Proposed Automated Decision-Making Technology and Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules

Summary

SIFMA provided comments to the Colorado Department of Law on its proposed Automated Decision-Making Technology and Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules, 4 CCR 904-6, filed with the Secretary of State on August 11, 2026, to implement the Automated Decision-Making Technology in Consequential Decisions Act, SB 26-189, and the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Services Act, HB 26-1263.

Excerpt

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) ¹ appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Colorado Department of Law’s (the “Department”) proposed Automated Decision-Making Technology and Conversational Artificial Intelligence Service Rules, 4 CCR 904-6 (the “Draft Rules”), filed with the Secretary of State on August 11, 2026 to implement the Automated Decision-Making Technology in Consequential Decisions Act, SB 26-189 (the “ADMT Act”), and the Conversational Artificial Intelligence Services Act, HB 26-1263 (the “Chatbot Safety Act”). SIFMA previously submitted comments on July 13, 2026, in response to the Department’s Pre-Rulemaking Considerations Document. ² We appreciate that the Draft Rules incorporate several of SIFMA’s recommendations, and we offer the comments below to identify matters that remain unresolved and to raise concerns arising from the specific text of the Draft Rules.

SIFMA is a national trade association representing over 350 large, medium, and small broker-dealers, investment banks and asset managers, many of whom have a strong presence in Colorado. In fact, almost 113,000 people in the state work in the finance and insurance industries, more than 26,700 of them work at securities firms, and 59 broker-dealer main offices call Colorado home. ³

Executive Summary

SIFMA’s comments below address the following matters, several of which remain unresolved from our July 13, 2026, pre-rulemaking submission and several of which arise from the specific text of the Draft Rules:

• The Department should adopt an interpretive human-involvement standard for “Materially Influence,” recognize that automated out-sorting for human review does not materially influence a decision, and adopt (with SIFMA’s suggested strengthening) the second of the two proposed “De Minimis Factor” standards for section 6-1-1701(13)(a), C.R.S.;
• Rule 6’s notice and disclosure requirements should be harmonized with the ECOA, FCRA, and ERISA, made less prescriptive, and paired with model notices and safe harbors, and should not compel disclosures that would compromise cybersecurity, fraud, or financial-crimes compliance;
• Rule 6.2(A)(1)’s two-channel delivery mandate should be removed so Deployers may rely on existing ECOA/FCRA-compliant delivery methods;
• Rule 3.2(A)(2) should confirm that compliance with the ADA and an institution’s existing digital accessibility program satisfies the Rule, rather than establishing WCAG 2.2 as a freestanding state benchmark;
• Rule 4.2’s Midstream Developer framework should be supplemented with a “single accountable deployer” approach confirming that ordinary configuration of vendor-provided systems does not create Developer status, and that good-faith reliance on FHFA/HUD/FHA/VA or other agency-GSE rules satisfies documentation obligations;