Quoted claim
Press and governor framing of SB 813 (paired with AB 1405) as first-in-nation standards for independent audits and third-party evaluation of AI systems that strengthen California safeguards by requiring credible outside assessment of AI.
The operative claim we check: California now requires developers, deployers, or operators of AI systems to undergo independent third-party audits or to engage an Independent Verification Organization (IVO).
Where made
Primary governor page, 9 September 2026: Governor Newsom signs first-in-the-nation AI safeguards.
The page's "What you need to know" line: the bills establish "first-in-the-nation standards for third-party audits and independent assessments of AI systems."
Senator McNerney is quoted on "independent, third-party evaluations of artificial intelligence." Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan is quoted that third-party auditors are essential and that AB 1405 establishes a mechanism for credible third-party auditing.
Chaptered statute: SB-813 Independent verification organizations (chaptered 09/09/26, Chapter 179). Adds Government Code Chapter 14, sections 8898 through 8898.4, "California Artificial Intelligence Safety Independent Verification Organizations."
OpenAI endorsement, 9 September 2026: Chris Lehane, The AI policy window is open. We need to act.. OpenAI lists SB 813 as infrastructure for independent safety assessments and AB 1405 as AI-auditor standards. OpenAI prefers independent technical assessments at the federal level and says that, in the absence of federal action, California can help set rules for a national independent-assessment path.
Secondary wire (context only): TechCrunch, 16 September 2026, ties the California bills to independent-evaluator proposals from Anthropic and OpenAI leadership. Secondary analysis that echoes the statute carveout exists; this check prefers the chaptered text and the governor page.
Supporting number / method
What the chaptered bill actually creates.
| Provision | What it does |
|---|---|
| 8898(e) | IVO = an AI auditor designated by the Government Operations Agency as having demonstrated expertise assessing AI risks and identifying metrics and methodologies for that assessment |
| 8898(c)-(d) | "AI auditor" and "covered AI audit" defined (covered AI audit = audit of internal controls, processes, or systems needed for compliance with state law) |
| 8898.1 | On or before 1 January 2028, the agency must develop application requirements, designation criteria, suspension and termination procedures; identify standards for covered AI audits; publish requirements; convene working groups; report to the Legislature |
| 8898.3 | A designated IVO submits an annual report no sooner than 12 months after initial designation |
| 8898.4(a)(3) | This chapter does not require any person, partnership, or corporation that develops, deploys, or operates an AI system or model to engage an IVO or to undergo a covered AI audit as a condition of developing, deploying, or operating an AI system or model in this state |
| 8898.4(b) | In a harm action, the fact that an audit was performed under a standard identified under this chapter is relevant to, but not conclusive of, the action |
What chaptered AB 1405 (Chapter 178) actually creates (leginfo chaptered text retrieved this fact-check, 19 Sep 2026):
| Provision | What it does |
|---|---|
| 11549.80 | Defines agency (Government Operations Agency), AI, AI auditor, and covered AI audit |
| 11549.81 | Creates the AI Auditors' Registration Fund |
| 11549.82(a) | No later than 1 January 2029, agency establishes an AI Auditor Registry, fixes fees, and builds a misconduct-reporting mechanism |
| 11549.82(b) | Beginning 1 January 2029: issue registration numbers; publish registry info with a non-endorsement statement; retain misconduct reports for registration life plus 10 years |
| 11549.82.5 | Beginning 1 January 2029, a person shall not offer, sell, or conduct a covered AI audit unless registered with the agency |
| 11549.83 | Registration info (business name, contact, California laws audited under, certifications, ≤500-word description, SOPs); independence/objectivity/integrity standards; auditee reports; ≥10-year record retention; CPA pathway for report form |
| 11549.84–11549.85 | Agency investigation / removal authority; regulation authority |
| 11549.86 | Does not impede audits required under other statutes; registration is not state endorsement |
Governor page framing matches: state registry for AI auditors and standards for independence, transparency, and integrity. The 1 January 2029 registration mandate is auditor-side. It is not a developer/deployer duty to undergo an audit.
Agency IVO designation machinery (SB 813) is not live on signing day. The SB 813 clock is on or before 1 January 2028. The AB 1405 registry clock is no later than / beginning 1 January 2029.
What would have to be true
For the strong press reading ("requires audits / forces third-party evaluation of AI systems") to hold as a mandate on developers and deployers:
- The chapter would need to condition development, deployment, or operation in California on engaging an IVO or completing a covered AI audit.
- Or another signed statute would need to create that mandate and incorporate the IVO machinery as the required path.
Section 8898.4(a)(3) contradicts (1) in express terms. This check found no such mandate in SB 813 itself. Chaptered AB 1405 likewise does not condition development, deployment, or operation on engaging an auditor or completing a covered AI audit. Its operative duty (11549.82.5) is that a person may not offer, sell, or conduct a covered AI audit unless registered. That binds auditors, not the systems they might audit. Whether some other California AI statute (outside this pair) separately mandates developer/deployer audits: still UNKNOWN beyond this check's scope.
For the narrower claim ("California creates a first-in-nation IVO designation program and auditor-registry framework") to hold: chaptered SB 813 and chaptered AB 1405 both support it.
Verdict
overstated for the reading that SB 813 (or the SB 813 + AB 1405 pair as described on the governor page) requires developers, deployers, or operators to engage an IVO or undergo a covered AI audit.
supported for the claim that California creates an IVO designation program run by the Government Operations Agency, with application rules, criteria, working groups, and reporting deadlines on or before 1 January 2028, plus an AI-auditor registry framed under AB 1405 on the governor page.
The liability rule in section 8898.4(b) is a relevance rule. An audit under a chapter standard can matter in a harm case. It does not decide the case by itself.
Language we will use instead
- "California SB 813 creates a designation program for Independent Verification Organizations. The Government Operations Agency must stand up application and designation rules on or before 1 January 2028."
- "Section 8898.4(a)(3) states the chapter does not require any developer, deployer, or operator to engage an IVO or undergo a covered AI audit."
- "An audit performed under a standard identified in the chapter is relevant evidence in a harm action. It is not conclusive."
- "Governor and author framing emphasizes first-in-nation third-party audit and independent-assessment standards. The chaptered IVO text builds designation machinery first."
- "AB 1405 (Chapter 178) creates an AI Auditor Registry. Beginning 1 January 2029, a person may not offer, sell, or conduct a covered AI audit unless registered (11549.82.5). That is an auditor registration rule, not a developer audit mandate."