What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
California’s SB 1047 will not be signed into law. Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the frontier-AI safety bill on September 29, 2024, returning it without his signature. The bill is not pending, and it did not become law. California later pursued a narrower approach through a frontier-AI policy report and SB 53, a transparency and oversight law enacted in 2025.
For consumers, investors, developers and California businesses, the important question is no longer whether Newsom will sign SB 1047. It is how California’s replacement framework will work—and whether federal action eventually limits or overrides state AI rules.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Quick answer
- SB 1047 decision: Vetoed.
- Veto date: September 29, 2024.
- Current status: Not law.
- Why Newsom vetoed it: He said the bill relied too heavily on the cost and computational scale of training a model instead of focusing on actual capabilities, deployment settings and real-world risks.
- What followed: California issued a frontier-AI policy report in June 2025 and enacted SB 53 on September 29, 2025.
California’s official legislative status page records SB 1047 as vetoed, with November 30, 2024, listed as the final day to consider the veto.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What SB 1047 would have done
SB 1047 was designed for specified frontier AI models and the companies developing them—not for every business that uses ChatGPT, image-generation software or ordinary workplace automation.
#1 Best Overall
The proposed law would have required covered developers to use reasonable care to prevent their models from creating or materially enabling an unreasonable risk of a defined “critical harm.” Its framework included:
- written safety and security protocols;
- testing and evaluation before and after deployment;
- protections for model weights and other cybersecurity measures;
- incident reporting;
- developer certifications;
- independent third-party audits;
- employee whistleblower protections;
- possible obligations involving cloud-computing providers;
- Attorney General enforcement and civil penalties; and
- a proposed Board of Frontier Models.
These were proposed requirements, not current California law. The official bill text is the authority for the precise definitions, thresholds, exemptions, retention rules and penalty provisions.
Why Newsom vetoed SB 1047
Newsom did not argue that AI safety rules were unnecessary. His objection was that SB 1047 used a model’s development cost and computing requirements as a central trigger for regulation.
In his veto message, Newsom said computational cost was not necessarily a reliable measure of danger. A smaller, specialized or fine-tuned model could create serious risks, while the same large model could present different risks depending on how and where it was deployed.
His stated concerns included AI used in high-risk environments, critical decision-making and systems handling sensitive data. He favored safety protocols, proactive guardrails and enforceable consequences, but concluded that SB 1047 was not the right framework.
The central policy dispute: compute versus actual risk
| Approach | Potential advantage | Potential weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Training-compute threshold | Provides a relatively measurable way to focus on the largest and most resource-intensive systems. | May miss smaller systems with dangerous specialized capabilities and may become outdated as training becomes more efficient. |
| Capability or deployment threshold | Connects regulation more closely to what a system can do and how it is used. | Can be harder to measure consistently and may create greater uncertainty for developers and regulators. |
Supporters viewed SB 1047 as a precautionary measure that would impose duties before a catastrophic incident occurred. Opponents argued that rigid or uncertain requirements could increase compliance costs, discourage some open-source development, expose companies to unpredictable liability or contribute to a patchwork of state rules.
Claims that the bill would have “killed open source,” forced companies to leave California or produced a specific economic loss remain policy arguments, not established outcomes. The bill was vetoed before those effects could be measured.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Did the veto end AI regulation in California?
No. The veto ended SB 1047, not California’s interest in frontier-AI oversight.
Newsom commissioned a working group that produced the California Report on Frontier AI Policy on June 17, 2025. The report presented a policy framework rather than endorsing one specific bill. It emphasized empirical evidence, adaptable thresholds, transparency, third-party assessment and a “trust but verify” approach.
That report became an important bridge between the veto and California’s later legislation. It did not revive SB 1047.
What replaced SB 1047? SB 53 explained
Newsom signed SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, on September 29, 2025. It became Chapter 138 of the Statutes of 2025.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →SB 53 is not SB 1047 with a new number. It is a narrower, more transparency-oriented framework focused on large frontier developers. Covered developers must generally:
- write, implement, follow and publish a frontier-AI safety framework;
- explain how the framework incorporates national, international and industry standards;
- define and assess thresholds for catastrophic risk;
- adopt mitigations based on risk assessments;
- review mitigations before deployment or extensive internal use;
- address third-party assessment;
- maintain cybersecurity practices for unreleased model weights;
- identify and respond to critical safety incidents;
- review and, where appropriate, update the framework at least annually;
- publish specified transparency information before or concurrently with deployment of a new or substantially modified frontier model;
- send specified risk-assessment summaries to the California Office of Emergency Services; and
- maintain covered whistleblower processes and protections.
The statute also provides for civil penalties enforceable by the Attorney General. Some safety and incident information submitted to the state is subject to confidentiality and public-records limitations, so the law does not require every risk assessment to be released publicly in full.
SB 53 applies according to statutory definitions of frontier models, frontier developers and large frontier developers. A company that merely uses an AI service is not automatically covered.
SB 1047 versus SB 53
| Issue | SB 1047 | SB 53 |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Vetoed September 29, 2024 | Enacted September 29, 2025 |
| Main emphasis | Safety duties, safeguards, audits, liability and prevention of catastrophic harm | Transparency, risk frameworks, reporting, oversight and whistleblower protections |
| Regulatory trigger | Strongly associated with development-compute thresholds | Statutory definitions for frontier models and large developers, with later review and update recommendations |
| Oversight | Proposed Board of Frontier Models | Office of Emergency Services reporting, Department of Technology review and a proposed CalCompute framework |
| Current legal effect | None | Current California law, subject to its definitions, implementation requirements and later amendments |
What California businesses and consumers should know
SB 1047 was not a general consumer AI law. Its proposed obligations were aimed primarily at frontier-model developers and certain computing providers. SB 53 likewise does not automatically regulate every employer, investor, app developer or individual who uses an AI tool.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFor ordinary consumers, the practical effects are more indirect: the law may influence how covered developers document safety practices, disclose information and respond to serious incidents. It does not guarantee that AI systems are safe, accurate or free from discrimination.
For businesses building or substantially modifying frontier models, coverage and compliance obligations depend on the statute’s technical definitions and the facts of the company’s operations. The official SB 53 status page and full statutory text should be consulted for the operative rules.
What to watch next
The live policy questions are implementation and scope, not whether SB 1047 will be signed.
- Definition updates: The Department of Technology must assess developments and recommend updates to key definitions by January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter.
- Attorney General reporting: Annual reporting on anonymized and aggregated covered-employee disclosures begins January 1, 2027.
- Agency implementation: The reporting process, guidance and enforcement approach will determine how SB 53 works in practice.
- CalCompute: The proposed consortium and its funding condition could affect California’s technical capacity for AI evaluation and oversight.
- Federal action: Congress could establish national rules or preempt some state requirements, affecting how California’s framework operates.
- New state laws: California may continue addressing narrower risks involving deepfakes, child safety, privacy, labor and consumer fraud.
Newsom’s SB 53 signing message acknowledged the importance of federal involvement, especially for national-security issues, while defending a state role in transparency and safety oversight.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →The Bottom Line
Bottom line: Newsom will not sign SB 1047 because he vetoed it on September 29, 2024. California did not abandon frontier-AI regulation; it shifted toward SB 53, a narrower transparency and risk-governance law enacted in 2025. The next major questions concern SB 53’s implementation, changing technical definitions and the possibility of federal legislation or preemption.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
