AI Regulation in Colorado
Colorado has 14 tracked AI regulatory updates across 1 frameworks. This page provides an overview of the current regulatory landscape, upcoming deadlines, and recent enforcement activity.
Recent Regulatory Updates
Colorado SB 189 – Automated Decision-Making Technology
Colorado SB 189 was signed by the Governor on 2026-05-14, indicating the state has enacted a new automated decision-making framework that compliance teams need to map against existing AI controls.
Colorado SB189 sent to governor on automated decision-making technology
Colorado SB189 was sent to the governor on 2026-05-12, meaning a statewide automated decision-making law may be imminent and organizations should finalize gap remediation before enactment.
Colorado HB1139 advances on use of AI in health care
Colorado HB1139 advanced to Senate third reading on 2026-05-11, increasing the likelihood of new AI-specific obligations for health-care use cases that could require near-term policy and vendor review.
CO SB189: Automated Decision-Making Technology
Colorado SB189 passed House Third Reading on May 9, 2026, moving automated decision-making technology legislation closer to adoption and increasing the need to map impacted systems and controls now.
CO HB1139: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care
Colorado HB1139 advanced to Senate Second Reading Special Order on May 8, 2026, signaling continued movement toward state-level AI governance for health-care use cases that may require operational and disclosure planning.
Colorado SB189 Automated Decision-Making Technology
Colorado SB189 was introduced in the Senate on 2026-05-01, adding another state-level automated decision-making proposal that could expand obligations for organizations using AI in consequential decisions.
Colorado state AI governance regime remains material in multi-state compliance planning
Colorado remains one of the states with enacted private-sector AI governance requirements, so organizations operating nationally must keep their high-risk AI inventories, impact assessments, and disclosure workflows aligned to Colorado-specific obligations.
Bryan Dorsey v. Robert T. Jones
The state court listing gives no substantive outcome, so there is no actionable compliance change in the provided record.
State v. Bailey
The state court listing is caption-only and does not identify any operative holding, so no regulatory action is evident from the supplied text.
Bryan v. Child Support Enforcement Agency
The state court listing is caption-only and does not disclose an operative ruling, so there is no compliance delta in the supplied text.
In the Interest of W.G., Minor Child
The minor-child case entry is purely caption-level in the supplied text, with no discernible regulatory or compliance trigger.
Patrick Hrdlichka v. Samantha Bengston
The supplied state court listing lacks any substantive ruling, leaving no actionable compliance change to implement from the available text.
Hoke Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. State
This state court entry contains no substantive holding in the supplied text, so it does not create a discernible regulatory change on the present record.
Colorado state AI governance remains part of broader US state legislative wave
Colorado remains part of the active state-AI legislative environment tracked by IAPP and NCSL, so organizations operating there should expect additional AI-specific obligations to emerge alongside other state laws.
Applicable Frameworks
Key Topics
Weekly digest — coming soon
Leave your email to get the first issue when it ships. Free, no account required.
We use your email only for the digest. Privacy policy