Let consumers opt out of automated decision-making technology for significant decisions, or offer a qualifying human appeal

Practical action

Build the opt-out form and a second method, wire opt-outs to stop processing within 15 business days and to notify vendors, or document the exception relied on and, for the human-appeal exception, designate and train reviewers who can overturn the decision.

Who does it apply to?

Actors

Deployer / user organisation

Sectors

Employment and HRFinancial services and creditHealthcare and life sciencesEducation and training

Use cases

AI in hiring and employmentAI in healthcareAI in finance, credit and insuranceAI in education

Applies from: 1 January 2027

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.

• supportsProcessCustomer operations lead · once per ai system
  Decision explanation, human review and appeal route

  Serves 14 recorded duties · evidence: Adverse-decision explanation template, AI decision challenge and human review procedure, Challenge and reversal log

  The appeal route used under the human-appeal exception.

• supportsProcessAI system owner · once per ai system
  Human oversight design and override procedure

  Serves 13 recorded duties · evidence: Human oversight and override procedure, Human-involvement design rationale, Overseer training completion

  The human-appeal exception needs a reviewer with authority to overturn the decision.

• supportsProcessData protection officer · once per ai system
  Privacy and data-protection controls for AI

  Serves 15 recorded duties · evidence: Data protection impact assessment for an AI system, AI data-flow and legal-basis record, Privacy notice section on AI use

  Handling consumer rights requests over personal information.

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.

• Human Oversight Procedure

  Procedure · DOCX and XLSX · v6

• AI Agent Registry and Permission Matrix

  Register · XLSX and DOCX · v7

• California ADMT and Risk Assessment Kit (CPPA)

  Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v1

• AI Literacy and Training Plan

  Procedure · XLSX and DOCX · v5

All 6 templates that cover it →

What evidence would a reviewer expect?

Frequently asked questions

Cite this record

AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Let consumers opt out of automated decision-making technology for significant decisions, or offer a qualifying human appeal (California CPPA automated decision-making rules)” [AIPT-OBL-0119, not yet verified]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0119 (accessed 12 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.

Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0119: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.

Cite the official text alongside it: CPPA announcement: regulations approved by the Office of Administrative Law, California Privacy Protection Agency, https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/ccpa_updates_cyber_risk_admt_appr_text.pdf.

@misc{aipolicytracker2026_letconsumersoptoutofauto,
  author       = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
  title        = {{Let consumers opt out of automated decision-making technology for significant decisions, or offer a qualifying human appeal (California CPPA automated decision-making rules)}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-california-ccpa-admt-opt-out}},
  url          = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-california-ccpa-admt-opt-out},
  urldate      = {2026-11-12},
  note         = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 12 November 2026}
}

Change history

Similar obligations in other instruments

• Employers and employment agencies must let candidates request an alternative selection process or accommodation — NYC Local Law 144 (automated employment decision tools), New York (United States)
• Apply safeguards to solely automated decisions with significant effects — ICO AI guidance, United Kingdom
• Offer meaningful human review of an adverse consequential decision — Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189), Colorado (United States)
• Respect the right to object to automated decision-making without human intervention — UAE PDPL, United Arab Emirates
• Operators of high-impact AI must ensure human management and supervision — AI Basic Act, South Korea
• Enable and assign effective human oversight — EU AI Act, European Union
• Test and monitor systems, enable human control, and be transparent with users (guardrails 4 to 6) — Australian Voluntary AI Safety Standard, Australia (voluntary)
• Provide routes to contest AI outcomes and seek redress — UK AI regulation framework, United Kingdom (voluntary)