Artificial Intelligence Policy Tracker
Legal requirement AI risk management Colorado (United States) Repealed

Deployers must use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination

Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder Colorado AI Act, C.R.S. 6-1-1703(1)

Pending review · linked to the official source, waiting for a reviewer to confirm it (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review or legal advice)
What this label means
Verified
— a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
Pending review
— linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
Source-linked
— linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
Verification policy and current standing · a factual check, not legal advice.
No longer in force: repealed · Signed 17 May 2024; its effective date was moved from 1 February 2026 to 30 June 2026 by SB 25B-004 (August 2025). Before that date arrived, SB 26-189, signed on 14 May 2026, repealed and re-enacted the framework as a narrower automated-decision-making-technology law that applies from 1 January 2027. This act therefore never took effect; see the SB 26-189 record. Recorded on 26 September 2026 from secondary reporting, pending review against the enrolled bill. · official source last checked
On this page 9 sections

In brief

Deployers must use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination is a legal requirement under the Colorado AI Act in Colorado (United States) (C.R.S. 6-1-1703(1)). A deployer of a high-risk AI system must use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. The record carries 1 evidence example and mappings to 2 frameworks.

Instrument
Colorado AI Act
Nature
Legal requirement
Source reference
C.R.S. 6-1-1703(1)
Who it binds
Deployer / user organisation
Evidence examples
1
Framework mappings
NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0, ISO/IEC 42001:2023
Controls that meet it
2
Official source
Open official text
Verification
Pending review · source-linked

What does it require?

A deployer of a high-risk AI system must use reasonable care to protect consumers from known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. A deployer that runs the required risk-management programme, completes impact assessments, gives consumer notices and makes the required disclosures benefits from a rebuttable presumption of reasonable care; some deployers with fewer than 50 employees are relieved of parts of the programme and assessment duties when they rely on the developer's impact assessment.

Practical action

Treat each consequential-decision use of AI as a governed system with an owner, a risk record and the statutory paperwork so the presumption is available.

Who does it apply to?

Deployers doing business in Colorado that use a high-risk AI system to make or substantially inform consequential decisions.

Which controls meet this duty?

Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.

  • satisfiesPolicyExecutive sponsor for AI · annual
    AI governance policy and accountability structure

    Serves 16 recorded duties · evidence: AI policy, Board or executive approval of the AI policy, AI governance forum minutes

    Ownership and the standard of care documented for each system.

  • supportsProcessAI system owner · once per ai system
    AI risk assessment and lifecycle risk register

    Serves 12 recorded duties · evidence: AI system risk assessment, Per-system AI risk register, Residual-risk acceptance

    Discrimination risk identified for each consequential-decision use.

Templates that cover this duty

Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.

All 6 templates that cover it →

What evidence would a reviewer expect?

Evidence examples
EvidenceTypeNotes
Deployer compliance checklist per high-risk systemrecord

Framework mappings

Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.

See every Colorado (United States) duty mapped this way →

Framework mappings table
FrameworkReferenceNoteConfidence
NIST AI RMF 1.0GOVERN 1.1, MANAGE 1.3Legal requirements and risk treatment for deployed systems.medium
ISO/IEC 42001:2023Clause 6.1.2; Annex A.9.2Risk assessment and responsible-use processes.medium

Frequently asked questions

Is this a legal requirement?

Yes. It is a legal requirement under Colorado AI Act (C.R.S. 6-1-1703(1)).

Who must comply with this obligation?

Deployers doing business in Colorado that use a high-risk AI system to make or substantially inform consequential decisions.

What evidence shows compliance?

A reviewer would expect: Deployer compliance checklist per high-risk system.

Which frameworks map to this obligation?

It is mapped to NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 GOVERN 1.1, MANAGE 1.3, ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 6.1.2; Annex A.9.2. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.

Which controls satisfy this obligation?

AI governance policy and accountability structure; AI risk assessment and lifecycle risk register.

What should an organisation do in practice?

Treat each consequential-decision use of AI as a governed system with an owner, a risk record and the statutory paperwork so the presumption is available.

Cite this record

AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Deployers must use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination (Colorado AI Act)” [AIPT-OBL-0090, not yet verified]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0090 (accessed 8 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.

Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0090: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.

Cite the official text alongside it: SB24-205 Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence, Colorado General Assembly, https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205.

BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_deployersmustusereasonab,
  author       = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
  title        = {{Deployers must use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination (Colorado AI Act)}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-ai-act-deployer-reasonable-care}},
  url          = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-ai-act-deployer-reasonable-care},
  urldate      = {2026-11-08},
  note         = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 8 November 2026}
}

Change history

No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.

Similar obligations in other instruments

Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.