Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
California enacts AB 1651, Chapter 116, adding Business and Professions Code Section 6060.15 and requiring the State Bar to disclose the use of AI-generated content in its examinations and study materials
Two California AI disclosure statutes are drafted in opposite directions on human review. AB 3030 exempts a patient communication that a licensed provider has read and reviewed. AB 1651 subdivision (d) says the reverse: the duty applies whether or not a person revised or reviewed the output. AB 1651 is enacted but not operative until 2028.
Bottom line: An enacted statute, not guidance. AB 1651 was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on 22 August 2026 as Chapter 116. It adds Section 6060.15 to the Business and Professions Code and becomes operative on 1 January 2028. The section contains no penalty clause.
Who this affects: The State Bar of California is the sole duty-holder named in the section, administering the examinations through its examining committee. Applicants sitting the general bar examination, the first-year law students' examination and the attorneys' examination. Commercial bar-preparation providers carry no duty under this section; the obligation is the State Bar's alone.
Date of legal event: Approved by the Governor 22 August 2026 and filed with the Secretary of State the same day. Chaptered date 08/22/26. The section becomes operative 1 January 2028 under subdivision (f).
The clause that makes this unusual: Subdivision (d): the disclosure duties in (b) and (c) apply regardless of whether the AI-generated content is revised or reviewed by a natural person. California's other well-known AI disclosure statute, AB 3030, does the reverse and exempts communications a licensed provider has read and reviewed.
The limit worth reading twice: Both duties are scoped to content developed by or at the explicit direction of the State Bar. Material the Bar neither developed nor directed is outside Section 6060.15 as written.
Primary sources: AB 1651 chaptered text, California Legislative Information · AB 1651 bill status and history
- Instrument
- Assembly Bill 1651 (Dixon), CHAPTER 116, an act to add Section 6060.15 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to attorneys
- Authority
- California Legislature; approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State
- Jurisdiction
- California, United States
- Date of legal event
- Approved by Governor 22 August 2026; filed with Secretary of State 22 August 2026; chaptered date 08/22/26
- Operative date
- 1 January 2028 (subdivision (f))
- Status
- Enacted. Not yet operative
- Bindingness
- Binding statute. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. Local program: no
- Who is subject to the duty
- The State Bar of California, for content developed by or at the explicit direction of the State Bar
- Exam disclosure trigger
- Use of AI-generated content in developing or administering the State Bar examinations, including any related question, performance test, answer key or scoring rubric
- Exam disclosure timing
- Posted on the State Bar's internet website 60 days before the examination in which the AI-generated content is used (subdivision (e)(1))
- Study-material disclosure
- On the cover page of the study material (subdivision (e)(2))
- Human review
- Irrelevant to the duty. Subdivision (d) applies (b) and (c) regardless of whether the content is revised or reviewed by a natural person
- Sanction available
- None specified. Section 6060.15 contains no penalty, fine or enforcement clause
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
- Primary source
- https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1651
What the statute actually requires
Section 6060.15 carries two duties and they are drafted in parallel. Subdivision (b) requires the State Bar to disclose the use of AI-generated content in developing or administering the State Bar examinations, and it enumerates what counts: any related question, performance test, answer key or scoring rubric. Subdivision (c) requires disclosure of AI-generated content in study material, listing sample or practice questions, model answers, selected answers, outlines, explanations or other instructional materials prepared, published, endorsed or distributed by the State Bar for use by applicants.
The answer key and the scoring rubric are the two items in that list a reader is most likely to skim past. A disclosure obligation that reaches the rubric is a disclosure obligation about how answers are marked, not only about how questions were written.
Subdivision (e) sets the mechanics. An exam disclosure goes on the State Bar's internet website 60 days before the examination in which the content is used. A study-material disclosure goes on the cover page. Those are different surfaces and different timing, and only the exam limb carries a deadline.
The defined terms matter for scope. Section 6060.15(a)(4) defines State Bar examinations as the general bar examination, the first-year law students' examination described in Section 6060, and the attorneys' examination described in Section 6062. AI-generated content is defined as visual or textual content generated, in whole or in part, by generative artificial intelligence.
Subdivision (d) and the California split on human review
Subdivision (d) is one sentence: subdivisions (b) and (c) apply regardless of whether the artificial intelligence-generated content is revised or reviewed by a natural person.
Read against California's other AI disclosure statute, that sentence points the other way. AB 3030 added Health and Safety Code Section 1339.75, which requires a health facility, clinic, physician's office or office of a group practice using generative AI to generate written or verbal patient communications pertaining to patient clinical information to include both a disclaimer and instructions for reaching a human. Subdivision (b) of that section then provides, in operative text and not merely in the digest, that if a communication is generated by generative artificial intelligence and read and reviewed by a human licensed or certified health care provider, the requirements of subdivision (a) do not apply. Human review switches that duty off.
In AB 1651 human review switches nothing off. The California Legislature has taken both positions across two sessions and two authors: AB 3030 was Calderon, Chapter 848 of 2024; AB 1651 is Dixon, Chapter 116 of 2026. In one the reviewing professional is the safeguard; in the other the fact of AI authorship is itself the thing being disclosed.
We are not asserting that subdivision (d) was drafted with AB 3030 in mind; no legislative history we located says so. The point is narrower and checkable: the two statutes resolve the same question differently, so whether human review cures a disclosure duty is a drafting choice each statute makes separately and cannot be generalised from one to the next. The asymmetry runs to enforcement as well. Section 1339.75 routes violations to the enforcement articles for facilities and clinics, and a physician violation to the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board. Section 6060.15 routes violations nowhere.
The scope limit that constrains all of it
Both operative subdivisions open with the same qualifier: for any content developed by or at the explicit direction of the State Bar. The Legislative Counsel's Digest states it plainly, that the bill would only require these disclosures for content developed by or at the explicit direction of the State Bar.
So the statute reaches the Bar's own material and material it commissioned. It does not, on its face, reach a commercial bar-preparation course that uses generative AI on its own initiative. The one place the boundary gets interesting is subdivision (c), which covers study material the State Bar prepared, published, endorsed or distributed. Endorsement is a lower bar than authorship, but it still has to meet the opening qualifier.
That leaves a practical question the text does not answer: what an endorsement means for material the Bar did not develop and did not direct. Nothing in Section 6060.15 resolves it, and there is no penalty clause to sharpen the incentive to resolve it early.
What is not in this statute
There is no enforcement mechanism. Section 6060.15 creates no fine, no discipline, no private right of action and no remedy for an applicant who sits an examination that should have carried a disclosure and did not.
There is no prohibition. The statute does not restrict the State Bar from using generative AI to build examinations or study materials. It requires the Bar to say so.
And there is a long runway. The section becomes operative on 1 January 2028 under subdivision (f), so the first examination that could carry a subdivision (e)(1) disclosure is more than a year out. The 60-day posting requirement means the first disclosure, if one is needed, would appear before the examination rather than with it.
AB 1651 is enacted and dated: Chapter 116, approved and filed 22 August 2026, operative 1 January 2028. Three things carry. The duty is the State Bar's alone and only for content it developed or explicitly directed. The exam disclosure carries a 60-day pre-examination posting requirement, though the text says 60 days before rather than at least 60 days before, while the study-material disclosure carries only a location, the cover page. And subdivision (d) forecloses human review as an answer to the duty, the opposite of the position Section 1339.75(b) takes on AI-generated patient communications. If your firm or school is writing an AI policy that treats human review as the thing that switches a disclosure duty off, California now has statutes pointing both ways.
Source File
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1651
Open the AB 1651 chaptered text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and confirm the header reads Assembly Bill No. 1651, CHAPTER 116, approved by Governor August 22, 2026 and filed with Secretary of State August 22, 2026. Read Section 6060.15 in full and confirm subdivision (d) reads that subdivisions (b) and (c) apply regardless of whether the content is revised or reviewed by a natural person, that subdivision (e)(1) sets the 60-day website posting, and that subdivision (f) sets the operative date at January 1, 2028. Then open the bill status page and confirm the chaptered date 08/22/26 and the title, an act to add Section 6060.15 to the Business and Professions Code.
Subdivisions (b) and (c) apply regardless of whether the artificial intelligence-generated content is revised or reviewed by a natural person. - California Business and Professions Code Section 6060.15(d), added by AB 1651, Chapter 116, Statutes of 2026
FAQ
Does AB 1651 stop the State Bar using AI to write the bar exam?
No. Section 6060.15 imposes disclosure, not prohibition. It does not restrict the State Bar from using generative AI in developing or administering the examinations; it requires the Bar to disclose that use for content it developed or explicitly directed.
When does it take effect?
The bill was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on 22 August 2026, with a chaptered date of 08/22/26. Subdivision (f) makes the section operative on 1 January 2028.
Does human review remove the disclosure duty?
No. Subdivision (d) states that subdivisions (b) and (c) apply regardless of whether the AI-generated content is revised or reviewed by a natural person. That is the reverse of Health and Safety Code Section 1339.75(b), added by AB 3030, under which the requirements do not apply to a communication generated by generative AI and read and reviewed by a human licensed or certified health care provider.
Which examinations are covered?
Section 6060.15(a)(4) defines State Bar examinations as the general bar examination, the first-year law students' examination described in Section 6060, and the attorneys' examination described in Section 6062.
Does it apply to commercial bar-prep companies?
Not on its face. Both operative subdivisions are limited to content developed by or at the explicit direction of the State Bar, and the Legislative Counsel's Digest states the disclosures are only required for such content. Subdivision (c) does reach study material the State Bar endorsed or distributed, but that still sits under the same opening qualifier.
What happens if the State Bar does not disclose?
The statute does not say. Section 6060.15 contains no penalty, no fine, no discipline provision and no private right of action.
Where does the disclosure have to appear?
Two different places. An examination disclosure is posted on the State Bar's internet website 60 days before the examination in which the AI-generated content is used. A study-material disclosure is made on the cover page of the study material.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.