Liability Shifts, Hourly Nudges, and the Tobacco-Style Warning in Connecticut’s New AI Law
Key quote:
The use of an automated employment-related decision technology, as defined in section 7 of this act, shall not be a defense against a complaint alleging a discriminatory practice in violation of this subdivision.
Why it matters:
Connecticut’s SB 5, currently awaiting the governor’s signature, fundamentally breaks the “black box” defense for employers. While a company can theoretically deploy an Automated Employment-Related Decision Process (AERDP) tomorrow without running a single bias audit, the law says they’re still liable if that tool discriminates. The statute explicitly bars employers from blaming the AI. Instead, the burden of proof, and the financial risk of testing, is entirely on the deployer. This creates a “safe harbor” incentive: if you’re sued, evidence of rigorous anti-bias testing can mitigate penalties, but the lack of it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re automatically found guilty.
The bill also introduces a fatigue-inducing transparency regime. Much like Washington’s HB 2225, Connecticut mandates that AI companions disclose their non-human status every hour for users under 18. This prescriptive frequency invites the same user behavior we see with cookie banners: a race to the bottom where users mindlessly click “accept” until they install browser extensions to do it for them, rendering the disclosure potentially meaningless. This is compliance theatre.
However, the wildest move is in Section 39(c)(1)(A). Effective January 1, 2028, social media platforms must display a Surgeon General warning – “social media is associated with significant mental health harms and has not been proven safe for young users” – occupying 75% of the screen for 30 seconds upon a minor’s first daily access. This isn’t just a disclosure; it is a design mandate modeled on tobacco warnings. This, combined with broad prohibitions on “sycophancy” and engagement optimization, could effectively ban consumer chatbots for minors in the state. With the Attorney General as the primary enforcer and a potential private right of action lurking for youth protections, Connecticut is setting a high-stakes precedent that prioritizes aggressive intervention over industry flexibility.
