Who can audit an AI system in California? SB 813, AB 1405, and the registry that isn't open yet

On September 18, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-9-26, effective immediately, accelerating two agency deadlines in AI laws he signed on 2026-09-09: SB 813 (Chapter 179) and AB 1405 (Chapter 178).

Neither law obliges a business to buy an AI audit today, and neither instrument they create is open — so the question for an owner is not whether to comply but who may sell you an audit.

What SB 813 actually creates — and what an independent verification organization is not

SB 813 (Chapter 179, signed 2026-09-09) added Gov. Code 8898, which defines an independent verification organization as an AI auditor the agency designates as having demonstrated expertise in assessing the risks an AI system or model poses. The Government Operations Agency grants that designation; as of 2026-09-19 no criteria are published.

Nothing in the chapter requires anyone to engage an IVO or undergo a covered AI audit to develop, deploy or operate an AI system in this state. An IVO is a credential a vendor may earn, not a purchase mandate, and it is a different instrument from SB 53's frontier-model filings (Chapter 138, signed 2026-09-09).

What AB 1405's AI auditor registry means for anyone selling an audit

AB 1405 (Chapter 178, signed 2026-09-09) created the registry at Gov. Code 11549.80 et seq., which the Government Operations Agency must build. EO N-9-26 paragraph 2 moved that deadline from January 1, 2029 to December 1, 2027 — a delivery date for the agency, not an opening date for applications.

The operative clause binds sellers, not buyers: “Beginning January 1, 2029, a person shall not offer, sell, or conduct a covered AI audit unless the person is registered with the agency pursuant to this chapter.”

Who can audit an AI system in California right now

Anyone a business chooses, as of 2026-09-19. Registration is not yet a precondition for conducting a covered AI audit — that clause begins on 2029-01-01 — and the registry has published no criteria or application.

There is no state-approved list to check a vendor against; scope, method and independence are the buyer's to assess.

What the September 18 executive order changes — and what it does not

What it changes, as of 2026-09-18: two agency delivery dates (paragraphs 1 and 2) and one study deadline — recommendations to the Governor's office no later than November 16, 2026 (paragraph 3).

What it does not change: it binds state agencies only. Its closing clause says the order creates no rights or benefits enforceable at law or in equity; no developer, deployer or auditor takes on a new duty under it.

The order never names the Hugging Face attack; that trigger is in the Governor's 2026-09-18 release, which cites “recent alarming incidents, including the Hugging Face attack” (the Hugging Face incident the release cites).

One naming collision: an unrelated SB 813 on property tax is a different bill.

The three dates that matter (and the two they moved)

From the order's signature: 59 days to the recommendations deadline, 225 to the criteria date, 439 to the registry date.

An AI kill switch is a proposal, not a requirement

The only kill switch in California's AI record as of 2026-09-19 is a study item. Executive Order N-9-26 paragraph 3(c) asks for recommendations due 2026-11-16 on the technical feasibility of “Requiring the creation of a ‘kill switch’ for frontier models”.

That item sits inside a paragraph about the technical feasibility and potential efficacy of amendments to existing state laws. The order asks the agency to study whether to require one; it does not require one, on-site auditors, or third-party verification of laboratory filings.

An audit report is not a frontier safety plan

A covered AI audit produces a point-in-time assessment of an AI system or model against defined metrics and methodologies. A frontier safety plan is a forward-looking document attached to a developer's filing regime.

The distinction shows up in attribution: Executive Order N-9-26, signed 2026-09-18, asks whether filings should be “independently verified”, while the Governor's release — not the order — lists proposals under consideration including “requiring independent third parties to write safety plans for frontier AI companies”.

If your exposure is third-party rather than frontier, start from third-party AI incidents.

Does California's AI audit law apply to your business?

Not as a purchase duty, and not because of California law as of 2026-09-19: both statutes are dated 2026-09-09, SB 813's verification framework is voluntary, and AB 1405's registry governs who may sell a covered AI audit rather than who must buy one.

What remains is your own position: where a contract, an insurer or an enterprise client asks how your AI systems are governed, the answer is documentation you produce. Other states are moving too — see state AI-audit bills beyond California — and the scope a paid engagement covers is in what an AI safety compliance audit covers.

What to do before the standard lands

For a buyer this is business hygiene: map what you run, fix the scope, keep the evidence.

• Map your AI systems and their owners, including agents nobody asked for — the AI agent risk checklist is the shortest route.
• Define scope before you take a quote — it is what makes a vendor's claim checkable; the AI readiness audit guide walks through one.
• Keep evidence — logs, permission lists, incident notes — how to audit your own AI stack is the self-run version; five signs your business needs an audit covers the demand side.
• Watch the 2026-11-16 clock, and if you sell audits, expect credentialing — a covered AI audit conducted after 2029-01-01 requires registration. Operator-side controls sit in the deployment-liability checklist.

To see the shape of the output first, run the free AI audit tool.

What we still do not know

• The effective date of SB 813 and AB 1405, both signed 2026-09-09: neither chaptered text carries an urgency clause, so that signing date is not the operative date.
• Whether the 2026-11-16 recommendations will be published — the order sets a submission duty, not a publication duty.
• Whether “large frontier developers” in paragraph 3 carries the frontier-model threshold SB 53 (Chapter 138, signed 2026-09-09) sets at more than 10^26 integer or floating-point operations (BPC 22757.11).
• Whether a separate standards body will exist: Fathom, the bill's sponsor, describes one that is not in the chaptered text.
• What the Legislature does next: Politico reports an intention to introduce legislation in December — not a commitment.

Questions owners are asking