Bill Text: IL HB3567 | 2025-2026 | 104th General Assembly | Introduced

---

Bill Title: Creates the Meaningful Human Review of Artificial Intelligence Act. Sets forth provisions prohibiting a State agency, or any entity acting on behalf of an agency, from utilizing or applying any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly, without continuous meaningful human review when performing any of the agency's specified functions. Requires impact assessments to be performed by State agencies seeking to utilize or apply an automated decision-making system with continuous meaningful human review. Provides that the impact assessment shall include a description of the objectives of the automated decision-making system; an evaluation of the ability of the automated decision-making system to achieve its stated objectives; a specified description and evaluation of the objectives and development of the automated decision-making; testing of the automated decision-making system; and the notification mechanism or procedure, if any, by which individuals impacted by the utilization of the automated decision-making system may be notified of the use of such automated decision-making system and of the individual's personal data, and informed of their rights and options relating to such use. Requires submission of impact assessments to the Governor and General Assembly.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Introduced) 2025-02-18 - Referred to Rules Committee [HB3567 Detail]

Download: Illinois-2025-HB3567-Introduced.html

---

104TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY State of Illinois 2025 and 2026 HB3567 Introduced , by Rep. Amy Briel SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
New Act
Creates the Meaningful Human Review of Artificial Intelligence Act. Sets forth provisions prohibiting a State agency, or any entity acting on behalf of an agency, from utilizing or applying any automated decision-making system, directly or indirectly, without continuous meaningful human review when performing any of the agency's specified functions. Requires impact assessments to be performed by State agencies seeking to utilize or apply an automated decision-making system with continuous meaningful human review. Provides that the impact assessment shall include a description of the objectives of the automated decision-making system; an evaluation of the ability of the automated decision-making system to achieve its stated objectives; a specified description and evaluation of the objectives and development of the automated decision-making; testing of the automated decision-making system; and the notification mechanism or procedure, if any, by which individuals impacted by the utilization of the automated decision-making system may be notified of the use of such automated decision-making system and of the individual's personal data, and informed of their rights and options relating to such use. Requires submission of impact assessments to the Governor and General Assembly.
LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
A BILL FOR
HB3567 LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
AN ACT concerning State government.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly:
Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
Meaningful Human Review of Artificial Intelligence Act.
Section 5. Definitions. As used in this Act:
"Automated decision-making system" means any software that
uses algorithms, computational models, or artificial
intelligence techniques, or a combination thereof, to
automate, support, or replace human decision-making.
"Automated decision-making system" includes, without
limitation, systems that process data and apply predefined
rules or machine learning algorithms to analyze such data and
generate conclusions, recommendations, outcomes, assumptions,
projections, or predictions without meaningful human
discretion. "Automated decision-making system" does not
include any software used primarily for basic computerized
processes, such as calculators, spellcheck tools, autocorrect
functions, spreadsheets, electronic communications, or any
tool that relates only to internal management affairs, such as
ordering office supplies or processing payments and that do
not materially affect the rights, liberties, benefits, safety,
or welfare of any individual within the State.

HB3567 - 2 - LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
"Meaningful human review" means review, oversight, and
control of the automated decision-making process by one or
more individuals who understand the risks, limitations, and
functionality of, and are trained to use, the automated
decision-making system and who have the authority to intervene
or alter the decision under review, including, but not limited
to, the ability to approve, deny, or modify any decision
recommended or made by the automated system.
"State agency" means any Department, public authority,
board, bureau, commission, division, office, council,
committee, or officer of the State.
"Public assistance benefit" means any service or program
within the control of the State or benefit provided by the
State to individuals or households, including, but not limited
to, public assistance, cash assistance, grants, child care
assistance, housing assistance, unemployment benefits,
transportation benefits, education assistance, domestic
violence services, and any other assistance or benefit within
the authority of the State to grant to individuals within the
State. "Public assistance benefit" does not include any
federal program that is administered by the federal government
or the State.
Section 10. Use of automated decision-making systems by
agencies.
(a) A State agency, or any entity acting on behalf of an

HB3567 - 3 - LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
agency, shall not utilize or apply any automated
decision-making system, directly or indirectly, without
continuous meaningful human review when performing any
function that:
(1) is related to the delivery of any public
assistance benefit;
(2) will have a material impact on the rights, civil
liberties, safety, or welfare of any individual within the
State; or
(3) affects any statutorily or constitutionally
provided right of an individual who shall use the
automated decision-making system unless the system is
subject to continuous meaningful human review.
(b) A State agency shall not authorize any procurement,
purchase, or acquisition of any service or system utilizing,
or relying on, automated decision-making systems in performing
any function that is:
(1) related to the delivery of any public assistance
benefit;
(2) will have a material impact on the rights, civil
liberties, safety, or welfare of any individual within the
State; or
(3) affects any statutorily or constitutionally
provided right of an individual unless such automated
decision-making system is subject to continuous meaningful
human review.

HB3567 - 4 - LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
(c) The use of an automated decision-making system shall
not affect:
(1) the existing rights of employees pursuant to an
existing collective bargaining agreement; or
(2) the existing representational relationships among
employee organizations or the bargaining relationships
between the employer and an employee organization. The use
of an automated decision-making system shall not result in
the:
(A) discharge, displacement, or loss of position,
including partial displacement, such as a reduction in
the hours of non-overtime work, wages, or employment
benefits, or result in the impairment of existing
collective bargaining agreements;
(B) transfer of existing duties and functions
currently performed by employees of the State or any
agency or public authority to an automated
decision-making system; or
(C) transfer of future duties and functions
ordinarily performed by employees of the State or any
agency or public authority. The use of an automated
decision-making system shall not alter the rights,
benefits, and privileges, including, but not limited
to, terms and conditions of employment, civil service
status, and collective bargaining unit membership
status of all existing employees of the State or any

HB3567 - 5 - LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
agency or public authority shall be preserved and
protected.
Section 15. Impact assessments.
(a) State agencies seeking to utilize or apply an
automated decision-making system permitted under Section 10 of
this Act with continuous meaningful human review shall conduct
an impact assessment bearing the signature of one or more
individuals responsible for meaningful human review for the
lawful application and use of the automated decision-making
system. Following the first impact assessment, an impact
assessment shall be conducted in accordance with this Section
at least once every 2 years. An impact assessment shall be
conducted prior to any material change to the automated
decision-making system that may change the outcome or effect
of such system. Such impact assessments shall include:
(1) a description of the objectives of the automated
decision-making system;
(2) an evaluation of the ability of the automated
decision-making system to achieve its stated objectives;
(3) a description and evaluation of the objectives and
development of the automated decision-making including:
(A) a summary of the underlying algorithms,
computational modes, and artificial intelligence tools
that are used within the automated decision-making
system; and

HB3567 - 6 - LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
(B) the design and training data used to develop
the automated decision-making system process;
(4) testing for:
(A) accuracy, fairness, bias, and discrimination
and an assessment of whether the use of the automated
decision-making system produces discriminatory results
on the basis of a consumer's or a class of consumers'
actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion,
national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual
orientation, familial status, biometric information,
lawful source of income, or disability and outlines
mitigations for any identified performance differences
in outcomes across relevant groups impacted by such
use;
(B) any cybersecurity vulnerabilities and privacy
risks resulting from the deployment and use of the
automated decision-making system and the development
or existence of safeguards to mitigate the risks;
(C) any public health or safety risks resulting
from the deployment and use of the automated
decision-making system;
(D) any reasonably foreseeable misuse of the
automated decision-making system and the development
or existence of safeguards against such misuse;
(E) the extent to which the deployment and use of
the automated decision-making system requires input of

HB3567 - 7 - LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
sensitive and personal data, how that data is used and
stored, and any control users may have over their
data; and
(5) the notification mechanism or procedure, if any,
by which individuals impacted by the utilization of the
automated decision-making system may be notified of the
use of such automated decision-making system and of the
individual's personal data, and informed of their rights
and options relating to such use.
(b) Notwithstanding applicable law, if an impact
assessment finds that the automated decision-making system
produces discriminatory or biased outcomes, the State agency
shall cease any utilization, application, or function of such
automated decision-making system and of any information
produced using the system.
Section 20. Submission to the Governor and General
Assembly.
(a) Each impact assessment conducted pursuant to this Act
shall be submitted to the Governor, the President of the
Senate, and the Speaker of the House at least 30 days prior to
the implementation of the automated decision-making system
that is the subject of such assessment.
(b)(1) The impact assessment of an automated
decision-making system shall be published on the Internet
website of the relevant State agency.

HB3567 - 8 - LRB104 09826 BDA 19894 b
(2) If the State agency makes a determination that the
disclosure of any information required in the impact
assessment would result in a substantial negative impact on
health or safety of the public, infringe upon the privacy
rights of individuals, or significantly impair the State
agency's ability to protect its information technology or
operational assets, such State agency may redact such
information, provided that an explanatory statement on the
process by which the State agency made such determination is
published along with the redacted impact assessment.
(3) If the impact assessment covers any automated
decision-making system that includes technology that is used
to prevent, detect, protect against, or respond to security
incidents, identity theft, fraud, harassment, malicious or
deceptive activities, or other illegal activity; preserve the
integrity or security of systems; or to investigate, report,
or prosecute those responsible for any such malicious or
deceptive action, a State agency may redact the information,
so long as an explanatory statement on the process by which the
State agency made such determination is published along with
the redacted impact assessment.