72-Hour Update on SB 26-189: Public Hearing Scheduled, Written Comments Due July 10; Key Definitions Including “Commercially Reasonable” Clarified in Legal Analyses
Published: June 2, 2026
By: Zeeshan Khan
Reading time: 16 minutes
Category: Technology / Consumer Rights / Law
Note: June 2, 2026 – This is an update to the May 28, 2026 article: Colorado AI Law Moves to Public Rulemaking Hearing – Attorney General Schedules Comment Period as Enforcement Pause Continues
DENVER – June 2, 2026 – Five days after the Colorado Attorney General published a notice of public rulemaking hearing, the office has now scheduled the hearing for July 21, 2026, and opened a written comment period running through July 10, 2026. The Attorney General’s commitment not to enforce Senate Bill 26-189 until after rulemaking concludes remains in effect, and the substantive obligations of the law still take effect on January 1, 2027.
This 72-hour update covers the newly scheduled public hearing date, the open written comment period, key clarifications from recent legal analyses regarding the “commercially reasonable” standard for meaningful human review, and the unchanged status of the pending xAI lawsuit.
The Essentials: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How (Last 72 Hours)
Who: Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, whose office has now scheduled the public rulemaking hearing and opened a formal comment period; AI developers and deployers doing business in Colorado; HIPAA-covered entities and business associates (exempted); stakeholders including businesses, consumer advocates, and legal experts; and the court overseeing the pending xAI lawsuit.
What: Three major developments since May 28, 2026:
- The Attorney General has scheduled the public rulemaking hearing for July 21, 2026
- The written comment period is now open, with comments due July 10, 2026
- Recent legal analyses have clarified the “commercially reasonable” standard for meaningful human review and detailed the comparative fault liability framework
When:
- May 31, 2026 – Attorney General’s office announces public hearing date of July 21, 2026, with written comments due July 10, 2026
- May 27, 2026 – Attorney General’s office publishes notice of public rulemaking hearing (previously reported)
- May 25, 2026 – Attorney General’s office publishes formal notice of intent to commence rulemaking
- May 14, 2026 – Governor Polis signs SB 26-189 into law
- January 1, 2027 – Law’s substantive obligations take effect (unchanged)
Where: The rulemaking process is conducted by the Colorado Attorney General’s office in Denver. The public hearing will be held in Colorado; virtual participation options are expected. The law applies to any entity “doing business in Colorado” that develops or deploys covered automated decision-making technology (ADMT).
Why (Immediate Cause): The Attorney General is required to adopt rules by January 1, 2027, to implement the law. Scheduling the public hearing and opening the comment period are required procedural steps under Colorado’s Administrative Procedure Act, allowing stakeholders to provide input before proposed rules are drafted.
How (Mechanism): The Attorney General has broad rulemaking authority under the new law. The public hearing on July 21 will accept oral comments. The written comment period, open through July 10, accepts electronic submissions. After receiving public input, the Attorney General will draft proposed rules, publish them for additional comment, and then adopt final rules.
Specific Updates in the Last 72 Hours (May 30 – June 2, 2026)
1. Public Rulemaking Hearing Scheduled for July 21, 2026
On May 31, 2026, the Colorado Attorney General’s office announced that the public rulemaking hearing for SB 26-189 has been scheduled for July 21, 2026. This represents a concrete date for the next major procedural step.
What the Hearing Will Address: The hearing will focus on the key undefined terms in the statute, including:
- Standards for “meaningful human review” (training requirements, documentation standards, deliberation thresholds)
- Content and format requirements for adverse outcome notices (including “plain language” standards)
- The “materially influences” threshold for covered ADMT
- Record retention standards (format, accessibility, specific data elements)
- Criteria for determining “knowing or repeated” violations affecting the cure period
Connection to Previous Article: The May 28 article noted that a public hearing notice had been published but did not specify a date. The May 31 announcement provides that date: July 21, 2026.
2. Written Comment Period Now Open – Due July 10, 2026
The Attorney General’s office is now accepting written comments on proposed rules through July 10, 2026 – eleven days before the public hearing.
How to Submit: Stakeholders can submit comments electronically through the Attorney General’s website. The office has indicated that all timely comments will be considered before proposed rules are drafted.
What Comments Should Address: The comment period is designed to gather input on the key undefined terms identified above. Stakeholders – including businesses, consumer advocates, legal experts, and individual citizens – can provide recommendations on how these terms should be defined in the final rules.
3. “Commercially Reasonable” Standard Clarified for Meaningful Human Review
Recent legal analyses published by multiple law firms have clarified that the meaningful human review requirement applies only “to the extent commercially reasonable.”
What This Means: This caveat provides significant flexibility for employers with high-volume hiring or automated decision-making processes. As one analysis notes:
“In many cases, implementing an automated decision-making technology may not be worth the cost of implementation where the employer must also set up a parallel process for meaningful human review and reconsideration. In that case, employers may have a reasonable argument that compliance with the review right is not ‘commercially reasonable.’”
Practical Implication: The “commercially reasonable” standard is expected to be a key focus of the rulemaking process. Businesses should monitor how the Attorney General defines this term in proposed rules.
4. Liability Allocation Framework Detailed
Recent analyses have clarified the comparative fault framework between developers and deployers under SB 26-189.
Developer Liability Conditions:
- Developers are liable if the ADMT system is “used by a deployer in a manner that was intended, documented, marketed, advertised, configured, or contracted for by the developer” but nonetheless gives rise to a discrimination claim
- Developers are NOT liable if the deployer uses the system “in a manner that was not intended, documented, marketed, advertised, configured, or contracted for by the developer”
Indemnification Restriction: Contractual indemnification provisions that would shift liability for a party’s own discriminatory acts are void as against public policy. Any contract term that would shield a developer or deployer from liability for its own discriminatory acts is unenforceable.
5. Record Retention Requirements Clarified
SB 26-189 requires deployers to retain records “reasonably necessary to demonstrate compliance” for at least three years after making a consequential decision.
Examples of Required Records:
- ADMT version identifiers and changelogs
- Documentation of material mitigation changes
- Pre-use notices and records of how they were communicated
- Adverse action notices provided to individuals
Rulemaking Role: The public comment period and July 21 hearing will address the specific format, accessibility, and data element requirements for these records.
6. Enforcement Remains on Hold – Unchanged
The Attorney General’s commitment not to enforce the law until after the rulemaking process concludes remains in effect. This enforcement pause, first reported in the May 22 article and confirmed in subsequent updates, is unchanged.
Current Enforcement Status:
| Element | Status |
|---|---|
| Enforcement | ON HOLD – AG will not enforce until after rulemaking concludes |
| Rulemaking | PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED – July 21, 2026 |
| Written comment deadline | July 10, 2026 |
| Effective date | January 1, 2027 (unchanged) |
7. xAI Lawsuit Remains Pending – Unchanged
The federal lawsuit from Elon Musk’s xAI, which challenges the original 2024 AI law, remains pending. The court’s stay remains active until 14 days after a ruling on xAI’s preliminary injunction motion.
| Element | Status |
|---|---|
| xAI lawsuit | PENDING |
| Preliminary injunction motion | PENDING – no ruling as of June 2, 2026 |
| Court’s stay | ACTIVE – until 14 days after ruling on injunction motion |
| Potential impact on SB 189 | Unknown – could invalidate or modify the law |
Connection to Rulemaking: The pending lawsuit could affect the rulemaking process. If the court invalidates the law or grants a broad injunction, the rulemaking may need to be adjusted or suspended. Businesses should monitor both the rulemaking and the litigation.
8. Health Care Exemption and “Meaningful Human Review” Definition: Unchanged
The health care exemption and the statutory definition of “meaningful human review” remain unchanged from previous articles.
Health Care Exemption (Confirmed): HIPAA covered entities and business associates are exempted from most developer and deployer obligations unless they are using ADMT to make employment-related consequential decisions.
“Meaningful Human Review” Definition (Confirmed): The statutory definition remains: a trained individual with authority to approve, modify, or override the decision, who considers relevant evidence and cannot simply default to the system’s output. The “commercially reasonable” caveat applies to the implementation of this requirement.
Comparison: Before (May 28 Article) and After (June 2 – Current)
| Issue | As of May 28, 2026 (Article) | As of June 2, 2026 (Current) |
|---|---|---|
| Public hearing date | To be announced | SCHEDULED: July 21, 2026 |
| Written comment deadline | To be determined | July 10, 2026 |
| Rulemaking status | Notice published May 27 | Active public comment period open |
| “Commercially reasonable” standard | Not specified | CLARIFIED – applies to meaningful human review |
| Liability framework | Confirmed broadly | DETAILED – developer/deployer conditions specified |
| Record retention examples | Not specified | CLARIFIED – version IDs, changelogs, notices |
| Enforcement | ON HOLD – unchanged | ON HOLD – unchanged |
| Effective date | January 1, 2027 | January 1, 2027 (unchanged) |
| xAI lawsuit | PENDING – unchanged | PENDING – unchanged |
Rulemaking Timeline and Process (Updated)
The Attorney General’s rulemaking authority under SB 26-189 follows Colorado’s Administrative Procedure Act.
| Phase | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Notice of intent | COMPLETED (May 25, 2026) | Formal initiation of rulemaking process |
| 2. Public hearing notice | COMPLETED (May 27, 2026) | Notice that public comments will be accepted |
| 3. Written comment period | OPEN – due July 10, 2026 | Electronic submissions accepted |
| 4. Public hearing | SCHEDULED – July 21, 2026 | Oral comments accepted |
| 5. Proposed rules published | PENDING | Draft rules released for additional comment |
| 6. Final rules adopted | PENDING (deadline Jan 1, 2027) | Binding regulatory requirements established |
Key Areas to Be Addressed Through Rulemaking (Updated)
The public comment period and July 21 hearing will address these key undefined terms:
| Area | Current Status in Law | What Rulemaking Will Clarify |
|---|---|---|
| Meaningful human review | Defined broadly; “commercially reasonable” standard applies | Specific training requirements, documentation standards, deliberation thresholds, what constitutes “considering relevant evidence” |
| Adverse outcome notices | Required within 30 days; specific content “to be determined by Attorney General rules” | Mandatory content, format, delivery methods, timing exceptions, “plain language” standards |
| Covered ADMT scope | Defined as technology that “materially influences” consequential decisions | Threshold for “materially influences,” specific examples, boundaries, exemptions |
| Record retention | 3-year requirement | Format, accessibility, specific data elements to retain (version IDs, changelogs, notices) |
| Cure period | 60 days; AG may skip for knowing/repeated violations | Criteria for determining “knowing or repeated” violations |
Arguments For and Against the Rulemaking Process (Updated for June 2)
In Favor of the Scheduled Hearing and Open Comment Period
- Concrete Timeline Established – The July 21 hearing date and July 10 comment deadline provide certainty for stakeholders planning to participate.
- Allows Stakeholder Input – The public hearing and comment period allow businesses, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders to provide input on implementing regulations before they are drafted.
- Provides Transparency – The public notice and scheduling requirements ensure that the rulemaking process is transparent. Stakeholders can track the process and participate at designated points.
- “Commercially Reasonable” Standard Provides Flexibility – The clarification that meaningful human review applies only “to the extent commercially reasonable” provides important flexibility for businesses, particularly those with high-volume operations.
Against the Rulemaking Process (Updated for June 2)
- Enforcement Remains Delayed – While rulemaking is moving forward, enforcement remains on hold until it concludes. Consumers discriminated against by AI systems still have no immediate recourse.
- Final Rules Not Yet Drafted – The July 21 hearing is for input, not for adoption of final rules. Proposed rules have not yet been published. Businesses must prepare for the January 1, 2027 effective date without knowing final regulatory requirements.
- xAI Lawsuit Could Invalidate the Law – The pending xAI lawsuit could invalidate or significantly modify the law before rulemaking is complete. If the court rules against the law, the rulemaking may be rendered moot.
- “Commercially Reasonable” Standard Requires Definition – While the standard provides flexibility, its meaning is itself uncertain. The rulemaking process must define what “commercially reasonable” means in practice, which will be a key point of contention.
Remaining Concerns (Updated for June 2)
| Concern | Status |
|---|---|
| Enforcement on hold | AG discretion – could change after rulemaking |
| Rulemaking timeline | Must be completed by Jan 1, 2027 – public hearing scheduled but no proposed rules yet |
| xAI lawsuit pending | Could invalidate or modify the law |
| “Commercially reasonable” standard undefined | Awaiting rulemaking clarification |
| Private right of action | Not included (unchanged) |
| Cure period (60 days) | May allow violators to avoid penalties |
| AG resources for enforcement | Limited – uncertain capacity |
| Consumer awareness | Minimal – most Coloradans unaware of changes |
Current Status (As of June 2, 2026, 14:00 EST)
| Element | Status |
|---|---|
| SB 26-189 signature | COMPLETED (May 14, 2026) |
| Effective date | January 1, 2027 |
| Enforcement | ON HOLD – AG will not enforce until after rulemaking |
| Rulemaking – notice of intent | COMPLETED (May 25, 2026) |
| Rulemaking – public hearing notice | COMPLETED (May 27, 2026) |
| Rulemaking – public hearing date | SCHEDULED: July 21, 2026 |
| Rulemaking – written comment deadline | July 10, 2026 |
| Rulemaking – proposed rules | PENDING |
| Rulemaking – final rules | PENDING (deadline Jan 1, 2027) |
| xAI lawsuit | PENDING – stay remains active |
| “Commercially reasonable” standard | CLARIFIED – applies to meaningful human review |
| Health care exemption | CONFIRMED – HIPAA entities exempted |
| Liability framework | DETAILED – comparative fault, no indemnification for own acts |
| “Meaningful human review” definition | CONFIRMED – high bar, no defaulting to output; “commercially reasonable” caveat applies |
| Private right of action | NOT INCLUDED |
| Cure period | 60 days (expires Jan 1, 2030) |
What to Watch For
| Event | Expected Timing | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Written comment deadline | July 10, 2026 | Final date for stakeholder input |
| Public rulemaking hearing | July 21, 2026 | Oral testimony accepted |
| Proposed rules published | After July 21 (likely August-September 2026) | First draft of binding regulations; will define “commercially reasonable” |
| xAI preliminary injunction ruling | Unknown – pending | Could invalidate or modify the law |
| Final rule adoption | By January 1, 2027 (statutory deadline) | Binding regulatory requirements |
| Law effective date | January 1, 2027 | Substantive obligations begin |
| Enforcement begins | After rulemaking concludes | No firm date – could be well after January 1, 2027 |
Why This Matters to the Average Person (Updated for June 2)
The scheduling of the July 21 public hearing and the opening of the comment period might seem like technical administrative steps, but they matter for several reasons that affect every American who has ever applied for a job, a loan, an apartment, or medical care.
First, the rulemaking process now has a concrete timeline. The May 28 article noted that a public hearing had been noticed but not scheduled. Now the hearing is scheduled for July 21, and written comments are due July 10. Stakeholders have specific dates for participation.
Second, the “commercially reasonable” standard provides important context. Recent legal analyses have clarified that the meaningful human review requirement applies only “to the extent commercially reasonable.” This means that for high-volume operations, full human review of every automated decision may not be required if it is not commercially feasible. How this standard is defined in rulemaking will determine the practical compliance burden for businesses and the practical protections for consumers.
Third, key definitions remain uncertain. While the hearing is scheduled, the key definitions that businesses need for compliance planning are not yet final. The “commercially reasonable” standard itself requires definition. Businesses must prepare for the January 1, 2027 effective date without knowing the final regulatory requirements.
Fourth, enforcement remains on hold. The Attorney General’s commitment not to enforce until after rulemaking concludes remains in effect. Consumers discriminated against by AI systems still have no immediate recourse. But the clock is now ticking toward eventual enforcement.
Fifth, the xAI lawsuit could change everything. The pending federal lawsuit could invalidate or significantly modify the law before rulemaking is complete. Businesses and consumers should monitor both the rulemaking and the litigation.
The bottom line: The Colorado AI law is moving forward with the rulemaking process now in the active public comment phase. The Attorney General has scheduled a public hearing for July 21, 2026, and opened a written comment period through July 10, 2026. Recent legal analyses have clarified that meaningful human review applies only “to the extent commercially reasonable” and have detailed the comparative fault liability framework. The Attorney General remains committed to not enforcing until after rulemaking concludes. The pending xAI lawsuit could affect or invalidate the law. The next critical milestones are the July 10 comment deadline, the July 21 public hearing, the publication of proposed rules, and the ruling on xAI’s preliminary injunction motion.
Sources
- Colorado Attorney General’s Office (May 31, 2026) – Announcement scheduling public rulemaking hearing for SB 26-189 on July 21, 2026, with written comments due July 10, 2026
- Colorado Attorney General’s Office (May 27, 2026) – Notice of public rulemaking hearing for SB 26-189
- Colorado Attorney General’s Office (May 25, 2026) – Formal notice of intent to commence rulemaking for SB 26-189, published in Colorado Register and on Secretary of State website
- Cozen O’Connor (June 1, 2026) – “Colorado Replaces Its AI Act with a Narrower Transparency-Focused Law” – Analysis of liability allocation, indemnification voidness, and consumer rights
- Littler Mendelson P.C. (May 14, 2026) – “Colorado Amends its Artificial Intelligence Law, Substantially Reducing Obligations on Employers” – “Commercially reasonable” standard, record retention, cure period
- National Law Review (May 21, 2026) – “Multistage Notices Under Colorado’s Revamped AI Act” – Two-step notice framework details
- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP – Ad Law Access (May 15-22, 2026) – Analysis of signature, enforcement pause, liability provisions, and health care exemption
- Reed Smith LLP – Technology Law Dispatch (May 15-22, 2026) – Updated analysis of SB 189 provisions, “meaningful human review” definition
- Colorado General Assembly (May 14, 2026) – Bill signing record for SB 26-189
- Previous article: Colorado AI Law Moves to Public Rulemaking Hearing – Attorney General Schedules Comment Period as Enforcement Pause Continues (The 5 Ws, May 28, 2026) – Baseline information on public hearing notice publication and enforcement pause
The 5 W's 
Leave a comment