You can lose a job to AI, but in California, a human has to make the decision to fire you.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law the No Robo Bosses Act 2026, requiring human oversight in the workplace specifically when it comes to firing or disciplining workers.

Act SB 947, as it’s officially known, was introduced by Senator Jerry McNerney to push back against the use of automated decision making systems (ADS) in the workplace. In a statement, McNerney’s office pointed to the rise of “bossware” products used to manage workplaces, which have led to people being mistakenly fired. The new law doesn’t outright ban the use of such systems, but requires a human in the loop.

“No worker should ever be fired or disciplined by a robo boss,” said McNerney, in a statement. “Artificial intelligence systems have the potential to increase productivity, but they’ve also been prone to errors, bias, and misjudgments.”

McNerney added that the aim is ensuring human oversight in workplaces. “AI must remain a tool controlled by humans, not the other way around,” he said.

California has led AI regulation, with laws requiring frontier AI developers to report safety incidents and publish safety frameworks, forcing AI generated content to be labeled as such, and creating a registry for AI auditors, alongside rules targeting political and sexual deepfakes, and AI generated unauthorised replicas of performers, among others. Newsom signed into law a list of other AI rules this week, including banning lawyers from handing over core work wholly to AI and requiring educational institutions to train staff and students about AI.

“Super intelligence is clearly not coming from the White House – that’s why California continues to lead,” Newsom said in a statement. “AI should expand opportunity – not come at the expense of workers and families. As this technology reshapes the workplace, California is putting people at the center, ensuring we all have a voice in the decisions shaping their future.”

No robo bosses

The robo boss legislation has three points. First, it bans employers from relying solely on ADS to make firing or disciplinary decisions. Second, it requires human oversight and verification when employers do use ADS to assist in those decisions. And third, if a company does use ADS for termination or disciplinary decisions, the impacted worker must be informed.

The rules will be enforced by the California labor commissioner, state attorney general, or local prosecutors. Similar laws are in the works in a handful of other states.

The law was backed by the local labor union, with Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions saying the law gives “other states and the nation a clear example of how, by letting workers lead, we can stop some of [the] worst abuses of AI at work.”

SB 947 originally included a provision to notify employees if an AI system would impact their work, but Newsom vetoed it saying the focus should be on misuse rather than forcing “unfocused notification requirements on any business using even the most innocuous tools,” he said at the time. That aspect was removed, as were protections for gig workers.

Rise of AI workplaces

The move comes as management becomes increasingly automated or algorithmically controlled. A survey from the OECD last year found that 90% of American managers polled said they have at least one such tool in place, versus 79% across Europe and 40% in Japan.

Beyond prevalence, that study also found that US companies were more likely than European counterparts to use algorithmic management for monitoring or evaluating workers even if it involves personal data and has “consequential outcomes” such as access to work. The study added that two-thirds of managers were concerned about the impact on workers, particularly with regards to unclear accountability in the case of incorrect decisions.

One example of that playing out now regards Meta, which faces a lawsuit after the Facebook-owner attempted to apply AI to monitoring and managing its own workers earlier this year, taking into account everything from token usage to keystroke monitoring – and reportedly using that data when deciding on a massive round of layoffs.

In response, a group of former and current staff have sued.

“Meta used a constellation of internal artificial intelligence systems – including a system referred to internally as ‘Metamate,’ employee-trained ‘second-brain’ agents, keystroke- and activity-monitoring data, AI-token-usage dashboards, and algorithmically assisted performance ranking and calibration – to score, rank, and select employees for inclusion on the list,” a court filing reads, noting the system disadvantaged those on leave, including for maternity or disability.