail likely to surface in wrongful-termination claims filed in other US jurisdictions.

Federal action looks unlikely in the near term. Newsom used his signing statement to accuse Washington of "abdicating its responsibility to protect Americans" on AI, leaving states as the primary rule-makers.

The next benchmarks to watch are the first SB 947 compliance filings and the Meta case docket — both will set the practical floor for how "human in the loop" gets interpreted when employers push back.