Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection

Hi, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting SB 296, pertaining to in-vehicle cameras on behalf of Mr. Dodd. Increasingly in society, we find ourselves being recorded with no idea how the images are being used. SB 296 requires that a consumer is informed of in-vehicle cameras and what rights they have to control what the cameras record when purchasing a new vehicle.

While there are essential traffic safety benefits derived from monitoring impaired or distracted driving behavior, there's also increasing concern that such cameras could be exploited by data brokers and other third parties who would manipulate and sell the images. SB 296 would place restrictions on the retention and transfer of video recordings, while still permitting important driver safety information to be analyzed and used for traffic safety purposes. It would make California the first state in the nation to give consumers meaningful control over these types of in-vehicle cameras.

The recent amendments address concerns from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, new car dealers, and Consumer Attorneys of California by creating a more effective process in notifying buyers of in-vehicle camera and providing criteria for the allowable uses of camera for safety purposes. With me today is a witness from the Consumer Federation of California in support of the Bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We're the sponsor of this measure. First, I'd like to thank the pitch hitter for Senator Dodd and thank the Chair. And also particularly, I'd like to point out that in all the bills that we have before this Committee, I find the analyses written by the Committee staff to be exemplary.

And so, Chair, that's a reflection on you and on the staff here, because we know that there's all kinds of different qualities of analyses out there, and these ones are very high. So as a former staffer, I feel almost semi-obligated to point that out. So, with that, we've been working on this Bill for three years. The Chair is aware of it. It was a Waikowski Bill in the previous session, and we think they're almost there.

The short version is that you want to give consumers some meaningful choice here. People are used to cameras that point outside the vehicle, crash avoidance, things like that. But now they're more and more common that they point inside the vehicle. It started out at higher-end vehicles, it's now matriculating its way down. We think, based on the trade industry publications and data that we've seen, that in a number of years, it's going to be quite commonplace for all but the lowest-priced vehicles.

Therefore, we think that's a meaningful choice on the part of a consumer to have some control over this. And some consumers, in fairness, they seek out something like this because they're looking if their eyeballs drift so they don't, you know, drift into another lane or get in an accident. We just think this is a really common-sense approach. We've worked very hard with all the opponents. The new car dealers are off.

I think you'll presumably hear from the auto manufacturers if they're not off, I think they're pretty darn close to being off. We've had productive conversations and negotiations along with Senator Deraud and his team. So you've all had a lengthy afternoon of budget votes. I'll just ask for an Aye vote and be happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much. Do we have any additional witnesses in the hearing room in support of the Bill?

Yes. Hi, Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy, in support of the Bill.

Okay, great. Do we have anyone in the hearing room in opposition to the Bill? We have a motion from Assemblymember Wicks and a second from Assemblymember Papan.

Yes, Officer.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. John Moffatt on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. Just reflecting the comments that Mr. Harrell made. We appreciate working with the author and sponsors on the Bill. And actually, I got an update while we were in this Committee. We're good with that last set of language you sent us. So once that goes into the Bill, we are prepared to remove our opposition.

Wonderful. Sounds like a story with a happy ending. Anyone else in opposition?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ronak Daylami, with the California Chamber of Commerce, align our comments with those of our colleagues. Thank you.

Jamie Hub with the Civil Justice Association of California. Also aligning our comments with that of the Alliance. Thank you.

Leah Nitake with TechNet, also aligning our comments with our colleagues. Thank you.

All right, seeing that, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments?

Thank you for that, Senator, for the presentation. Well, for covering for a Senator, of course. But I just want to say I appreciate working on this Bill and the concerns addressed on them. I haven't seen the amendments, so because of that I'm going to lay off today. But hopefully, once they're in print, I can sport this on the floor. Thanks.

All right, well, I will just say first of all to the sponsor, thank you for all of your hard work. As you mentioned, this Committee has worked on this issue for a while now. We put a similar Bill through the Committee last year. I think it's a critically important issue and I appreciate the thoughtful way that you and the author have addressed it to work with opposition to protect folks' privacy rights and also to make sure that we have technology that can keep people safe.

So I appreciate all those candid conversations. Glad to see that things have landed in a nice spot. And I guess I will also just take a moment of personal privilege, since you mentioned the Committee analysis, you're actually the second person today. We had another member of the audience come up and say in 34 years of working in the Legislature, they have not seen analysis as fine as those produced by these consultants.

So I did just want to take a moment. They have nothing to do with me, but recognize the hard work of our consultant for their excellent analysis. And with that, Assemblymember would invite you to close.

Mr. Dodd respectfully requests your Aye vote.

Alright, with that, happy to support the Bill. The motion is due pass to Judiciary Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number two SB 296 by Senator Dodd. Gabriel? Aye. Gabriel Aye. Patterson? Patterson not voting. Bauer-Kahan? Aye. Bauer-Kahan Aye. Bennett? Bennett Aye. Essayli? Essayli Aye. Fong? Fong not voting. Heart? Heart Aye. Irwin? Irwin Aye. Lowenthal? Lowenthal Aye. Papan? Papan Aye. Wicks? Wicks Aye.

Bill has nine votes. It's out.

Great. If Senator Roth's witnesses are here, Linda Way and Jose Cassias.

Were you going to do the other Dodd Bill?

I will. But can we do Mr. Roth's first?

Absolutely.

Okay. So we are going to move to file item number five, SB 595 Roth. We have a motion for Mr. Fong and a second for Mr. Lowenthal.

Sounds good to me.

Senator, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm here presenting SB 595 on behalf of Senator Roth. I want to thank the chair on Senator Roth's behalf and the Committee for working diligently with his office and the co sponsors on this measure. Today, on behalf of Senator Roth, I'll be accepting the Committee's proposed amendments, as outlined in the Committee analysis, which include additional privacy protections that safeguard the privacy rights of consumers.

SB 595 makes clarifying changes to existing statute which requires Covered California to engage in direct outreach to Californians who have lost their employment and therefore need health coverage. These changes will allow Covered California to share the minimum amount of data necessary with their contracted vendors, who conduct marketing and outreach on the department's behalf. Any information shared with insurance agents or enrollment brokers will require the explicit informed consent of the individual.

Furthermore, SB 5095, clarifies all existing privacy protections, both state and federal, must apply to all aspects of information shared and received by Covered California. SB 595 is a simple fix that maintains the greater accessibility to health insurance established by SB 644 while protecting Californians from receiving cold calls from outside entities, something we all know our constituents do not like.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote and turn it over to the co sponsors on the Bill, Jose Torres Casillas of Health Access California, and Linda Nguy of Western Center on Law and Poverty.

All right. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, chair and Members. Jose Torres with Health Access California, the statewide Healthcare Consumer Advocacy Coalition I'm here today as a co sponsor and supporter of SB 595. This Bill is a necessary follow up to a Bill to a Bill that we passed last year at SB 644 within our goal of ensuring that consumers are aware of their health care options during certain life changes, specifically when individuals lose their job and apply for benefits from Edd.

For this, we had partnered with Covered California to expand their already great outreach program to people who apply for benefits from Edd. SB 595, here is a follow up to SB 644. That was the main Bill that actually authorized the data sharing amongst departments.

As a follow up Bill, SB 595 ensures that Covered California is able to do their outreach to these individuals going through such life changes and inform them of their healthcare options, while at the same time ensuring that there are strong privacy protections for the information that is shared by Edd. I do want to add that Health Access and the co sponsors appreciate the feedback the Committee has shared with us.

And we believe that the amendments suggested by the Committee really does further strengthen the Bill as a whole to one, protect consumers'information as Covered California does their much needed outreach to these individuals. I thank you for your time and ask for your support here today.

Good afternoon. Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty proud co sponsor. In light of the support recommendations on both sides, I'll be brief and just urge an aye vote and echo the appreciation for the Committee consultants work on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You have anyone else in the room in support of the Bill?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members, Ronald Coleman Baeza here. On behalf of the California Pan Ethnic Health Network, CPEHN as a sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And now we will turn to I see we have Senator Roth. Senator, please join us. Do we have anyone in the room in opposition to the Bill?

Not exactly. Tracy Rosenberg from Oakland Privacy. In light of the amendments from the Committee, we are dropping our opposition to the Bill.

Very good. Thank you. With that, we will bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, concerns? Okay. People are unusually quiet today. I will just Senator to invite you up if you wanted to add any final thoughts. But I'll just say want to thank you. I want to thank your staff, I want to thank the stakeholders for some very productive conversations.

I think gone to a really good point where we're going to accomplish the very, very laudable goals of this Bill, but do so in a way where we protect consumer privacy. So we're going to walk and chew gum at the same time. We're going to do some good things and just really appreciate the constructive approach and grateful for the hard work of the Committee consultants and all the stakeholders to get there. So with that, happy to recommend an aye vote, happy to support the Bill, and would invite either of you to close.

On behalf of Senator Roth, we respectfully. Ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. The motion is do pass to Health Committee. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number five SB 595 by Senator Roth. Gabriel aye. Patterson not voting. Bauer-Kahan aye. Bennett aye. Essayli aye Fong aye. Hart aye. Irwin aye. Lowenthal aye. Papan aye. Wicks aye. Patterson aye.

The Bill is out with the unanimous 11-0 vote. Congratulations.

Okay. Senator Dodd is not heading over despite the adjournment. He has asked me to present SCR 17, if that's okay.

Okay, so we are going to head now to well, actually, do you mind? I see that we have Senator Eggman here.

Yeah.

Do you have witnesses?

No, but let me hand this... I need to run to Committee.

Okay, Senator Eggman, are you ready to go? Oh, Becker? I'll let you two work it out. Okay, we are going to move to file item one, SB 362. Becker.

Thank you, chair and Committee Members, for let me present SB 362, the California Delete Act. I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments, outline and analysis, and thanking your staff for working with mine on the Bill. The analysis was extremely comprehensive and excellent. In his 2019 commencement address at Stanford, apple CEO Tim Cook said, "if we accept as normal, unavoidable, that everything in our lives can be aggregated and sold, then we lose so much more than data. We lose the freedom to be human."

He later called for all data brokers to register and give users the power to delete their data on demand, freely, easily, and online once and for all. So even the CEO of the biggest of all technology companies tells us we need the ability for consumers to have this kind of global delete button.

When it comes to shadowy third parties who collect our most sensitive data, the data brokers collect many types of information, thousands of data points, including our precise geolocation, what Apps we have on our phone, our medical history, reproductive healthcare information, and what purchases we make. And anyone with a credit card can buy it from them. This Bill helps empower consumers by building upon the right to delete that we have under the California Consumer Privacy Act.

Under current law, in order to request a data broker delete their information, a consumer has to manually contact 450 different actually, now 480 different data brokers listed on the registry figure out how to delete. And each one of them has a different deletion mechanism on their site. So you may have to go to another website, send an email, write a letter, et cetera. Further, consumer would have to request their data to be deleted again and again.

For all the new information a data broker collects on them. This process is far too difficult. Many have commented on, especially for at risk groups who have their financial privacy, personal privacy, reproductive privacy, and even immigration status jeopardized. So, under this Bill, Californians will be able to go to online portal, spend just 30 seconds requesting the data brokers delete any data they have on them, and to no longer track them. That's it.

Under this Bill, Californians will be actually able to exercise their privacy rights and finally take control of their data. With me, I have Molly Robson from the Planned Parenthood Action of California and Matt Schwartz from Consumer Reports.

A motion from Assembly Member Wicks, and a second from Assembly Member Papan. Please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We represent the seven affiliates in the state who operate over 110 health centers in California. Since the Dobbs decision one year ago, 20 states have enacted bans on abortion or have severely restricted access to abortion and criminalized patients for simply accessing health care.

Planned Parenthood, alongside our partners in the reproductive health and justice space, and the Legislature, have taken many steps to protect patients and consumers accessing reproductive health care, especially in the wake of the Dobbs decision and people being forced to seek care here in California, this Bill is especially timely.

As noted in the analysis and reported by Motherboard, a California registered data broker, SafeGraph, sold information related to visits to clinics that provide abortions, including Planned Parenthood facilities, showing where groups of people visiting the locations came from, how long they stayed there, and where they went afterwards. This Bill, by allowing consumers a one stop location to delete personal information collected by data brokers, will improve consumer privacy, but specifically for reproductive healthcare patients, ensure some peace of mind when they're accessing healthcare.

Patient privacy is of utmost importance to Planned Parenthood health centers. And ensuring that data brokers cannot sell data related to reproductive care services is a critical next step in protecting patient privacy and confidentiality. For these reasons, I would respectfully urge your support on this Bill today. Thank you.

Chair Gabriel, Vice Chair Patterson and the Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Schwartz. Thank you for allowing me to testify. Today, Consumer Reports supports SB 362 California Delete Act because it would give consumers more control over how their personal information is treated by data brokers entities that many consumers may not even know exist, let alone that they collect thousands of data points about their lives.

Currently, CCPA's right to delete does not apply to data brokers because they do not directly collect information from consumers. However, the indirectness of the collection is precisely why such an omission is problematic. Since consumers don't typically directly interact with data brokers themselves, they usually don't know this collection is happening, let alone how to put a stop to it. Notably, other state privacy laws, like those in Connecticut and Colorado do apply deletion rights to data brokers.

SB 362 would remedy the shortcoming by giving consumers deletion rights in addition to requiring data brokers to provide important information about what information they collect. The easy to use universal deletion mechanism created under SB 362 is also crucial because few people have the time or the wherewithal to delete their information individually from each broker that collects it, assuming that they could even find out which ones do. Universal privacy controls are not a new idea.

Several comprehensive state privacy laws, including those in Connecticut, Colorado, Montana and Texas, employ similar universal opt out mechanisms. Consumers deserve this right in California as well, and we urge the Committee to pass this legislation. Thank you for allowing me to testify and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Now, invite anyone else in the hearing room in support of the Bill to come forward.

Tracy Rosenberg, on behalf of Oakland Privacy and in support of SB 362.

Jen Inkstrom, with Calpirg in support.

Good afternoon. Dani Kando-Kaiser. On behalf of the co sponsors of the Bill, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse as well as stating support from the following groups: Electronic Frontier Foundation, Access Reproductive Action, Secure Justice, Fair Play, California Association of Micro Enterprise Opportunity, Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Action, Ultraviolet Action, Public Counsel, Public Law Center, Betzetick Legal Services, Centro Legal De La Raza, community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, Legal Aid Marin, Legal Aid of San Bernardino, Riverside Legal Aid, Legal Assistance for Seniors, Open Door Legal, Santa Clara University, Alexander Community Law Center, Watsonville Law Center thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members, Doug Subers here. Pleased to be here today in support on behalf of Californians for Consumer Privacy, honored to co sponsor the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now turn to opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ronak Daylami with the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition to SB 362. We appreciate the Committee amendments, but without additional amendments made to the Bill, we unfortunately find that it will still be problematic and largely unworkable. This Bill is premised on a stated loophole in the CCPA that austen exempts data brokers from the consumer's right to delete and a desire to make it easier for consumers to submit their requests with such entities.

To be clear, however, there is no such loophole in the CCPA for data brokers, meaning they have to make certain disclosures, they have to provide an opportunity to opt out, and they do have to delete. We know that the CCPA was intentionally drafted to apply not only to first party businesses, but also to address the reality that data often flows downstream to service providers, contractors, and other third parties as well, helping close potential gaps in the law.

And while we acknowledge that the rights are not limitless, intentionally crafted exceptions don't constitute loopholes. The loophole argument hinges on the fact that the CCPA's deletion right applies to data collected from the consumer and not about the consumer. That limitation, however, was put in place to help avoid running afoul of the First Amendment. We'd argue that this Bill doesn't actually fix the issue, as it for good reason maintains the CCPA's First Amendment exception.

What we're left with is a Bill that creates a blunt global deletion instrument that alters the right of deletion two critical ways. First, the right would operate into perpetuity for businesses on the registry, meaning they have to reprocess a request every 31 days for all of time. The burden of having to continually reprocess requests is enormous. A business can't just hit a delete button and call it a day.

They need to make sure that they don't delete data that would undermine security, that would violate another consumer's rights, and many other things. Second, the Bill effectively creates a second right of deletion that applies to the same data and businesses that are already covered under the CCPA, as well as registered on this registry. Failing to harmonize the Bill with the CCPA exemptions will inevitably cause confusion in deciphering legal obligations.

For example, under CCPA, a business isn't obligated to comply with a request if it requires them to first reidentify de-identified information. Nor do they have to comply if the data is covered under other data privacy laws such as HIPAA or GLBA. These and many other critical exemptions are being left out of the Bill. So for these and many other reasons, we must unfortunately oppose in its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members, Courtney Jensen, on behalf of Tech CA, we appreciate the conversations we've had so far with the author's office and the sponsors. As providers of technology services and software solutions directly to government agencies, Tech CA members often do not have a direct relationship with the consumer and are thereby required to register on the California Data Broker Registry.

We do not have an issue with the bill's intent to make the mechanism of deletion easier for consumers, but Tech CA member companies' contracts with the state often require that they provide information to their customers per the existing exemptions under the CCPA. Tech CA has specifically requested an amendment to cross-reference the language in the CCPA exemptions section in Civil Code Section 1798.145.

The exemptions in this section were heavily scrutinized during the creation of CCPA to ensure proper exemptions for federal sectoral privacy laws and legal compliance use cases that are critical for government services. We believe it is critical to continue to rely on this section in the context of SB 362.

We appreciate the work the author has already done to align the Bill with the CCPA to ensure that they do not conflict for businesses, and our amendment requests the same clarification for information that can be shared following a deletion request. We just want to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently negatively impact government services. Precluding the sharing of information could mean information dropping out of records needed for everyday government functions, including information needed to verify identities for online access to government services.

Information used by child support services in order to determine the amount. That it's going to be required for a parent to pay for child support and data provided to foster youth agencies to unite children and family members when relocation is needed. Those are just some of the examples that really rely on those exemptions that are included in Civil Code Section 1798.145.

Again, we really appreciate the engagement with the author's office on our requested amendment and look forward to continuing to work with the Senator on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the hearing room in opposition?

Leannete Ide with Tech Net respectfully opposed.

Jonathan Arable on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers, also in opposition.

Thank you very much. Seeing that, we will bring it back to Members of the Committee. Assemblymember Fong.

Thank you, Senator. I must admit, I'm still trying to kind of wrap my hands around this very complicated issue to the point made by the opposition in terms of just local government, in terms of disclosure of personal information to comply with. Federal, state, local laws or to comply with the court order. Could you kind of clarify or provide some additional information on what's exempted, what isn't exempted, and how you resolve that kind of potential conflict?

Yeah, let me make some comments about the section and we are in discussions and I do appreciate that. So we're closely reviewing the proposal around the reference section, trying to determine if references that entire section for kind of the reason I think the point of your question referencing the entire section sound policy. We already include a reference to a subdivision of Civil Code section Zero 105, and as a result, there's reasons data broker may not initiate a deletion request having to do mostly with public safety.

But given the unique nature of the data broker industry and some of the examples you heard here today, we want to be really careful about what types of exemptions we provide. So this section we referred to, 00:45, that includes 18 subdivisions with 16 that are currently in effect. So we're closely going through each of these. Some of these exemptions would more than likely not apply to a data broker.

For example, there's an exception to the sale of personal information between a vessel manufacturer and a vessel dealer in order to effectuate a recall or warrant. So also we should make sure that a blanket reference doesn't allow data broker to deny consumer request simply because we reference the entire section. So I don't know if our expert, if Doug Subers wants to speak specifically to some of the exclusions we've already made.

But in order to your general question, and I think to the points referenced by the opposition were under discussions about that entire section of .145 going forward.

I think the only thing I would add I think the Senator nailed it. The only thing I would add is in the context of government interaction with a data broker, we are talking about a situation in which a data broker that does not have a relationship with you, collected information about you, and then has a contract separately with potentially a government entity to provide information. So not saying That's good, not saying That's bad, but that is just the interaction that we're talking about. So I think that is why there's such just a careful assessment of those exemptions that are in the law.

So certainly don't want to take away from the intent of the Bill. You threw a lot of sections at me, so maybe I could just try to simplify it a little bit and maybe ask the opposition, is there a way to clarify this? It's a very technical situation for local government understanding the need to afford the deletion. But if there's somehow a way, a requirement to comply with a local law or state law or court order, how would you resolve that? How is that possible?

I can start, I think our concern about sort of going through 0.145 and piecemealing it is to the centers. There's a lot in there.

And let me just say that I'm not an attorney.

I am not either, so I just play one. But these were exemptions that were Ms. Daylami can speak to this, but there was a lot of time spent on the exemptions in this section when CCPA was being passed, when CPRA was being voted on by the voters, and a lot of them interplay with each other. For example, one exemption in that section is for the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

And you wouldn't necessarily think of that in the context of government services, but there's a lot of information that is allowed for through that exemption specifically to support the child support example that, you know, there's exemptions in there and recognition for businesses not having to re-identify information. There's exemptions about deidentified and aggregated data, which there was a lot of work being spent on that during CCPA creation.

So I think we just need to be our preference would be because this code section has been in existence, these exemptions have been working for businesses. Businesses well understand these exemptions that we cross reference this code section. And I think there are some local government groups that have requested this exemption also as the full section and not trying to go through and piecemeal it.

But did she nail that or did you?

If I could add to it a little bit, I think she's exactly right. I do think when we passed the CCPA, we had the exemptions in 1798-145 first, and many other exemptions were added to 105 which have been incorporated in this Bill. They weren't meant to be in lieu of they were meant to be in addition to. And so when you leave out all those exemptions, we don't quite know all the ramifications quite yet either.

And it's not just about government services, but there's many instances wherein data is exempted because it's already covered under specific privacy laws such as HIPAA, CMIA, GLBA, FCRA, the Drivers Protection Privacy Act, all those things are all in that one, four, five section. And you can have a situation where a company registered as a data broker on the registry is also a company that may have a direct relationship with a consumer. So in one context they're wearing a data broker hat and another they're not.

And so when they get a request to delete from a consumer without having all the exemptions cross referenced, I don't know what you're supposed to do as that business. Are you supposed to acknowledge the exemptions? Are you supposed to ignore them? We have no idea.

Okay, so let me just end by asking the Senator, it sounds to me that the concern, if I could simplify it and please let me know if I have got this incorrect is what I'm trying to understand is there's different sets of rules, it seems like referring to different laws and requirements and sections. And I'm trying to understand if there are amendments or changes that could kind of clarify how this all is supposed to tie together.

And I've read some of the amendments that you accepted from the Committee, I just didn't know if there was some additional amendments that could resolve some of these clarification questions because certainly understand and appreciate the intent of the Bill, met with a number of the supporters.

Just trying to figure out if there's just these small changes that somehow if you had to reference a different section or reference multiple sections, if that was something that was doable to the point where it would remove some or address maybe not remove the opposition, but address some of the opposition.

Yeah. Just to respond first, all of I appreciate you trying to get to the bottom of this, because there was a lot of sections we discussed. But the point is, I think we already made exemptions for fraud and security protections in Senate Judiciary, but there are some additional things that we discussed. I just want to add, we've asked local government, both cities and counties, for which sections apply to their services and why, and they're still getting back to us.

So I think you have my commitment that we will continue this conversation. We want to make sure that. We don't mess anything up, for lack of a better word, with cities and counties and allow them to go about their business.

Thank you very much, Senator. I'm going to hand the gavel over to our Vice Chair. I have a witness that needs to catch a flight, so I'm going to run over to Senate Judiciary. But you will be in very capable hands. But I just want to compliment you on the Bill. It's a great Bill. I'm happy to support and would respectfully be asked to be added as a co-author.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions from the Committee? All right, Assemblymember Essayli.

A couple of questions. I heard some interesting things said by the opposition. I'd like to get clarification. You said the CCPA covers information provided by consumers, but you don't think it covers information collected about consumers. Is that-

So, the way that 1798105 is drafted is that it applies to you have ability to request deletion of data that was collected from the consumer, but not about the consumer. So, for example, if I upload a photo onto a website, it's received from me so I can delete it. If Courtney were to upload the same photo because we're both in it, I can't go and force the website to delete the photo on Courtney's page because she has rights attached to it as well.

But what about these aggregators that go online, they scrape the Internet, they collect all this information about you. They put a profile about you. They know who your kids are, who your parents are, they know where you've lived, every address. They have every phone number you've ever had. And you're saying, don't we don't have a right to the way that control that information?

Sorry, yes. The way that the CCPA right now is drafted is it focuses on where it's collected from you. I would add that publicly available information is also excluded from what's considered personal information under the CCPA. They're all getting at the same concept in different mean.

It might be beyond the scope of I'm I think there's a difference between publicly available information and aggregating. It all to basically have your whole life laid out in a single place that could be weaponized or used for harassment. So I'm troubled by that distinction. I wasn't aware that it doesn't cover that the issue with government. I support you guys working together and finding a way to move forward in an amicable manner.

I do have reservations as well of sort of the government is now outsourcing surveillance or information gathering to third parties who are less accountable and not subject to constitutional restraints. So I do have concerns the government is headed in that direction where they're just going to have third parties do the information gathering for them and then they can just go get it when they want it instead of having to write a warrant, those sort of things. So I'm just expressing some concerns I have as a citizen, but I support this concept and I think you'll get right so yeah.

Thank you. I think for the first part of your questions or your thought process, That's exactly why we have the Bill, right, the Doxing or other things That's available that happens because this information is available to anyone with a credit card and from any of these providers. That's really the kind of core point. In terms of your second point, the government know less familiar with that in the context of this, but something to be watchful for.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lowenthal.

Yeah, I'll be very brief. First of all, I want to commend you, Senator, for this Bill. I think it is wonderful. We'd like to be considered as a co-author, if you have room for such and without getting too far into the weeds in it. It furthers my fundamental belief that we should all have intellectual property over our own digital footprint and nobody else should have that and giving much more power to the consumer.

I also think it lends itself to two sort of core human rights issues that I think lends itself to this first is our own personal evolution and what information is being presented to us personally as we search for information and are presented information online.

So, for example, if the Assembly Member from Riverside County and I search for the exact same concepts right now, we may be presented two totally and completely different bits of information based on a lot of the data brokering That's been taking place behind the scenes. And I think that affects our evolution and I think that consumers should have much more control over those things. And so I applaud you completely for giving consumers much more meaningful control.

And on the topic of being meaningful, I also think that consumers should have a lot more direct participation in the economy presented through brokering and data and the wholesale exchange of data which we do not have today whatsoever. And I think this is a pathway, beginning of a pathway towards that. I know it's a first step and we have a long way to go, but fundamentally believe in that too. Thank you again, Senator. For this Bill.

Thank you. Any other comments from the Committee? All right, I have a couple of comments. For me, this is a really big issue, generally speaking, the amount of data That's out there on individuals before I got elected to the Assembly and all the hit pieces on me moved up really high in the Google rankings. All sorts of information personal was available, and some of it I voluntarily put up, some of it I didn't.

And nobody really reads terms of service when you sign up for something and how data is going to be used, a, I'm not a lawyer, b, they're usually like hundreds of pages long and I just want to sign up for Instagram or something. So I agree with the concept.

I think where I get a little bit where I struggle with because I think people should have power over their personal information, especially information that they voluntarily put up and is used in ways that wasn't really intended by them either through their own negligence and even trying to figure out how it's going to be used or just who knows where it goes after that, right. But also I think about how data is often used by companies for governmental services.

When I was on a City Council, we were considering permitting short term rentals in our city after a shooting occurred. And we just talked about, well, how would we track this? How would we track what's a short term rental? How do we even find out things like that? And there are companies that do this, and I think they obviously use data brokers to figure out when things are rented, all that stuff. And then also in this Committee, I think we considered a Bill about a drone.

Drones, there's basically one manufacturer of drones that a lot of police departments use, and the software is basically out of China and who knows where that information, you know, we address that a little bit here. But I just think for me, it seems very complicated to go to a company and say, hey, delete stuff because we don't really know the utility of that information for legitimate purposes.

And I think That's where we can say, hey, go delete this data, but there could be an actual legitimate purpose for that data and you might not know it yet when it's up there. And I'm obviously happy to have you address that.

Yeah, I should say, first of all, I appreciate that you're struggling. The Committee is struggling with these issues, and I'm kind of jealous. You have an entire Committee really focused on these issues because they are complicated, I think increasingly important and will only continue to get more important as more and more data is out there on us. And there are beneficial uses, right, fraud detection and prevention, facilitating loan insurance approvals. There are positive benefits that we do get.

One of the amendments that we're taking in this Committee and discussed with the Assemblywoman and others is by having one of the key things the Bill does is data brokers have to say what kind of information they collect. And one of the amendments that we're taking will allow people to go through and look and say, hey, great, I'm happy to leave my information here with this data broker, but I want to delete it from this one, this one, and this one.

Right. So you could do the global delete, or you could actually go through now that you see what kind of information is available. So I think there are positive benefits, and if people want to take advantage of those, That's great, but we do want to give people the option.

Can I ask you a question? Can you right now go to a data broker and ask them what information they have on you?

I believe so. I don't know. Maybe our witness?

Yes. The answer is yes. Under the California Privacy Rights Act and the Civil Code, you can ask for personal information as long as the data broker meets the terms under. As a business. Yeah, it's just not always easy. Right. Just as we said right now, if you want to delete, you have to go to 480 different websites. You also have to go to 480 different websites to figure out what information they collect on you.

Okay, thank you. Yes. Assemblymember Irwin.

Thank you. First, I just wanted to clarify, are the deletion rights the same as with this Bill, the same as under CCPA, or is that what you're working toward?

Well, I think I'll refer to my witness, but what we're trying to do is, again, CCPA, I think the goal was to have some deletion rights, but again, you have to go to 480 different websites. I mean, That's one of the fundamental things we're solving with this Bill, as opposed to having a one stop shop delete my information. But anything to add there? Yeah.

I would just add that the Bill does refer to create alignment between the definitions between the two laws. But the Bill does put an explicit requirement on the data brokers to delete the personal information they have about a consumer. Unless there's the exemption in 1798.105 D, subdivision D that are allowable reasons not to submit a deletion request.

Okay, so it does align. Yeah.

All right. So you and I have talked about it, and I think the amount of information those data brokers have is frightening. Like for me, especially when they have live location data. I think that That's appalling and I would do my little PSA to all of you, make sure to go through all your apps and that they're not collecting your location data, because That's often where they get that information.

And I have gone through some data brokers and tried to delete my information, and it is very difficult and really impossible if you're talking about 500 different data brokers but this is a complicated idea, I think really necessary, but complicated. One of the things that I would question is how much does that data broker need to know about you before they can delete your information? So you can't just go online to a data broker and say, this is my name.

You need to make sure it's the right person. You might have to give your address and then that all becomes a little scary also. So have you thought through some of those technicalities? Because as I said, when I went to the data broker, you had to fill out a whole form to make sure it was the right person. So then I feel that it's even more of an infringement on your privacy.

It is a good question. I mean, I will say the core business of these folks is to figure out who you are, right? They know there's many John Smiths. They're trying to figure out who you are. Otherwise the value of the product is undermined. And again, I'll defer to if my witness has specifics on that. I don't know.

The specifics is a good question, but I think I can say we would certainly have the minimum necessary for them to be able to identify and it is a core part of the business. Do you have any comment on that?

Yeah, I won't read it. But if you look at section six of the Bill in subdivision A, when it directs the California Privacy Protection Agency to develop an accessible deletion mechanism, one on line four through nine talks about implementing and maintaining reasonable security measures. There is a requirement within the current law that a request has to be verifiable, so the business or the entity has the right to verify that it is you requesting to delete your data and maybe not someone else.

So there is, I guess, a point at which you're trying to balance providing information to identify that it is you and at the same time not providing more information to the universe, if you will.

Thank you. And again, I think this is a really important issue. As Mr. Lowenthal has said, I think we have given away way too much of our personal information and California is really trying to ratchet it down. But a lot of times the devil is in the details. So continue to work on it and this would be great for consumers. Thank you.

In response to my colleague, I'd just like to quickly say that if the standard for exercising your privacy rights is that you have to demonstrate that there's no value to the information that somebody else might have, we wouldn't be able to exercise very many privacy rights. So I think we can't say, zero, we're not going to do this because this information might be valuable to somebody. That's just way too high of a standard for us to have. We should be able to exercise our privacy rights. Thank you very much.

Any other comments from the Committee? All right, just one last comment, if you wouldn't mind. I think the 30 days, just from my perspective, is a little bit aggressive, but I really appreciate your work in this area. I'm really concerned about our data and the proliferation and the use of it, and I don't really have sympathy for reasons why it's needed too much. But this is a monster Bill with consequences that I think are pretty obviously good for people.

But also there's some big ones that I can't really you bring up a good point. Assembly Member Bennett, thank you for saying, know, I'm going to lay off, I think, today, and I'd love to have more meetings with the proponents before this heads to the floor. But thank you for bringing this. And with that, you can close.

Sure. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion and happy to continue it with any of the folks on the Committee. We're working hard on the details and look forward to conversations going forward. Appreciate again the interest in the topic and our witnesses and expert witnesses and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. And was there a motion?

Motion is do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee.

All right, you can take a roll.

Okay, item number one, SB 362 by Senator Senator Becker. Bennett aye. Essayli not voting. Fong not voting. Hart aye. Irwin aye. Lowenthal aye. Papan Aye. Wicks aye.

Is it out or no?

Okay. It is out. And we'll wait to add on some more votes towards the end. So thank you very much.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right. Senator Eggman, thank you for being here, and whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much.

Sorry about that. It's SB 244.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. Nice to be here today. Presenting SB 244. And for those of you who are first-termers, I've been working on this issue since 2018 when I was in this body. So for all good ideas, there comes a time and we think this year is going to be the time. The product before you today is the result of significant negotiation and work and many different attempts and many different iterations, but this one simply says that we as consumers should have more control over our lives, our devices.

Californians throw away 46,000 iphones a day. It's easier to throw one away to get a new one and it's very difficult to get one fixed. Oftentimes, if you live like I do in Stockton, the business model is there is only a store within 50 miles of me. So I have to take a full day, make an appointment, and go wait in line because oftentimes if you go down to your corner retailer who are independent person, they don't have the parts, they don't have the materials, they don't have the tools, they don't have the information.

So that's what this bill simply says, is that anybody selling anything in California has--and there already is a bill, there was already law that says anything that we sell should have a three to seven year warranty on that.

So this simply says--and oftentimes the manufacturers get around that by only providing the parts, the tools, the schematics for their qualified dealers. So that really limits the market. We know that this is really good for small business. Our small mom and pop repair places that pop up everywhere are just as capable of somebody that a major corporation hires instead. It is--we know that people do these repairs all the time just using YouTube and oftentimes not having the correct parts and/or instructions.

So this bill addresses those things and again, it will save on reducing the amount of e-waste trash that we are going to kill ourselves with and the rest of the world if we don't able to fix more of our things. I can tell you as somebody well over 60 who's been in the doctor this week with a bad knee, I'm glad that we can fix things and we don't just have to throw them away and start from scratch.

This bill has received bipartisan overwhelming support as it's gone through this time. As you know, we've engaged in a lot of debates and engagement and we think we're on the right track to really make sure this is a win win win for everybody, and with me today I have Jenn Engstrom from CALPIRG and Liz Chamberlain from iFixit.

Great, thank you Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jenn Engstrom. I'm the State Director for CALPIRG, statewide consumer advocacy group, and we're a proud co-sponsor of SB 244. Our state and country has an electronic waste problem. California households alone produce an estimated 772,000 tons of e-waste each year which can leach toxic chemicals into our environment, and this number is so high in part because manufacturers of devices ranging from smartphones to refrigerators restrict access to necessary repair materials.

As a result, consumers are forced to go to the original manufacturer who can then set prices so high that it just makes sense to buy something new. SB 244 will bring more competition and consumer choice to the repair marketplace. With more options for repair, consumers can more affordably fix their devices, which is expected to save Californians an estimated five billion dollars per year.

Keeping things in use and out of the landfill will also address our e-waste crisis and reduce the need for necessary mining and production. SB 244 will also provide opportunities for small businesses. Small, local repair businesses across the state are struggling, with 59 percent of shops surveyed indicating that they might have to close their doors if manufacturers continue to restrict repair access. Given all this, it's no surprise that right to repair is broadly popular across the political spectrum.

Our survey found that 75 percent of Californians support right to repair, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. President Biden has reiterated support for these reforms, and states across the country are starting to take action with similar bills passing recently in New York, Colorado, and Minnesota. Opponents of the bill may run all sorts of arguments against it, including concerns around safety and cybersecurity, but the Federal Trade Commission investigated these and other concerns and found, quote, 'scant evidence in support of manufacturers' justifications for repair restrictions.'

And they stated that the changes we seek are, quote, 'well supported by comments supported for the record and testimony provided.' Right to repair is an idea whose time has come. You have an opportunity to make a huge step forward for consumers and for the environment. For those reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Hi there. Thank you for hearing this. A pleasure to be here. I'm Elizabeth Chamberlain. I'm Director of Sustainability for iFixit, which is a co-sponsor of SB 244. We are a repair company based in San Luis Obispo. We have nearly 100,000 guides for how to fix everything from toasters to tractors, and we sell parts and tools for consumer gadgets so that people can fix things themselves.

We also sell parts and tools wholesale to independent repair shops, and recently, we've started helping manufacturers get original parts to their customers. We're now the official repair parts distributor for Google and Samsung. Through our business, we hear from individuals and from independent repair shops about the things that make repair difficult. Both groups complain that they have trouble finding spare parts.

Manufacturers of products like vacuum cleaners and fitness trackers often don't have any parts available at all. Other products have only a very limited range of parts. For example, when the audio chip failed in my last phone, I could find a battery or a screen easily, but not the audio chip.

But even when you can find a replacement part, repair may still be blocked. Increasingly, software locks make repairs difficult or impossible. Through a process called 'parts pairing,' manufacturers link a part to a device serial number and then limit the parts functionality unless you put in a special code. Some parts pairing just makes annoying warnings pop up. Other systems actually make a part impossible to replace. SB 244 would address all of these problems.

It would make sure that individuals and independent repair shops can get access to the same parts, tools, and documentation that manufacturer shops have, it would require that manufacturers give customers access to the software necessary to make parts functional, and it would level the playing field for repair, making repair cheaper and more widely available for all Californians. Given this Committee's privacy and consumer protection focus, I want to set the record straight.

Manufacturers may tell you that this bill puts consumers' private data at risk, but repair doesn't require access to that data. Companies that are genuinely concerned about customers' data could follow Samsung's lead. They recently introduced a maintenance mode that consumers can put a device into when they send something in for repair that hides personal data, limits access only to functions that are required for troubleshooting. I'd also like to point out that this bill exempts all trade secrets, doesn't require manufacturers to license intellectual property.

We've worked really closely with manufacturers and with independent repair shops to keep this bill focused on its goal, which is making sure that repair is possible without introducing new risks to consumers. iFixit's business gives us a unique opportunity to hear concerns from all corners of the repair market, and we work with repair shops, consumers, advocates, we run repair programs for manufacturers, and from that work we can say that this bill is a sound compromise that works for all interests. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses, name and affiliation in support.

Good afternoon. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support, and also authorized to express the support of the Greenlining Institute.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Consumer Protection Policy Center of the USD Law School in support, as well as the Carbon Cycle Institute. Thank you.

Liv Butler on behalf of Californians Against Waste, a proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Marky Sieger on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support.

Dani Kando-Kaiser on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.

Matt Schwartz on behalf of Consumer Reports. We're in support.

Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of the list, so I apologize. City and County of San Francisco, Solid Waste Association of North America, Legislative Task Force, California Chapters, National Stewardship Action Council, California Product Stewardship Council, Western Placer Waste Management Authority and the City of Beverly Hills. All in support of thank you.

Amara Eger, on behalf of Rethink Waste, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and the Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition and support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. We will now turn to opposition.

Good afternoon, chair Vice Chair Members. Dean Tally with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. CMTA works to improve and enhance a strong business climate for California's 30,000 manufacturing, processing and technology based companies. Our trade organization represents nearly 500 businesses for the manufacturing community, a sector of California's economy that generates more than $300 billion annually and employs more than 1.3 million people.

Our Members are the international leaders in innovation and technological development of autonomous vehicles, aerospace and defense systems that operate globally, and everything else included within the manufacturing spectrum in California. For industry Right to Repair frameworks have been ongoing in California and nationally for the last five years. Right to Repair is a national dialogue.

The legislative body's role in this debate is balancing the consumer interest in having the right to repair with the sometimes proprietary and technological innovations of the industry, as well as personal security and consumer safety. From our membership perspective, our impression of this Bill is that it requires OEMs to provide the know how to diagnose and repair a product, but does so without consumer protection that is afforded by our repaired networks, trained in competency and potential risks, or puts data privacy and security at risk.

The state must satisfy this requirement keep proprietary and competitive engineering from being disclosed to the public, causing potential harm to consumers and businesses alike. California manufacturers are making significant investments in developing products and services and protecting our intellectual property as a legitimate concern to sustain future innovations in a diverse technological industry. Even with these concerns, CMTA's membership is still unclear as to what products are and are not within the scope of this Bill. A specific and narrowly crafted Right to Repair Bill is needed.

And while we appreciate the many conversations we've had with staff, we are not convinced this is narrow enough. For these reasons, we remain opposed.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition in the hearing?

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair and Members, Stephanie Morwell here on behalf of the Consumer Technology Association, we are opposed to the Bill in its current form. We want to thank the author, her staff and the sponsors of the Bill for continued conversations and look forward to resolving some outstanding issues. Thank you.

Leah Nitake with Technet. We have an opposed, unless amended, position on the Bill. Thank you.

Jamie Huff with Civil Justice Association of California. Respect the author and the intent and would like to work on further amendments. Thank you.

Hi. Meg Snyder with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Opposed.

Hi, Jonathan Arambel on behalf of CTIA, the trade Association for the Wireless industry, also opposed unless amended.

Thank you very much. We'll now bring it back to the Committee. Questions, comments from Members of the Committee? Somebody? Member Fong.

Thank you, Senator. Just one quick question, just to clarify. I know ongoing effort. I know there's been issues in the past about medical devices. I wonder if you could just answer how this applies or doesn't apply to medical devices.

Yeah, that is a different regulating body, and so that medical devices do not apply. You'll see Senator Dodd come through with something with electric wheelchairs. We attempted that during COVID when, as you may recall, like, an X ray machine or MRI machine was breaking down somewhere and people were just stopped because they couldn't get the technical repair person up there. So we tried that year, too, for medical devices. We're successful. Somebody else is doing that this year. We're just doing the straight. Your personal devices and appliances.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member Wicks.

Thank you. I want to thank the Senator's dedication to this. I know that you've been on this journey for quite some time, so I appreciate your doggedness on it. I think this is a common sense Bill. I think it makes sense. We have such a high volume of electronic goods, and I worry about its impact on our planet and what happens with all of those goods and those batteries and all the other things associated with this.

And the more that we have the ability to actually fix those things, the better. I'd love to be added as a co author, and I'm happy to make a motion to move the Bill if we thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion from assemblymember Wicks a second from Assemblymember Bennett. Okay, any other questions, comments? Vice chair?

Questions. What's the thought process on including starting from 2021?

Starting from 2021? Just because That's the things that are already manufactured, people already have in their hands right now.

Because they wanted to go back even further, and that seemed like unmanageable. So that was the compromise that we came to.

Okay.

All right. And this is for if the manufacturer provides tools and documentation to their authorized facility.

Correct.

And how does this work exactly? You've been obviously much more involved in this than I have. How does this work with if you have a device, it's under warranty. You make the repair and then your repair. I definitely would not repair it as good as an authorized person. So is my phone still under warranty?

We continue to work with the manufacturers on that one. We'll probably take that one on later. I mean, your warranty should remain your warranty if you have all the correct tools to be able to make it. So That's an issue that is still ongoing that we need to continue to work on. But as we talked about how Samsung is able to do things, it can be done. Whether a manufacturer would choose to take that route, we would hope not. That's the route they take right now.

But with the passage of this and with being known then that they are independent people are also under the same legislative body as the manufacturers. And right now, the preferred providers, they're all regulated by the same entities. So the warranty should remain in effect.

Okay.

It's easy to make that excuse now if you're not going to somebody who has the parts from the manufacturer.

All right, just one last comment I'm appreciative, and it sounds like you're still working on this and some of the details on the warranties, for example, that issue. But I think what you're trying to do is a good thing. I've seen a lot of regulatory bodies throughout the world sort of push this issue with some of the bigger companies, but obviously this is much more broad than that. This is something I think that I would be interested in considering support. I'd like to see it sort of in its final version.

Sure.

But appreciate your work on this and what happened to your bills in the past on this issue, by the way?

Oftentimes they didn't even get a hearing. It's hard to kill things in the light of day, I say.

Well, I know that feeling. But, hey, thanks again and appreciate your commitment to this. Thanks.

Yes. I just really believe that we need to give the power back to the people. And if we buy something, we bought it. We're not leasing it from a company. If we choose to lease something from a company, then we should have to go back to that company. If we buy it, it's ours, and we should be able to make decisions about how we want to repair it 100%. Thank you.

Okay, I think That's it. Senator, I also want to applaud you for your years of patient work on this issue. Appreciate all the work that you've done in the space. It's nice to see that the President is following your lead on these issues. And this is an issue That's risen to one of national importance and that other states have acted. Want to compliment you on the Bill that you've crafted so far.

I think a lot of thoughtful safeguards in there for IP, for cybersecurity, for privacy, for consumer safety. I'm happy to support the Bill today and would just associate my comments with those of Assembly Member Wicks. This is a common sense Bill and it's time to get it done. So happy to support the day and recommend an aye vote, and the motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. And so we had a motion from Assembly Member Wicks. A second from Assembly Member Bennett. Madam Secretary. Senator, please call. Please close if you wish.

I just appreciate the dialogue. I am very proud of my 1954 Wedgwood oven that's still running in my house, but all of my other larger appliances had to be my mother law was just down and said, you have to start with this new dishwasher because I don't understand it. And we had to get a new one despite having one not less than five years ago because we couldn't get it repaired. I ask for your aye vote.

That's quite a close. All right. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number four SB 244 by Senator Eggman. The motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. Gabriel aye. Patterson not voting. Bauer-Kahan. Bennett aye. Essayli not voting. Fong not voting. Hart aye. Irwin aye. Lowenthal aye. Papan aye. Wicks aye.

That has seven votes. Your Bill is out. We will leave the roll open for absent Members to add on. Congratulations. Okay, let's go ahead and open the roll on SB 362. Becker.

Item number one SB 362 by Senator Becker. Gabriel Aye. Bauer-Kahan.

Okay, that vote now is seven/zero, so that bill is out, and we will leave the roll open for absent Members. We have one more. Yeah. I just wanted to add on to the--okay. We're now going to turn to our final item, File Item Number Three: SCR 17, and we have Assembly Member Irwin who's going to be presenting for Senator Dodd.

And we all have other Committees to get to, so I will ask you to--I'll be quick. Mr. Chair and Members, SCR 17 affirms this Legislature's commitment to developing a safe and responsible framework for the use of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform our society, improve our lives in countless ways, from enabling personalized health care to enhancing the safety and efficiency of our transportation systems, but as with any new technology, it also presents new challenges and risks, particularly with respect to data privacy, cybersecurity, and bias.

This resolution acknowledges these risks and affirms our commitment to addressing them in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. It calls on us to work with industry leaders, researchers, and other stakeholders to develop guidelines and best practices that ensure the safe, responsible, and equitable use of AI.

I urge your support for this resolution and to join me in advancing policies that promote innovation while also protecting the public interest. By doing so, we can ensure that the benefits of AI are realized by all and that we can build a future together that is not only smarter, but also safer and more just. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Assembly Member Hart, who got there first. I'll take that as a second by Assembly Member Lowenthal. Any witnesses in the room in support of the bill? Any witnesses in opposition? See none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Comments? Questions? All right. See none, thank you very much, Assembly Member, for presenting this. Obviously a huge issue of concern.

I have an expectation that many, many of the bills that this Committee hears in the future will deal with the subject of AI, but this is an important start, and happy to support the bill. With that, would respectfully invite you to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. With that, the motion is 'be adopted,' and we have a motion from Assembly Member Hart. A second from Assembly Member Lowenthal. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item Number Three SCR 17 by Senator Dodd. Gabriel? Aye. Gabriel, aye. Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Bauer-Kahan? Bennett? Essayli? Aye. Essayli, aye. Fong? Not voting. Fong, not voting. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Papan? Aye. Papan, aye. Wicks?

We have seven votes; that bill is adopted, and we will leave the roll open for absent Members. We're going to reopen the role on File Item Three: SCR 17. Madam Secretary.

Item Number Three: SCR 17.

Just use your caller. So Bauer-Kahan.

Okay. Bauer-Kahan? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye.

Okay, I don't believe--Madam Secretary, let's open the roll on File Item Three: SCR 17.

Item Number Three: SCR 17. Wicks? Aye. Wicks, aye.

That was fast. Okay, we have our final votes for SB 362 Becker.

The final vote is seven to zero. That Bill is out. For file item number two, SB 296. Dodd. The final vote is 9-0. That Bill is out for SCR 17 Dodd file item number three, the final vote is 9-0. That is adopted. For file item number four, SB 244 Eggman, the final vote is 7-0. That Bill is out. For file item number five, SB 595. Roth. The final vote is 11-0. That Bill is out. And for the consent calendar, the final vote is 110. The consent calendar is adopted. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.