SB 366 requires the state to commission an evidence-gathering study on how artificial intelligence is changing work in California. The statute directs a state agency to arrange the research, requires the study to address effects on worker well‑being, job quality and types, impacts on different population groups, and implications for state revenues, and mandates delivery of findings to the Legislature.
The bill builds a factual foundation for future policymaking: it signals that the Legislature seeks empirical analysis before adopting regulatory or budgetary responses to AI-driven labor changes. The measure is narrowly focused on producing a single, time‑limited report rather than creating new regulatory tools or entitlements itself.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Department of General Services to contract out a statewide study that evaluates AI’s effects on workers, jobs, populations, and state revenues and to deliver a written report to the Legislature. It makes the study a one‑time statutory assignment that ends when the report is submitted.
Who It Affects
State agencies responsible for procurement and contracting (notably DGS), research institutions that might perform the work, legislative staff who will receive and review the findings, and labor stakeholders whose interests and data may be part of the study. Employers and state budget offices could be affected by the report’s conclusions.
Why It Matters
Policymakers frequently lack systematic, state-specific evidence about AI’s labor effects; this bill creates an official, legislatively‑mandated study intended to fill that gap. The findings could shape future labor, training, and budget decisions in California.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 366 requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to arrange and pay for a study that assesses how artificial intelligence is affecting work across the state. The bill specifies the subject areas the study must cover — worker well‑being, job quality, changes in job types, how different populations are affected, and how those changes ripple into state revenues — but it leaves most methodological and operational choices to the contracting process.
The statute names a contractor: the UCLA Labor Center. DGS must contract with that center to perform the evaluation and deliver a written report of findings to the Legislature.
The bill sets a concrete endpoint for the work: the department must submit the report by a legislated date, and it must file a notice with the Secretary of State when the report is submitted.The law also requires the report satisfy the procedural requirements of an existing statute governing legislative reports (the bill references Section 9795 of the Government Code). Finally, the section creating the requirement is temporary: once the report has been submitted to the Legislature the statutory section is repealed, so the law creates a one‑off study rather than an ongoing program.Notably, SB 366 does not appropriate money, specify a research design, require particular data sources, create a public-comment process, or mandate follow-up action based on the report.
Those omissions leave the substance and public visibility of the study to the contract terms DGS negotiates with UCLA and to any work the Legislature chooses to do next with the findings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Department of General Services to contract specifically with the University of California, Los Angeles Labor Center to perform the study.
The study must evaluate worker well‑being, job quality, changes in job types, differential impacts on populations, and effects on state revenues.
DGS must submit the study’s report to the Legislature on or before June 1, 2027.
When the department submits the report it must also file a notice with the Secretary of State indicating the report’s submission date.
The statutory section establishing the study is repealed once the report has been submitted, and the report must comply with Government Code Section 9795’s filing requirements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Contract to conduct the AI and work study
This subdivision makes DGS responsible for procuring the research and identifies the UCLA Labor Center as the contractor. Practically, that means DGS will handle procurement procedures and negotiate the scope, timeline, deliverables, and payment with UCLA. Naming a specific academic center narrows the vendor pool and eliminates a competitive selection among other research organizations unless the contract is competitively bid on procedural grounds.
Report delivery and Secretary of State notice
Subdivision (b) requires DGS to deliver the contractor’s findings to the Legislature by a fixed deadline (June 1, 2027) and to file a separate notice with the Secretary of State indicating when the study was submitted. Those two procedural steps establish a firm legislative record and a public milestone, and they create a clear compliance yardstick for DGS and UCLA.
Report must comply with Government Code filing rules
This line requires the final report to meet the formal filing and formatting obligations set out in Section 9795 of the Government Code. While the bill does not restate those rules, referencing them ties the report into established legislative-reporting procedures (for example, distribution, electronic filing, or formatting expectations), which affects how the report will be archived and accessed by policymakers and the public.
Sunset on submission — one‑time study
Subdivision (d) makes the entire section self‑terminating: once the report is submitted to the Legislature the statutory provision is repealed. The practical effect is that the law establishes a single, time‑limited research assignment rather than creating an ongoing monitoring or advisory function within state government.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California policymakers and budget analysts — they gain a legislatively‑commissioned evidence base about AI’s labor and revenue effects that can inform future regulation, workforce development, and fiscal planning.
- Workers and worker‑advocacy groups — the study’s focused attention on well‑being and differential impacts can surface harms or needs (for frontline, low‑wage, or displaced workers) that advocates can use in negotiations or policy proposals.
- UCLA Labor Center — as the named contractor it receives funding, visibility, and influence in shaping the research agenda and public conversation on AI and work.
- Labor researchers and universities — the report could produce data, methods, and findings that enable follow‑on academic work and policy analysis.
- State workforce and training programs — they can use the findings to adjust program design, target populations, or budgeting priorities if the report identifies specific dislocations or skills gaps.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of General Services — DGS must manage procurement, oversee the contract, and ensure the report meets statutory requirements, which consumes staff time and administrative resources.
- California taxpayers/state funds — the study requires contract funding; the bill does not include an appropriation, so costs must be absorbed within existing budgets or added later.
- UCLA Labor Center — while it benefits from the contract, it bears the operational burden of producing a comprehensive report meeting legislative standards within the time frame and may need to secure additional data or subcontractors.
- Employers and agencies that must provide data or participate in interviews — they may face added compliance burdens or confidentiality concerns if the study seeks employer‑level information.
- Legislative staff and committees — staff must review the report, translate findings into policy options if desired, and potentially draft follow‑up legislation or budget proposals based on the study.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between producing a timely, legislatively mandated study (which requires clear direction and a fixed deadline) and ensuring that the work is sufficiently rigorous, transparent, and resourced to produce dependable guidance for policy and budgeting — a trade‑off between speed and comprehensiveness that the statute does not fully resolve.
SB 366 creates a useful, focused information request but leaves several execution questions open. The bill names UCLA as the contractor and prescribes the topical scope and submission deadline, but it does not set a budget, require specific methodologies, mandate public input, or guarantee access to employer or administrative data.
Those omissions mean the utility of the final report will depend heavily on how DGS frames the contract: whether it funds adequate data collection, requires representative sampling across industries and populations, and protects confidentiality while enabling robust analysis.
The choice to make the study a one‑time statutory event — and to repeal the statute upon submission — trades the speed of a single deliverable against ongoing monitoring. If AI’s labor impacts evolve rapidly, a single report may become outdated without a mechanism for follow-up research or an independent repository for longitudinal data.
Naming a single academic center simplifies procurement but concentrates decision‑making about methods and stakeholder engagement in one institution, which raises questions about perceived independence, peer review, and opportunities for competing analyses.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.