CA AB 316: Artificial intelligence: defenses

Operative sections

• Civ. Code §1714.46(b): a defendant that developed, modified, or used AI may not assert that AI autonomously caused the harm.
• Civ. Code §1714.46(c): other affirmative defenses and comparative-fault evidence remain available.

Text

1714.46. (b) In an action against a defendant who developed, modified, or used artificial intelligence that is alleged to have caused a harm to the plaintiff, it shall not be a defense, and the defendant may not assert, that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in California

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• California Rule of Court 10.430 and Standard 10.80: Generative AI use by courtsJudicial Council of California · 2025-09-01

  Rule 10.430 of the California Rules of Court, effective 1 September 2025, requires every California court that permits generative AI use by judicial officers or staff to adopt a use policy by 15 December 2025. Policies must address confidentiality, bias, human review of output, and disclosure when public-facing content is fully AI-generated. Standard 10.80 offers a model policy.

• Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of LawState Bar of California · 2023-11-16

  Practical guidance approved by the State Bar of California on 16 November 2023, the first state bar guidance on generative AI in the United States. California lawyers must not enter confidential client information into tools without adequate protections, must review and verify all output, should consider disclosing AI use to clients, and may not bill for time not spent.

• Proposed amendments to Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3 related to artificial intelligenceState Bar of California

  Proposed amendments to the California Rules of Professional Conduct that would write AI duties directly into the rules: verification of cited authorities, firm-level AI governance policies under Rule 5.1, and instruction of nonlawyer assistants under Rule 5.3. Public comment closed 4 May 2026 and the Board of Trustees considered them in mid May 2026. Adoption requires the California Supreme Court.

Decisions on the record

• Perez v. SchaalSuperior Court of California, County of Sacramento · 2026-08-21

  The Sacramento Superior Court rules on a demurrer and addresses Joseph Perez’s unsupported quotation from Adorh Farms. The court says the quotation does not appear in that opinion or any reported case, flags possible generative AI use, declines sanctions, and warns future fabricated authority may be sanctioned.

• Lohbeck v. Amazon.com Services, LLCUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of California · 2026-08-21

  The Eastern District of California recommends dismissal of Stephen Lohbeck’s claims and considers Amazon’s Rule 11 argument. The magistrate judge finds two quotations in Lohbeck’s sanctions motion do not appear in the cited cases, declines sanctions because he is self-represented, and warns that future false authority may be sanctionable.

• Full Standard Properties, LLC v. SJ 6070, LLCUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Northern District of California grants in part a renewed fee motion and discharges a sanctions order. The order records that plaintiff’s counsel reimbursed SJ 6070 $14,500 for expenses incurred addressing nonexistent cases cited in opposition to an earlier attorneys’ fees motion.

• Kasengela v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsUnited States District Court for the Central District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Central District of California grants Cecile Kasengela’s remand motion while addressing non-existent quotations in her self-represented briefing. The court reiterates its standing order on AI-generated hallucinated caselaw, rejects her accusation against Kaiser, and says a lawyer would face significant sanctions.

• Dotson v. Bob Evans Farms, LLCUnited States District Court for the Central District of California · 2026-08-20

  The Central District of California denies Michael Dotson’s reconsideration application and identifies three quotations misattributed to Mission Power. The court says the language appears in Horne instead, describes the errors as AI-hallucination hallmarks, and orders counsel to show cause about sanctions and bar referral.