Notify consumers and explain adverse consequential decisions
Under Colorado AI Act, C.R.S. 6-1-1703(4)
What does it require?
Before a high-risk system makes a consequential decision, deployers must notify the consumer that AI is used, describe its purpose and nature, and provide contact and opt-out information where applicable. After an adverse decision they must state the principal reasons, the data used and its sources, and offer an opportunity to correct data and to appeal for human review where feasible.
Practical action
Add pre-decision AI notices and an adverse-decision explanation and appeal workflow.
Who does it apply to?
Deployers making consequential decisions with high-risk AI.
Applies from:
Evidence examples
- Consumer notice and adverse-action explanation templates (document)
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | GOVERN 5.x, MANAGE 4.x | Recourse and communication. | medium |
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Publish an annual AI use-case inventory — OMB M-25-21, United States
- Disclose AI interaction and label synthetic content — EU AI Act, European Union
- Provide deployers with clear instructions for use — EU AI Act, European Union
- Notify individuals about the use of personal data in AI recommendations and decisions — PDPC AI advisory guidelines, Singapore
- Provide appropriate transparency and explainability — UK AI regulation framework, United Kingdom (voluntary)
- Report incidents and mark AI-generated content (generative AI framework) — Singapore Model AI Governance Framework, Singapore (voluntary)
Informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult qualified counsel before acting.