AI Regulation Tracker / State law
California AB 2148 defines public school employees and contractors as natural persons, signed June 30
Governor Newsom signed AB 2148, which provides that a K-12 public school employee and a contractor performing services in a public school each mean a natural person, so districts cannot fill statutorily human roles with an AI system.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2148 on June 30, 2026, adding a short but consequential definition to California's Education Code. The measure, authored by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, provides that a public school employee and a contractor performing services in a public school each mean a natural person. It was chaptered as Chapter 45 of the Statutes of 2026.
The change reads as a technical clarification, and that is exactly the point. California law is full of duties, protections, and processes that attach to a school "employee" or to a "contractor providing services." AB 2148 fixes the meaning of those terms so that, where the law requires an employee or a contractor, it requires a person. A district cannot satisfy that requirement by pointing to an AI system.
What the statute actually says
The operative language is narrow. It states that both a public school employee and a contractor performing services in a public school mean a natural person. The bill does not create new job categories, mandate staffing levels, or define artificial intelligence. It defines who can count as the human in roles the Education Code already treats as human. For K-12 employers, that means the answer to "can software be the employee here" will be no once the statute is operative.
Who is covered
The definition reaches California's public K-12 system, including school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, and the contractors that provide services within public schools. That sweep matters for education technology vendors. A company that supplies tutoring, assessment, counseling-adjacent, or administrative services under contract needs to confirm that a person, not an automated process alone, stands behind any role the statute frames as a contractor performing services. The law speaks to the identity of the contractor and employee, not to every tool they use.
What it does not do
AB 2148 is not a ban on AI in California classrooms. It does not prohibit districts from using AI for lesson planning, grading support, scheduling, translation, or student practice tools. Teachers and staff can continue to use software as software. The line the statute draws is between using a tool and being the employee or contractor. A district may deploy an AI assistant; it may not treat that assistant as the employee or contractor that the law requires to be human. Reading the bill as a general prohibition on classroom AI overstates it.
Why the framing is deliberate
Supporters presented the bill as a guardrail against substituting automated systems for people in roles that carry professional judgment, legal accountability, and labor protections. By anchoring the definition at the level of "natural person," the Legislature avoided writing a technology-specific rule that could age quickly. The definition holds regardless of which vendor or model is in the market, because it regulates the identity of the role-holder rather than the capability of any particular product.
The choice of the phrase natural person also matters for how the rest of the code operates. Many employee protections, credentialing requirements, and contractor obligations only make sense when a human is on the other side of them. A duty to hold a credential, to be evaluated, or to be disciplined presumes a person who can hold a license or answer for conduct. AB 2148 keeps those provisions coherent by ensuring the party they attach to is always human. For professionals watching AI policy nationally, the approach is worth noting: rather than legislate against a technology, California legislated for a person, which is a model other states may borrow as similar questions reach their education codes.
The compliance work ahead
For California school employers, the near-term task is inventory. Administrators should identify any function where an AI system currently performs, or is planned to perform, work that the Education Code assigns to an employee or contractor, and confirm a natural person holds that role. Procurement staff should review vendor contracts for language that could position an automated system as the contractor of record. Vendors selling into California should expect districts to ask, in writing, who the human employee or contractor is behind an AI-enabled service.
The statute is modest in text and specific in effect. It does not, by itself, prohibit adoption of AI tools in schools, and it does not resolve the larger debates about how those tools should be used. It settles one question: in California public K-12 education, the employee and the contractor are people.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did California AB 2148 change?
It amends the Education Code to provide that a public school employee and a contractor performing services in a public school each mean a natural person. Where the law requires an employee or a contractor, that role must be held by a human once the provision becomes operative, not by an AI system.
Who does AB 2148 affect?
California public K-12 employers, including school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, along with the education technology vendors and contractors that provide services within public schools.
Does AB 2148 ban AI in California classrooms?
No. It does not prohibit AI tools for lesson planning, grading support, translation, or student practice. It only requires that roles the Education Code frames as an employee or contractor be filled by a natural person. Using AI as a tool remains permitted.
When does the law take effect?
Governor Newsom signed it on June 30, 2026, as Chapter 45 of the Statutes of 2026. As a standard, non-urgency statute, its provisions take effect January 1, 2027 under the California Constitution.
What should schools and vendors do now?
Inventory any AI use in staff-facing or contractor roles, confirm a natural person holds each statutorily human position, and review vendor contracts so no automated system is treated as the employee or contractor of record.
Sponsored Training
Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.