Governor Newsom vetoed AB 2656, which would have required 45 days' notice to a recognized employee organization before California public employers developed, purchased or required the use of generative AI

Key takeaways

• AB 2656 did not become law. The Governor returned it "without my signature".
• The bill, as the message describes it, would have required at least 45 days' written notice to a recognized employee organization before public employers developed, purchased or required the use of generative AI for work in the job classification it represents.
• The Governor called the measure redundant administrative layers and said the issue is best resolved through collective bargaining.
• The message agrees employees "should be made aware" of significant new technologies, so the dispute is about the mechanism.

Did Governor Newsom sign AB 2656, and is it law?

No. The veto message, dated 30 September 2026, opens: "I am returning Assembly Bill 2656 without my signature." It closes: "For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill." The message is addressed to the Members of the California State Assembly. We read that as a veto of AB 2656, so its proposed notice duty binds no California public employer. This article describes the bill as the Governor's message characterises it.

What would AB 2656 have required of public employers?

According to the Governor's summary, the bill "would require public employers to provide a recognized employee organization with at least 45 days' written notice" before "developing, purchasing, or requiring the use of any generative artificial intelligence" to perform a service within the scope of work of the job classification that organization represents.

Three features of that summary matter for readers. The duty would run to a recognized employee organization, not to individual employees. It would attach to generative AI, not to every automated tool. And it would be triggered by development, purchase or a requirement to use, so the notice would come before those steps. The message does not describe the bill's remedies, exemptions or effective date, and we did not open the bill text.

What reasons did the Governor give for the veto?

The message gives one point of agreement and two objections. On agreement: "I believe that employees should be made aware when employers introduce new technologies that significantly impact them." On the objections, the Governor wrote that the measure "would impose redundant administrative layers on public agencies and slow the deployment of even the most innocuous tools."

The second objection moves the topic to another forum: "this issue is best resolved through the collective bargaining process, which allows employees and employers to tailor rules appropriate for their workplace." The message cites no data and no existing statute, and it announces no replacement policy or executive action.

What does the veto mean for public-sector labor lawyers, unions and agency counsel, and what should they do now?

In our reading, AB 2656's proposed 45-day notice step does not apply, and the Governor points parties to bargaining. The message does not address any notice or bargaining right under other statutes, rules or agreements, so we draw no conclusion about them.

Practical steps, each our suggestion and none required by the message:

• Union side: check current agreements for technology-change, notice and impact-bargaining language, and consider whether generative AI needs its own clause.
• Agency side: keep a list of generative AI tools proposed or in use, by job classification, so any notice or bargaining request can be answered quickly.
• Both sides: confirm with counsel which existing statutes, rules or agreements already require notice or bargaining on new technology, since this message does not address them.

What are the key dates and thresholds?

What we did not verify

What we opened: the Governor's veto message for AB 2656, a one-page PDF on gov.ca.gov, on 2026-10-25. The PDF is a scanned image, so we read it visually and by text recognition and checked each quotation against the image.

What we did not open: the text of AB 2656, its legislative history and vote counts, any analysis by the author, unions or employer groups, and any later announcement of a new bill. We state no vote totals, author, sponsor or effects beyond what the message says.

What we refuse to claim: that the bill became law, that any notice duty now exists or is waived under any other source, that the Governor changed any bargaining right, or that the topic will return in a later session.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• North America AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• California SB 947 on automated decision systems in discipline and discharge
• California AI workforce executive order and WARN
• California SB 951 on Cal-WARN notice for AI-related layoffs
• California CPPA rules on automated decision-making in employment