California Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA)

A large frontier developer must write, implement, comply with and clearly and conspicuously publish on its website a frontier AI framework describing how it incorporates national standards, international standards and industry-consensus best practices; defines and assesses thresholds, which may be tiered, for identifying capabilities that could pose catastrophic risk; reviews assessments and the adequacy of mitigations as part of the decision to deploy or use a model extensively internally; determines what substantial modifications trigger updated disclosures; and assesses and manages catastrophic risk from internal use, including the risk of a model circumventing oversight mechanisms.

Applies when

A frontier model is a foundation model trained using more than 10 to the power of 26 integer or floating-point operations, counting the original training run plus subsequent fine-tuning, reinforcement learning or other material modifications. A large frontier developer is a frontier developer whose annual gross revenues, together with its affiliates, exceeded $500,000,000 in the preceding calendar year. Chinese foundation-model companies meeting both tests when operating in California fall within this duty.

Evidence to retain

• · Published frontier AI framework text with version history
• · Definition of capability thresholds and the assessment methodology
• · Pre-deployment risk assessment and mitigation adequacy review records
• · Framework update triggers and the record of actual updates

Estimated first-time effort: 20–60 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)

Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing one, a frontier developer must clearly and conspicuously publish a transparency report on its website stating the release date, languages supported, output modalities supported, intended uses and any generally applicable restrictions or conditions on use. A large frontier developer must additionally include summaries of the catastrophic-risk assessments conducted under its frontier AI framework and of the other steps taken to fulfil that framework for the model.

Applies when

All frontier developers for the base items, with the additional summaries required of large frontier developers.

Evidence to retain

• · Archived transparency report for each model version with publication timestamps
• · Catastrophic-risk assessment reports mapped to the published summaries
• · Determination records for what counts as a substantial modification
• · Release checklist evidencing the sequencing of deployment approval and report publication

Estimated first-time effort: 5–15 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)

A large frontier developer must transmit to the Office of Emergency Services a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk resulting from internal use of its frontier models every three months, or on another reasonable schedule communicated to the Office in writing, with written updates as appropriate. The Office must establish a mechanism for confidential submission and limit access to the reports.

Applies when

Large frontier developers.

Deadline: Every three months, or on another reasonable schedule notified in writing

Evidence to retain

• · Methodology and records for internal-use risk assessments
• · Written notice of an alternative reporting schedule where the quarterly cadence is not used
• · Each submitted summary and its filing receipt
• · Records of internal-use oversight mechanisms and circumvention testing

Estimated first-time effort: 5–12 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)

A frontier developer must report any critical safety incident involving its frontier models to the Office of Emergency Services within 15 days of discovery. If the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury, the developer must disclose it within 24 hours to an appropriate authority, including any law enforcement or public safety agency with jurisdiction, as required by law. Amended reports may be filed as new information emerges. Statutory incident types include unauthorized access to, modification of or exfiltration of model weights resulting in death or bodily injury; loss of control of a frontier model causing death or bodily injury; and a model using deceptive techniques against the developer to subvert its controls or monitoring outside an evaluation designed to elicit that behaviour, in a manner demonstrating materially increased catastrophic risk.

Applies when

All frontier developers, not only large ones.

Deadline: Within 15 days for critical safety incidents; within 24 hours for imminent risk

Evidence to retain

• · Incident classification criteria document
• · Incident register recording discovery time, classification and reporting time
• · Reports filed with the Office of Emergency Services and filing receipts
• · Records of 24-hour disclosures showing recipient and channel

Estimated first-time effort: 5–15 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)

A frontier developer must not make a materially false or misleading statement about catastrophic risk from its frontier models or about its management of that risk. Read with the transparency report and framework duties, publicly claimed safety evaluations, red-teaming and mitigations must match what is actually performed internally.

Applies when

All frontier developers, particularly teams producing safety marketing materials and responses to customer security questionnaires.

Evidence to retain

• · Reconciliation working papers mapping public safety claims to internal evidence
• · Raw records of red-teaming and safety evaluations
• · Compliance review records for marketing and sales materials
• · Fact-check records for responses to customer security questionnaires

Estimated first-time effort: 3–10 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)

A frontier developer must not make, adopt, enforce or enter into any rule, policy or contract that prevents a covered employee from disclosing, or that retaliates for disclosing, information where the employee has reasonable cause to believe it shows that the developer activities pose a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety from a catastrophic risk, or that the developer violated the TFAIA. Developers must give covered employees clear notice of these rights, either by posting in the workplace or by annual written notice. A large frontier developer must also provide a reasonable internal anonymous disclosure process with monthly status updates to the discloser on the investigation and the actions taken.

Applies when

Frontier developers employing covered employees in California, including the California R&D entities of Chinese companies.

Evidence to retain

• · Records of compliance edits to the employee handbook, confidentiality agreements and restrictive covenants
• · Proof of workplace posting or delivery and acknowledgement of the annual written notice
• · Technical design and operating records for the anonymous reporting channel
• · Case log of disclosures with evidence of monthly status updates

Estimated first-time effort: 5–15 person-days (estimate, not a commitment)