HB3567 104TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b

104TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois
2025 and 2026
HB3567

Introduced 2/18/2025, by Rep. Amy Briel

SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:

New Act

Creates the Meaningful Human Review of Artificial Intelligence Act. Sets forth provisions prohibiting a State agency, or any entity acting on behalf of an agency, from utilizing or applying any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly, without continuous meaningful human review when performing any of the agency's specified functions. Requires impact assessments to be performed by State agencies seeking to utilize or apply an automated decision-making system with continuous meaningful human review. Provides that the impact assessment shall include a description of the objectives of the automated decision-making system; an evaluation of the ability of the automated decision-making system to achieve its stated objectives; a specified description and evaluation of the objectives and development of the automated decision-making; testing of the automated decision-making system; and the notification mechanism or procedure, if any, by which individuals impacted by the utilization of the automated decision-making system may be notified of the use of such automated decision-making system and of the individual's personal data, and informed of their rights and options relating to such use. Requires submission of impact assessments to the Governor and General Assembly.

A BILL FOR

AN ACT concerning State government.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Meaningful Human Review of Artificial Intelligence Act.

Section 5. Definitions. As used in this Act:

"Automated decision-making system" means any software that uses algorithms, computational models, or artificial intelligence techniques, or a combination thereof, to automate, support, or replace human decision-making. "Automated decision-making system" includes, without limitation, systems that process data and apply predefined rules or machine learning algorithms to analyze such data and generate conclusions, recommendations, outcomes, assumptions, projections, or predictions without meaningful human discretion. "Automated decision-making system" does not include any software used primarily for basic computerized processes, such as calculators, spellcheck tools, autocorrect functions, spreadsheets, electronic communications, or any tool that relates only to internal management affairs, such as ordering office supplies or processing payments and that do not materially affect the rights, liberties, benefits, safety, or welfare of any individual within the State.

"Meaningful human review" means review, oversight, and control of the automated decision-making process by one or more individuals who understand the risks, limitations, and functionality of, and are trained to use, the automated decision-making system and who have the authority to intervene or alter the decision under review, including, but not limited to, the ability to approve, deny, or modify any decision recommended or made by the automated system.

"State agency" means any Department, public authority, board, bureau, commission, division, office, council, committee, or officer of the State.

"Public assistance benefit" means any service or program within the control of the State or benefit provided by the State to individuals or households, including, but not limited to, public assistance, cash assistance, grants, child care assistance, housing assistance, unemployment benefits, transportation benefits, education assistance, domestic violence services, and any other assistance or benefit within the authority of the State to grant to individuals within the State. "Public assistance benefit" does not include any federal program that is administered by the federal government or the State.

Section 10. Use of automated decision-making systems by agencies.

(a) A State agency, or any entity acting on behalf of an agency, shall not utilize or apply any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly, without continuous meaningful human review when performing any function that:

(1) is related to the delivery of any public assistance benefit;

(2) will have a material impact on the rights, civil liberties, safety, or welfare of any individual within the State; or

(3) affects any statutorily or constitutionally provided right of an individual who shall use the automated decision-making system unless the system is subject to continuous meaningful human review.

(b) A State agency shall not authorize any procurement, purchase, or acquisition of any service or system utilizing, or relying on, automated decision-making systems in performing any function that is:

(1) related to the delivery of any public assistance benefit;

(2) will have a material impact on the rights, civil liberties, safety, or welfare of any individual within the State; or

(3) affects any statutorily or constitutionally provided right of an individual unless such automated decision-making system is subject to continuous meaningful human review.

(c) The use of an automated decision-making system shall not affect:

(1) the existing rights of employees pursuant to an existing collective bargaining agreement; or

(2) the existing representational relationships among employee organizations or the bargaining relationships between the employer and an employee organization. The use of an automated decision-making system shall not result in the:

(A) discharge, displacement, or loss of position, including partial displacement, such as a reduction in the hours of non-overtime work, wages, or employment benefits, or result in the impairment of existing collective bargaining agreements;

(B) transfer of existing duties and functions currently performed by employees of the State or any agency or public authority to an automated decision-making system; or

(C) transfer of future duties and functions ordinarily performed by employees of the State or any agency or public authority. The use of an automated decision-making system shall not alter the rights, benefits, and privileges, including, but not limited to, terms and conditions of employment, civil service status, and collective bargaining unit membership status of all existing employees of the State or any agency or public authority shall be preserved and protected.

Section 15. Impact assessments.

(a) State agencies seeking to utilize or apply an automated decision-making system permitted under Section 10 of this Act with continuous meaningful human review shall conduct an impact assessment bearing the signature of one or more individuals responsible for meaningful human review for the lawful application and use of the automated decision-making system. Following the first impact assessment, an impact assessment shall be conducted in accordance with this Section at least once every 2 years. An impact assessment shall be conducted prior to any material change to the automated decision-making system that may change the outcome or effect of such system. Such impact assessments shall include:

(1) a description of the objectives of the automated decision-making system;

(2) an evaluation of the ability of the automated decision-making system to achieve its stated objectives;

(3) a description and evaluation of the objectives and development of the automated decision-making including:

(A) a summary of the underlying algorithms, computational modes, and artificial intelligence tools that are used within the automated decision-making system; and

(B) the design and training data used to develop the automated decision-making system process;

(4) testing for:

(A) accuracy, fairness, bias, and discrimination and an assessment of whether the use of the automated decision-making system produces discriminatory results on the basis of a consumer's or a class of consumers' actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, familial status, biometric information, lawful source of income, or disability and outlines mitigations for any identified performance differences in outcomes across relevant groups impacted by such use;

(B) any cybersecurity vulnerabilities and privacy risks resulting from the deployment and use of the automated decision-making system and the development or existence of safeguards to mitigate the risks;

(C) any public health or safety risks resulting from the deployment and use of the automated decision-making system;

(D) any reasonably foreseeable misuse of the automated decision-making system and the development or existence of safeguards against such misuse;

(E) the extent to which the deployment and use of the automated decision-making system requires input of sensitive and personal data, how that data is used and stored, and any control users may have over their data; and

(5) the notification mechanism or procedure, if any, by which individuals impacted by the utilization of the automated decision-making system may be notified of the use of such automated decision-making system and of the individual's personal data, and informed of their rights and options relating to such use.

(b) Notwithstanding applicable law, if an impact assessment finds that the automated decision-making system produces discriminatory or biased outcomes, the State agency shall cease any utilization, application, or function of such automated decision-making system and of any information produced using the system.

Section 20. Submission to the Governor and General Assembly.

(a) Each impact assessment conducted pursuant to this Act shall be submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House at least 30 days prior to the implementation of the automated decision-making system that is the subject of such assessment.

(b)(1) The impact assessment of an automated decision-making system shall be published on the Internet website of the relevant State agency.

(2) If the State agency makes a determination that the disclosure of any information required in the impact assessment would result in a substantial negative impact on health or safety of the public, infringe upon the privacy rights of individuals, or significantly impair the State agency's ability to protect its information technology or operational assets, such State agency may redact such information, provided that an explanatory statement on the process by which the State agency made such determination is published along with the redacted impact assessment.

(3) If the impact assessment covers any automated decision-making system that includes technology that is used to prevent, detect, protect against, or respond to security incidents, identity theft, fraud, harassment, malicious or deceptive activities, or other illegal activity; preserve the integrity or security of systems; or to investigate, report, or prosecute those responsible for any such malicious or deceptive action, a State agency may redact the information, so long as an explanatory statement on the process by which the State agency made such determination is published along with the redacted impact assessment.