This story was produced by the Colorado Capitol News Alliance. It first appeared at .
Colorado lawmakers Monday abandoned an effort to tweak Colorado鈥檚 first-in-the-nation artificial intelligence law after it became clear that five days of intense negotiations between Democrats, the tech industry, consumer advocacy groups and unions wouldn鈥檛 yield any results.
Instead, Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez, D-Denver, amended 鈥� which would have rewritten the law 鈥� to push the start date of the policy back to June 30, 2026, from February. That will give the legislature a chance to make changes once it returns to the Capitol in January for its regular, 120-day lawmaking term.
The decision came after among consumer advocates, some in the tech industry and others on how to move forward fell apart.
Negotiations over the AI law, which is meant to prevent the technology from being used as a tool of discrimination, have rocked the Capitol since lawmakers returned to the building Thursday for a special session, with shouting at times filling the halls outside of the House and Senate.
Democrats have been disagreeing with each other. Lobbyists have been livid. Confusion, anger and rumors have spread like a virus.
鈥淚t became impossible to iron out a path forward that works for everyone,鈥� Rodriguez told the Senate as he amended the bill. 鈥淚 believe this is the path forward to build on the progress we鈥檝e made.鈥�
Senate Bill 4 still has to pass the House before the delay is made final. It鈥檚 possible, though highly unlikely, a shakeup could happen before then.
The new version of the bill, assuming it passes, means the last hopes for critics of the law 鈥� including the tech industry, Gov. Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser and members of the state鈥檚 congressional delegation 鈥� are that the legislature will tweak the policy next year. The governor and tech leaders in particular had hoped for this outcome.
鈥淏y extending the timeline, we now have the opportunity to work collaboratively on practical solutions that strengthen consumer trust, safeguard jobs, and preserve Colorado鈥檚 competitiveness,鈥� Brittany Morris Saunders, president and CEO of the Colorado Technology Association, said in a written statement.
Loren Furman, who leads the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, thanked Rodriguez for 鈥渁llowing Colorado businesses more time to work on the current AI law instead of pushing bad policy through a rushed special session process.鈥�
But shaping the statute in a way everyone can agree on has proven impossible for going on two years.
Polis asked lawmakers to take up the AI law when the legislature gathered starting Thursday for a special session in the state budget caused by tax policy changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That鈥檚 the Republican federal tax and spending bill passed in July and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
When Rodriguez passed Colorado鈥檚 law regulating artificial intelligence in 2024, it created an uproar over concerns it was too stringent and would stifle technological advances. At the time, he, the governor and the tech industry agreed to work together to make changes ahead of it going into effect.
But an attempt earlier this year during the legislature鈥檚 regular session 鈥� as did a last-ditch effort to .
Rodriguez warned heading into the special session that the compressed timeframe would make it very difficult to reach a deal on how to change the AI law, which was designed to prevent AI from discriminating and harming people when they do things like apply for jobs, seek out loans and pursue a college degree.
鈥淲e shouldn鈥檛 be focusing on this in special session,鈥� he said last week. 鈥淚 was ready to deal with it all summer so we could deal with it as soon as (the 2026) session started.鈥�
Still, Rodriguez said heading into the special session that he 鈥渞eally hoped鈥� he could broker an agreement to rein in an industry he likened to 鈥渒ids running with scissors.鈥�
On Sunday night, . Top Democrats told their colleagues that they had crafted the framework of an agreement. But by Monday morning, the compromise started to fall apart, mainly over how liable AI developers and deployers should be when their technology leads to discrimination.
鈥淏usiness, consumer protection advocates, labor and educators came together, but big tech didn鈥檛 like the bill because they don鈥檛 like the liability,鈥� Rodriguez said on the Senate floor Monday.
State Rep. Brianna Titone, an Arvada Democrat who was another lead sponsor of Senate Bill 4, said 鈥渨e had a good thing going鈥� with the pending compromise. But she said tech companies were being unreasonable in how much influence they wanted in the bill-drafting process.
Titone took her name off the bill Monday night in protest.
鈥淚鈥檓 not going to support kicking the can down the road,鈥� she said.
State Rep. Michael Carter, an Aurora Democrat who ran a competing AI regulatory bill backed by the industry, said the delay was the only option.
鈥淕ive us some breathing room,鈥� he said. 鈥淟et鈥檚 do it right. Let鈥檚 not rush it.鈥�
After hours of work on Monday afternoon, the last vestiges of hope for a deal were gone. Rodriguez opted to release the legislature from what was starting to feel like a hostage situation 鈥� the special session couldn鈥檛 end until there was a resolution on AI.
Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Democrat from Denver, voted for the bill in its amended form, but in a speech on the Senate floor urged her colleagues to continue their work 鈥渢o hold these powerful companies to account.鈥�
She called out the intense tech lobbying effort during the special session.
鈥淎ll 35 of us in this building know that we too have witnessed the stunning brunt of AI leverage,鈥� she said.
The law, unless it is changed next year by the legislature, will require companies to assess and disclose, to regulators and consumers, when AI is being used for consequential decisions, like employment, loans and housing. It will also require companies to provide an explanation of how their technology works to consumers who don鈥檛 like how AI made a determination.
The Colorado Attorney General鈥檚 Office would enforce the law, which carries a fine of up to $20,000 per violation, and field complaints.
