Deployers must publish a statement about the high-risk AI systems they use
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder Colorado AI Act, C.R.S. 6-1-1703(5)
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.
On this page 9 sections
In brief
Deployers must publish a statement about the high-risk AI systems they use is a legal requirement under the Colorado AI Act in Colorado (United States) (C.R.S. 6-1-1703(5)). The record carries 1 evidence example and mappings to 2 frameworks. In practice: Publish an AI-use page listing high-risk systems in plain language and review it whenever a system is added or changed.
- Instrument
- Colorado AI Act
- Jurisdiction
- Colorado (United States)
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- C.R.S. 6-1-1703(5)
- 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 must make available on its website, or in another public way, a clear and readily available statement summarising the types of high-risk AI systems it currently deploys, how it manages known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination from those systems, and the nature, source and extent of the information it collects and uses. The statement must be updated periodically.
Practical action
Publish an AI-use page listing high-risk systems in plain language and review it whenever a system is added or changed.
Who does it apply to?
Deployers of high-risk AI systems, subject to the small-deployer relief in 6-1-1703(6).
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.
-
satisfiesProcessProduct owner · at launch and on material changeAI interaction and use disclosure notices
Serves 18 recorded duties · evidence: AI interaction or use notice, Notice catalogue, Notice wording approval
Organisation-level public statement rather than per-interaction notice.
-
supportsProcessAI governance lead · continuousAI system inventory and classification
Serves 11 recorded duties · evidence: AI system register, Risk-tier classification sign-off, AI intake and classification procedure
Source of the list of deployed high-risk systems.
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.
- AI Agent Registry and Permission Matrix
Register · XLSX and DOCX · v6
- EU AI Act Article 50 Transparency Kit
Kit · DOCX and XLSX · v44
- ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability
Assessment · XLSX · v3
- NIST AI RMF ↔ EU AI Act ↔ ISO/IEC 42001 Crosswalk
Crosswalk · XLSX · v5
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Public statement on high-risk AI use | document |
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 | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | GOVERN 4.2, MAP 5.2 | Transparency about deployed systems and their impacts. | medium |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Annex A.8.5 | Information for interested parties. | 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(5)).
Who must comply with this obligation?
Deployers of high-risk AI systems, subject to the small-deployer relief in 6-1-1703(6).
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: Public statement on high-risk AI use.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 GOVERN 4.2, MAP 5.2, ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Annex A.8.5. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
AI interaction and use disclosure notices; AI system inventory and classification.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Publish an AI-use page listing high-risk systems in plain language and review it whenever a system is added or changed.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Deployers must publish a statement about the high-risk AI systems they use (Colorado AI Act)” [AIPT-OBL-0091, not yet verified]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0091 (accessed 8 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0091: 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_deployersmustpublishasta,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Deployers must publish a statement about the high-risk AI systems they use (Colorado AI Act)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-ai-act-deployer-public-statement}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/us-colorado-ai-act-deployer-public-statement},
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
- Employers must inform workers and their representatives before using high-risk AI at work — EU AI Act, European Union
- Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must tell natural persons that a high-risk AI system is used in decisions about them — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers of emotion recognition or biometric categorisation must inform exposed persons — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must disclose deepfakes and AI-generated text published on matters of public interest — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers of generative AI must mark synthetic output as artificially generated in a machine-readable way — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must explain individual decisions taken with high-risk AI on request — EU AI Act, European Union
- Frontier developers must publish a transparency report before deploying a new frontier model — California SB 53, California (United States)
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.