Artificial Intelligence Policy Tracker
Search
Menu

Transparency and disclosure: AI obligations

Practical requirements extracted from policy instruments, with the source article, the actors they bind, evidence examples and original framework mappings. Legal requirements are marked; everything else is voluntary guidance.

Results

5 of 117 obligations match · Download these as CSV

Legal requirement Transparency and disclosure Colorado (United States)

Deployers and developers must disclose to consumers that they are interacting with an AI system

Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1704

Any developer or deployer that makes an AI system available to consumers that is intended to interact with them must disclose to each consumer that they are interacting with an AI system, unless that would be obvious to a reasonable person. This duty is not limited to high-risk systems and covers chatbots and voice agents offered to Colorado consumers.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirement Transparency and disclosure Colorado (United States)

Deployers must publish a statement about the high-risk AI systems they use

Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1703(5)

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.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirement Transparency and disclosure Colorado (United States)

Disclose the use of the technology and the principal reasons after an adverse consequential decision

Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189)

After an adverse consequential decision, the deployer must tell the consumer that automated decision-making technology was used, give the principal reasons for the decision, and explain how to obtain human review.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Applies from 1 Jan 2027
Legal requirement Transparency and disclosure Colorado (United States)

Notify consumers and explain adverse consequential decisions

Colorado AI Act · C.R.S. 6-1-1703(4)

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.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review)
Legal requirement Transparency and disclosure Colorado (United States)

Notify consumers before automated decision-making technology influences a consequential decision

Colorado ADMT law (SB 26-189)

Deployers must tell a consumer, before the decision is made, that automated decision-making technology will be used to make or materially influence a consequential decision about them. The exact content and timing of the notice follow the enrolled bill, which a reviewer must read.

Pending review (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review) Applies from 1 Jan 2027

Frequently asked questions

What is an obligation on this site?

A single practical requirement pulled out of an instrument and stated on its own: keep a risk management system, log incidents, document training data, provide human oversight, and so on. Each one cites the article or section it comes from so you can check it against the source.

Does a voluntary obligation have legal force?

No, and every obligation is labelled either a legal requirement or voluntary guidance. Voluntary items still matter in practice, because procurement questionnaires and auditors ask about them, but only the binding ones carry legal consequence.

How do I find the obligations that apply to my organisation?

Filter by jurisdiction, category, actor, sector or use case. The applicability check asks a short set of questions and returns the duties that may reach you. It is an educational screen, not a legal determination, and it says so.

Why do some instruments have no obligations listed?

Because nobody has broken them out yet. Most instruments are recorded at summary level first; obligations are added jurisdiction by jurisdiction. The coverage and open-gaps pages publish exactly what is missing rather than hiding it.