Law / United States / 
California
Generative Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013)
Cal. Assemb. B. 2013, 2023-2024 Reg. Sess. (chaptered )
In force since , under challenge in court.
A text and data mining (TDM) opt-out rule binding public and private bodies.
- Instrument type
- an act of a legislature
- Court action
A suit challenging this law is pending. No court has blocked it. Premium data
What it requires
- Applies to you only if you develop a generative AI system.
- Publish on your website a summary of the training data used for your generative AI system; compliance was required by .NIST AI RMFMAP 2.3
- In that summary, disclose the data's copyright status and ownership, and whether it included personal information or third-party copyrighted content (including news).NIST AI RMFMAP 4.1
- You need not check for a publisher's opt-out under this law: it grants publishers no explicit opt-out or compensation right, and its pressure on developers who scraped news for training comes from disclosure.
- Expect enforceability to be uncertain: a December 2025 federal executive order directed review of state AI regulations for conflict with federal policy.
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 2.3Scientific integrity and TEVV considerations are identified and documented, including those related to experimental design, data collection and selection (e.g., availability, representativeness, suitability), system trustworthiness, and construct validation.
- MAP 4.1Approaches for mapping AI technology and legal risks of its components – including the use of third-party data or software – are in place, followed, and documented, as are risks of infringement of a third party’s intellectual property or other rights.
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Who enforces it
Settledness
A Ninth Circuit appeal, No. 26-1591, from the Central District of California, No. 2:25-cv-12295, was pending with an amicus brief filed on .
- As of
- Under challenge
- Yes
- Open questions
- Does "released on or after " limit the generative artificial intelligence system or service, or the substantial modification, so that a system first released before that date is covered once the developer makes a substantial modification available to Californians?
- Does releasing downloadable model weights, with no terms of compensation, make a generative artificial intelligence system "publicly available to Californians for use" within section 3111?
What this law does
Signed , this law requires developers of generative AI systems to publish on their websites summaries of training data used, disclosing copyright status, data ownership, and whether personal information or third-party copyrighted content (including news) was included; compliance required by . The law does not grant publishers an explicit opt-out or compensation right but creates de facto disclosure pressure on AI developers who scraped news content for training.
A December 2025 federal executive order directed review of state AI regulations for conflict with federal policy, creating some enforceability uncertainty.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app reuses other publishers' content, crawls the web or trains models.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .