Relating To Algorithmic Discrimination.
SB59 creates a new chapter in the Hawaii Revised Statutes addressing algorithmic discrimination in decisions made with machine learning, artificial intelligence, or similar techniques. The bill applies to “covered entities” that meet certain size, revenue, data-broker, or service-provider thresholds and that make algorithmic eligibility determinations or algorithmic information availability determinations affecting important life opportunities such as credit, insurance, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations.
The bill prohibits covered entities from using actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, or disability in a way that segregates, discriminates against, or otherwise denies important life opportunities. It also treats practices with the effect of violating that rule as unlawful discriminatory practices, while preserving the use of personal information in affirmative action plans authorized by law.
SB59 would add a new state-law framework regulating automated and AI-assisted decision-making in Hawaii. It would impose notice, disclosure, auditing, recordkeeping, reporting, and service-provider oversight requirements on covered entities, and it would authorize the attorney general and private individuals to enforce the chapter through civil actions, injunctions, damages, restitution, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. The bill would also create a statutory right for individuals to receive disclosures after adverse actions and to request access to, correction of, and human reevaluation of relevant information used in a determination.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be policy-driven and protective of consumers rather than openly contested in the available record. The measure is framed as an anti-discrimination and transparency bill, suggesting support for stronger oversight of AI systems and data use. No committee transcript or voting history is provided to show formal opposition or support from specific legislators or stakeholders.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the bill’s coverage and the compliance burden it places on businesses and service providers. Covered entities would need to conduct annual audits, preserve detailed audit trails, submit reports to the attorney general, and provide individualized notices and adverse-action disclosures, which may be viewed as administratively costly or technically difficult. Another likely area of debate is the scope of prohibited factors and disparate-impact liability, since the bill reaches algorithmic decisions that have the effect of discrimination even without explicit intent, while also allowing enforcement by both the attorney general and private plaintiffs.