California’s new AI safety law shows regulation and innovation don’t have to clash | TechCrunch
SB 53, the AIsafetyand transparencybillthat CaliforniaGov. Gavin Newsom signed into law this week, is proof that state regulationdoesn’thave to hinder AI progress. So saysAdam Billen, vice president of public policy at youth-led advocacy group Encode AI,on today’s episode of Equity. “The reality is that policy makers themselves know that we have to do something, and…
SB 53, the AIsafetyand transparencybillthat CaliforniaGov. Gavin Newsom signed into law this week, is proof that state regulationdoesn’thave to hinder AI progress.
So saysAdam Billen, vice president of public policy at youth-led advocacy group Encode AI,on today’s episode of Equity.
“The reality is that policy makers themselves know that we have to do something, and they know from working on a million other issues that there is a way to pass legislation that genuinely does protect innovation—which I do care about—while making sure that these products are safe,” Billen told TechCrunch.
At its core,SB53 is afirst-in-the-nation billthatrequires large AI labs to be transparent about their safety and security protocols— specifically around how they prevent their models from catastrophic risks, like being used to commitcyberattackson critical infrastructure or buildbio-weapons.The law also mandates that companies stick to those protocols, which will be enforced by the Office of Emergency Services.
“Companies are already doing the stuff that we ask them to do in this bill,” Billentold TechCrunch. “They do safety testing on their models. They release model cards. Are they starting to skimp in some areas at some companies? Yes. And that’s why bills like this are important.”
Billen also noted thatsome AI firms have a policy around relaxing safety standards under competitive pressure. OpenAI, for example, haspublicly statedthat itmay “adjust” its safety requirementsif a rival AI lab releases a high-risk system without similar safeguards.Billen argues that policy can enforce companies’ existing safety promises, preventing them from cutting corners under competitive or financial pressure.
While public opposition to SB 53 was muted incomparison to its predecessor SB 1047, whichNewsom vetoed last year, the rhetoric in Silicon Valley and among most AI labs has been that almost anyAIregulation is anathema to progress and willultimately hinderthe U.S. in its race to beat China.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco
|
October 27-29, 2025
It’s why companies like Meta, VCs like Andreessen Horowitz, and powerful individuals like OpenAI president Greg Brockman are collectively pumping hundreds of millions into super PACs to back pro-AI politicians in state elections. Andit’swhy those same forces earlier this year pushed for anAI moratoriumthat would have banned states from regulating AI for 10 years.
Encode AI ran a coalition of more than 200 organizations to work tostrike down the proposal, but Billen says the fightisn’tover. Senator Ted Cruz, who championed the moratorium, isattemptinga new strategy to achieve the same goal of federal preemption of state laws. In September, Cruz introduced theSANDBOX Act, which would allow AI companies to apply for waivers to temporarily bypass certain federal regulations for up to 10 years. Billen also anticipates a forthcoming bill establishing a federal AI standardthat would be pitched as a middle-groundsolution butwould in realityoverride state laws.
He warned that narrowly scopedfederal AI legislation could “delete federalism for the most important technology of our time.”
“If you told me SB 53 was the bill that would replace all the state bills on everything related to AI and all of the potential risks, I would tell you that’s probably not a very good idea and that this bill is designed for a particular subset of things,” Billen said.
While he agrees that the AI race with China matters, and that policymakers need to enact regulation that will support American progress, he says killing state bills— whichmainly focus on deepfakes, transparency, algorithmic discrimination, children’s safety, and governmental use of AI — isn’t the way to go about doing that.
“Are bills like SB 53 the thing that will stop us from beating China? No,” he said. “I think itis just genuinely intellectually dishonest to say that that is the thing that will stop us in the race.”
He added:“If the thing you care about is beating China in the race on AI — and I do care about that — then the things you would push for are stuff like export controls in Congress,” Billen said. “You would make sure that American companies have thechips. Butthat’snot what the industry is pushing for.”
Legislative proposals like theChip Security Actaim to prevent the diversion of advanced AI chips to China through export controls and tracking devices, and the existingCHIPS and Science Actseeksto boost domestic chip production. However, some major tech companies, including OpenAI and Nvidia, have expressed reluctance oroppositionto certain aspects of these efforts, citing concerns about effectiveness, competitiveness, and security vulnerabilities.
Nvidia has its reasons — it has a strong financial incentive to continue selling chips to China, which has historicallyrepresenteda significant portionof its global revenue.Billenspeculatedthat OpenAI could hold back on chip export advocacy to stay in the good graces of crucial suppliers like Nvidia.
There’salso been inconsistent messaging fromthe Trump administration. Three months after expanding an export banon advanced AI chips to Chinain April 2025, the administration reversed course, allowingNvidia and AMD to sell some chips to China inexchange for 15% of the revenue.
“You see people on the Hill moving towards bills like the Chip Security Act that would put export controls on China,” Billen said. “In the meantime,there’s going to continue to be this propping upofthe narrative to kill state bills that areactually quitelight tough.”
Billenaddedthat SB 53 is an example of democracy in action — of industry and policymakers working together to get to a version of a bill that everyone can agree on.It’s“very ugly and messy,” but “that process of democracy and federalism is the entire foundation of our country and our economic system, and I hope that we will keep doing that successfully.”
“I think SB 53 is one of the best proof points that that can still work,” he said.
This article was first published on October 1.
