Deployers must use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder Colorado AI Act, C.R.S. 6-1-1703(1)
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 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
- Jurisdiction
- Colorado (United States)
- 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 · annualAI 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 systemAI 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.
- AI Risk Register (MIT AI Risk Repository taxonomy)
Register · XLSX · v4
- AI Impact Assessment
Assessment · DOCX and XLSX · v5
- 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Deployer compliance checklist per high-risk system | record |
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 1.1, MANAGE 1.3 | Legal requirements and risk treatment for deployed systems. | medium |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Clause 6.1.2; Annex A.9.2 | Risk 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
- Operators of high-impact AI must establish and operate a risk management plan — AI Basic Act, South Korea
- Developers must use reasonable care to avoid algorithmic discrimination — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
- Apply minimum risk-management practices to high-impact AI — OMB M-25-21, United States
- Establish a risk management system for high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers must implement a risk management policy and programme — Colorado AI Act, Colorado (United States)
- Ensure AI systems are safe, secure and robust throughout their lifecycle — UK AI regulation framework, United Kingdom (voluntary)
- Prioritise, respond to and monitor AI risks (Manage) — NIST AI RMF, United States (voluntary)
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.