SUMMARY
Separate proposed implementing rules for Colorado’s enacted ADMT framework. Latest linked text: October 6 interim redline. The Department confirms the October 26 hearing; no final adoption or newer text was found in accessible official materials as of October 28.
WHY IT MATTERS
Employers need to distinguish January 1 statutory duties from draft mechanics for outsourced screening, material influence, communications, documentation, information requests, and human review.
KEY REQUIREMENTS
- PROPOSED ONLY: the mechanics below are not final legal requirements.
- Proposed Rule 4.3 assigns deployer duties to the employer in the commissioned staffing-shortlist example, with contractual assistance permitted.
- Proposed Rule 6 supplies a rebuttable material-influence presumption and employment ranking/scoring examples.
- Proposed Rules 3, 5, 7, and 8 address communications, developer documentation, adverse-outcome disclosures, information requests, human review, and review records.
COVERAGE
Employers: Potentially covered developers and persons doing business in Colorado deploying covered ADMT for consequential employment decisions; apply the enacted definitions and exceptions first.
Workers: Employees, Colorado-resident applicants, and individuals whose Colorado access, eligibility, or opportunity is evaluated as specified by the statute.
Status and verification
PROPOSED — NOT FINAL. Verified October 28, 2026. Latest rule text linked by the Department: October 6 interim redline. Hearing hosted October 26. The Department states it will consider comments received by October 26 at 11:59 p.m. MST; that cutoff has passed. No extension or new round is announced in the reviewed page. Formal adjournment was not independently established.
No final adoption, adoption date, rule effective date, later draft, or further hearing was found in the accessible official materials. Secretary of State eDocket 2026-00360 independently lists the proposal and October 26 hearing; its adopted-rule, adoption-date, and effective-date fields are blank.
Primary sources: Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology Rulemaking
Authority and relationship to enacted law
Official title: Automated Decision-Making Technology & Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules, 4 CCR 904-6. This combined rulemaking implements SB 26-189 and HB 26-1263; this tracker entry focuses on employment ADMT.
The October 21 analysis identifies mandatory rulemaking under §§ 6-1-1704(4)(b) and 1705(3), discretionary authority under § 6-1-1706(5), and Colorado Consumer Protection Act authority under § 6-1-108(1). SB 26-189 already establishes developer documentation, deployer notices, adverse-outcome disclosures, request-based data/correction and commercially reasonable human review, and three-year compliance record retention. Draft implementation procedures are separate from those enacted duties.
Primary sources: SB 26-189 — Signed Act · Regulatory Analysis for Rules Governing the ADMT and Chatbot Safety Acts
Scope and proposed material-influence mechanics
Covered ADMT materially influences consequential decisions; employment and employment opportunities are covered domains. The enacted consumer definition includes employees, Colorado-resident applicants, and individuals whose Colorado opportunities are evaluated by a person doing business in Colorado. Developer and deployer are distinct roles; product labels alone do not establish coverage.
Proposed Rule 6 would presume material influence where an output constrains options, sets a threshold, or supplies a ranking, score, classification, recommendation, prediction, or inference about the individual; the decision maker reviews it or it screens available data; and it aligns with the outcome. The presumption could be rebutted with evidence of a de minimis role, including substantial independent review by someone with authority and expertise. Administrative-tool exclusions remain relevant.
Primary sources: SB 26-189 — Signed Act · Automated Decision-Making Technology & Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules — October 6 Interim Draft Redline (4 CCR 904-6)
Staffing firms, developers, and contracts
Proposed Rule 4.3 identifies the employer as deployer where it commissions a staffing firm’s covered automated shortlist and uses those recommendations to select a hire. A contract could assign assistance without transferring the employer’s deployer duties. The example does not resolve every agency rejection or direct applicant interaction.
Proposed Rules 4.2 and 5 address upstream documentation passed downstream, the integrator’s own documentation, and unified internal documentation where an entity is both developer and deployer. Contractual assistance and information access should be planned, but final requirements may change.
Primary sources: Automated Decision-Making Technology & Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules — October 6 Interim Draft Redline (4 CCR 904-6)
Notices, requests, review, and records — proposed details
Rules 3 and 7 propose accessible communications, delivery channels, initial adverse-outcome content, and requests for system/input information. The statutory initial notice and 30-day adverse-outcome disclosure are already enacted. Proposed coordination with FCRA/ECOA notices is conditional; there is no blanket exemption for employment consumer-report workflows.
Rule 8 proposes mechanics for data held by deployers versus third parties, response periods, internal or qualifying external human reviewers with actual authority, and contemporaneous review documentation. These implementing mechanics are not final. The statute independently requires reasonably necessary compliance records, generally for at least three years; it does not enact every draft review-record detail.
Primary sources: Automated Decision-Making Technology & Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules — October 6 Interim Draft Redline (4 CCR 904-6) · Regulatory Analysis for Rules Governing the ADMT and Chatbot Safety Acts · SB 26-189 — Signed Act
Material changes from August to October
October adds a staffing-company example and revises multiparty and upstream-documentation treatment. It adds de-minimis guidance and revises the material-influence framework with employment examples.
The interim redline revises adverse-outcome delivery methods and removes separate detailed principal-reasons, inference, and score disclosures from the initial disclosure, while retaining an account of the decision and ADMT role and separate information requests.
It distinguishes deployer-held data from third-party data, permits internal or qualifying external reviewers, adds contemporaneous review documentation, and removes the August proposed stay of adverse outcomes during review. These are pre-hearing changes, not outcomes attributed to October 26 testimony.
Primary sources: Proposed Automated Decision-Making Technology & Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules · Automated Decision-Making Technology & Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules — October 6 Interim Draft Redline (4 CCR 904-6)
Hearing, comments, and next step
The Department confirms it hosted a public formal hearing October 26. Its updated webpage is the official post-hearing confirmation found in this review. No linked transcript, recording, testimony summary, response-to-comments document, post-hearing draft, or adoption statement was found. The proposal-stage statement of basis, authority, and purpose is not a final adoption document.
The official comment archive is linked but submissions did not render during this review. No specific commenter or witness is attributed, no consensus is inferred, and no topic is characterized as dominating the hearing. Staffing, material influence, notices, human review, developer documentation, ranking/scoring, and FCRA coordination are draft-stage subjects; their treatment at the hearing is unverified.
Next step to watch: a final adoption filing, revised draft, or further Department notice. No date for those events is announced in the reviewed page. January 1 is the statutory start and required-rulemaking deadline, not a verified effective date for this proposal.
Primary sources: Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology Rulemaking · ADMT and Chatbot Safety Rulemaking Comment Archive · Secretary of State eDocket 2026-00360 — proposed 4 CCR 904-6 · Notice of Proposed Rulemaking — ADMT and Chatbot Safety Acts, 4 CCR 904-6
ENFORCEMENT & PENALTIES
The proposal would implement Attorney General enforcement under SB 26-189. It has no independently verified adoption or effective date.
CHANGE HISTORY
- verification update
Record re-verified
Official source links, status, and key dates were checked for this maintenance release.
- verification update
Department confirms formal hearing hosted
Updated Department page confirms the October 26 hearing and states the October 26 written-comment cutoff. No transcript, recording, response document, final adoption, or later draft was found in accessible materials.
- verification update
Pre-hearing regulatory analysis released
Agency analysis explains authority, anticipated impacts, and alternatives; it is not final rule adoption.
- rule proposed
Interim proposal redline released
Material pre-hearing revisions include staffing, documentation, disclosures, and human-review mechanics; not final.
- rule proposed
Rules proposed
Combined ADMT and conversational-AI proposal filed.
TOPICS
PRIMARY SOURCES
RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology Act
Colorado repealed and reenacted its automated-decision framework. The replacement law applies to consequential decisions made on or after January 1, 2027, including covered employment decisions; the October 6, 2026 interim draft revises the August 11 proposed implementing rules and is not final.
Related coverage: Colorado AI Employment Rules After the Oct. 26 Hearing: What’s Law, What’s Still Proposed, and What Starts Jan. 1 →Information, not legal advice. Bot Labor Law provides general informational content that may not reflect the most current legal developments. Consult qualified counsel regarding specific legal matters.