---
title: "Give a consumer a correction and an appeal after an adverse consequential decision"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/set-a-process-for-a-person-to-challenge-a-decision-the-system-made-or-in/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A45-WR20261022-4-US"
practice_area: "AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Give a consumer a correction and an appeal after an adverse consequential decision

> From the decision record, list the adverse result, the data the file says the system processed, and whether a correction path or an appeal path is already described. Do not write the statement of reasons.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/set-a-process-for-a-person-to-challenge-a-decision-the-system-made-or-in/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [AI decision systems (the firm's and clients')](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the decision record, list the adverse result, the data the file says the system processed, and whether a correction path or an appeal path is already described. Do not write the statement of reasons. |
| What the lawyer must review | Section 6-1-1703(4)(b) requires the deployer, if the consequential decision is adverse, to give a statement of the principal reasons, including the degree and manner of the system's contribution, the type of data processed, and the source of that data. The deployer must also give an opportunity to correct incorrect personal data that the system processed, and an opportunity to appeal. The appeal must, if technically feasible, allow for human review, unless providing the appeal is not in the best interest of the consumer, including where delay might pose a risk to the life or safety of the consumer. The lawyer decides whether the decision is adverse and settles what is sent. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Set a process for a person to challenge a decision the system made or informed](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/ai-decision-systems/set-a-process-for-a-person-to-challenge-a-decision-the-system-made-or-in.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: From the decision record, list the adverse result, the data the file says the system processed, and whether a correction path or an appeal path is already described. Do not write the statement of reasons.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- The text opened is the signed act of 17 May 2024. It is a Colorado statute. Consumer means a Colorado resident. Confirm it is still the text in force. No other state's automated-decision statute was opened.
- The appeal is of an adverse consequential decision. The act does not describe it as a right to stop the system before it runs.

## Sources

- [Colorado Senate Bill 24-205, signed act (17 May 2024)](https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/47770/download) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [Colorado General Assembly, SB24-205 bill page](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-205) (checked 2026-10-22)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*