Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Today's Judiciary Committee hearing. As a reminder, each side will be allowed two main witnesses, two minutes each. Additional witnesses should state their name and organization only.

This allows all authors a fair chance to present their bills and all Members of the public an equal chance to have their position reflected in the record. As we proceed with our hearing, I want to make sure everyone understands our committee rules to ensure we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing with the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time. The rules of conduct by Members of the public include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and must be limited to your name, organization, and support or opposition of a Bill. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. No engaging in personal tax of Members of this committee, authors or staff.

Please be aware that violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. So with that, we will begin as a Subcommittee. I see Mr. Umberg is here.

Welcome. We'll start with item number one, SB 60.

Thank you very much Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for your work on this Bill, as well as Stafford Manuela, who's devoted some time and attention. I present today SB 60, which pertains to prevention of social media drug sales.

This Bill is patterned on a Bill that we did a year ago concerning threats that are made online. What the Bill does is the Bill simply says if a drug trafficker is trafficking illegal drugs online, that you can ask the social media platform request to take that site down, to take that person's, that person's presence down from the website. If it's not done, then you can go to court and ask the court to enjoin them.

And if they don't if they don't take it down at that point, then they're subject to all the remedies that are available in a contempt proceeding. The Bill is important because drug sales, particularly with respect to Oxycodone, Percocet, Xanax, and now Fentanyl, are often done online. I have spent a tremendous amount of time in this area, and we're hoping that this will make some difference.

Anybody can request that a certain site be taken down. Gives the social media platform time to review to see whether it's a legitimate request or not. With that I urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Seeing no main witnesses in support. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We're off to a good start today.

I've got a 15 minutes close, though, so just letting you know.

There's only enough battery in the mic to last about two minutes, so any questions, comments from the committee? Seeing none. We'll take a motion once we get a quorum, but Senator Umberg you may close.

All right, I'm going to forego the 15 minutes close and simply ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Next up, Mr. Cortese. Welcome.

Mr. Chair can I pause for a couple of minutes until my...

You need a witness?

...presentation materials get here.

Okay. And we would urge authors to please attend. Yeah. Come right on up. Just keep going, Ms. Menjivar

Keep no, you keep on. Okay. Welcome. We have item number two, SB 372.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee Members. I'm here to present SB 372. The Respect the Names Act. SB 372 has gone through four, this is the fourth committee, and there is a question that maybe you'll be asking me, SB 372, so I'll answer in my remarks.

SB 372 is looking to protect the names of individuals who are transgender, nonbinary, or who are part of the Safe At Home program. Individuals who, when they become professionals, mental health therapists, are looking to ensure that the name they have legally is on their license. What we're seeing right now is that transgender, nonbinary individuals are being outed because their legal name does not reflect is not only being reflected on the online system, the BreEZe system.

What you're seeing right now is individuals having their dead name or their name at birth on the BreEZe system, along with their legal name right underneath. For example, you can have an individual that has a dead name, Rachel, and the online system will say Rachel Navarro, and underneath it could say Tony. That will automatically out an individual.

You're also seeing individuals who are part of the Safe, the State's Safe at Home program. Those who are running away or who are seeking protection from harassment, stalking, domestic violence, who have legally changed their name, also have their previous name on the system avoiding their protection. What this Bill is looking to do is to ensure we bring dignity to these three demographics to ensure that they're being protected.

Now, the question that I will be answering is that what happens when someone has an enforcement professional, has one license number that they're giving at the beginning of their career, and that license number stays with them throughout their entire career? Should someone legally change their name, their license number does not change whatsoever. So any if enforcement action that was taken on an individual will follow them permanently because it is the same license number. Now, for an individual that calls in, because this is going to have to be proactive for the individual to call DCA and say, hey, I would like my name to only reflect this.

And if they have an enforcement action, it will be annotated underneath their name that says, enforcement action taken, please call for further information. So we have taken steps to ensure that we're protecting the consumer.

They want to know, as they should, they have their right to know if there is enforcement action on an individual. We've taken the steps. We've taken technical assistance from DCA to ensure that there are steps, there are protections to ensure that that is annotated there.

At the end of the day, we want to make sure that we're protecting our mental health therapists, our professionals, ensuring that they're not being out, and ensuring that their name is legally stated on the DCA. So with that, I'd like to Mr. Chair, with your permission, turn to my two witnesses that I have here with me.

Thank you. First witness, please. And just to be clear, do you accept the Committee amendment?

I do accept the Committee amendment.

Thank you, first witness.

Good morning, Chair and esteemed Members. My name is Dr. Tristan Buzzini. I'm a licensed clinical psychologist in our state of California.

For the majority of my 15 year career, I have also been a civil servant, working directly with some of our most underserved, vulnerable and dangerous patient populations. I am also a transgender man. It has been nearly a decade since I was granted a confidential, court ordered name change and had my original birth certificate sealed.

This fact is directly correlated with my safety as a transgender man. My dead name, name assigned at birth, being strongly associated with a female identity, making it an immediate source for outing me as transgender. Despite this, I have been subject to harassment and threats, loss of job opportunities and income, and been publicly outed without my consent as a result of our state's current practice of dead naming, transgender and nonbinary licensees in public record.

As a result of these disclosures, I have been despicably referred to using my dead name by disgruntled former patients and coworkers, had new clients, refused to work with me and cancel care abruptly, been threatened with violence and sexual harm working with patients in our correctional environments, been subject to extortion attempts and had provisional job offers rescinded after my licensing record was checked. Consumer protection has been cited as the primary opposition to the passage of SB 372.

Yet the act of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees puts our lives and livelihood at risk on a daily basis, which directly affects access to care from ethical, hardworking and upstanding professionals, increasing the risk of harm to both licensees and consumers. The act of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees in public record is a discriminatory practice that impacts our professional and personal lives and impedes our ability to serve the public. The passage of SB 372 would allow us to engage in our work with the respect, dignity, and safety all people deserve.

I thank you, Senator Menjivar, for your important work in this area. And thank you, Chairman and esteemed Members, urging your aye vote for SB 372.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mr. Chair, good morning and esteemed Members of the Committee. My name is John Drebinger, senior Advocate for Legislative Affairs with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, CBHA. Our association represents behavioral health providers across the state, providing vital mental health and substance use services to over 1 million Californians.

I stand before you in strong support of SB 372 as a proud cosponsor. This Bill recognizes the importance of safeguarding the rights and safety of both providers and consumers while preserving transparency and accountability. It respects the journeys of trans providers and protects their right to be recognized as who they truly are.

By allowing trans providers to align their professional identity with their authentic selves, SB 372 fosters an environment of inclusivity and respect. It ensures that they can serve their clients with confidence and dignity, promoting trust which strengthens therapeutic relationships. It's important to note that this Bill does not hinder consumers ability to file complaints when necessary.

The avenues for addressing concerns and ensuring quality care remain intact. Our Member agencies often employ providers who have transitioned, and we have witnessed firsthand the challenges they face due to outdated regulations. SB 372 would rectify this and provide them with the protection and recognition that they deserve.

In conclusion, I request your support of SB 372 as a vital step towards safeguarding the rights and identity of trans behavioral health providers and ensuring the safety of their clients. Help us embrace a future where inclusivity and respect thrive in our behavioral health community. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we go to further witnesses in support, let's establish a quorum. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call vote]

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. D'Artagnan Byrd with AFSCME California in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako, President of the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kathleen Houston, licensed marriage and family therapist and board certified behavior analyst in strong support.

Thank you. Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in strong support. Thanks.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Association in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers California chapter and support.

Sumaya Nahar, on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, one of the proud co sponsors of the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Alley with the California Psychological Association cosponsor in support.

Good morning, Corey Hashida on behalf of the Steinberg Institute. In support.

One more. Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of the California Medical Association, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support, witnesses in opposition. Seeing none questions or comments from the committee. Ms. Dixon

Hi. Good morning. Can you hear me okay? I understand your purpose, and I don't oppose your purpose. I just have a question, though.

For others who have not gone through their name change procedure, who may have been received enforcement action by the Department of Consumer Affairs, how will their name and their name and posting be listed? Because I'm concerned there's a disparate treatment between those who've gone through a name change and those who haven't. And how is that enforcement action displayed?

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking individuals who haven't legally changed their name how their record is shown that they have enforcement action?

[Off mic] So a person who has not yet changed their name would have their license number and their name listed upon requesting a name change. It would be attached to their licensing record with the Department. So it's the same as...

Yeah, that's my understanding. Okay, so see if I understand this correctly. Okay, so for an individual who has changed their name, it would say, enforcement action taken. Contact that board for further information to get a full detail of everything, because then that would show the dead name of the individual because it's attached to the previous name.

I just may ask a question at that point. It's one extra step you're putting to consumers to have to call a number, call somebody, wait on hold, wait 30 days to find out the information. It seems to me that anyone who received an enforcement action should be treated the same. Similarly, call this number for everybody.

The only thing is because it's attached to the previous name, so other individuals who would have it there, it's attached to the same name that they have. Because the previous action was taken with a previous name it wouldn't show right then and there because it would still be out in that individual.

But you're creating an enhanced benefit. I mean, nobody probably wants their enforcement action and displayed on a website, but that should be the case if there's been enforcement action. But if you're making it one step, putting an added layer of action for the person who had the name change, they're getting a benefit, I guess, is what I'm saying.

Other entities like the state bar have been doing this for years now, where they put a number that consumers have to call to get further information as well. And we reflected that process with what other boards like...

Is that just for name change people or just all enforcement actions? That's my question.

It's for all enforcement action. And the way they utilize is the same way we're reflecting it for them to do a PRA, and it wouldn't be 30 days.

Okay, you're educating me if you're saying that for people with a name change with the state bar, they go through the same step. What about other people who've been enforced against by the state bar? Do they have to go, are they treated the same way? So they have to go through a PRA?

Well, I wouldn't be able to answer with the state bar. In our specific Bill... In our specific Bill, you would still have to call for if you have a legal change. If you haven't had a legal change, if I'm understanding correctly, you wouldn't have to call because you're

Well you're making a different. You're differentiating between

Well we're striking a balance between consumer protections and the dignity of an individual. And we worked very hard to ensure that there still is a phrase that shows there is enforcement action, because if we were to do it the suggested way, this Bill would be mute. It have no impact because you still would be out in the individual. You still would have...

No no, I disagree, because everybody would be treated the same. And if the gender, name change, enforcement action, you have to call. If there's no name change, there's an enforcement action, you have to call and seek a PRA. You're making it easier for people who should all be treated the same. I guess that's my point.

Well, right now, we're treating everyone the same, and it's not working because it's outing people. Right?

Well, then treat everybody the other way. Make them all go through a PRAR. Well, anyway...

Okay, well that was my question.

I can take that back and see if in the final appropriation

Thank you. Okay. We have a motion from Mr. Kalra. Second from Ms. Reyes I think, Mr. Essayli.

Just a follow up quick question. It is striking a balance, right, between the individuals dignity, protections from harassment, et cetera, versus the need for the public to be on notice if people have violations on there.

So why not instead of saying call a number, we can't just have a quick summary of what the violation is? Just like, violation. There's a big difference, right? If I'm looking at a therapist or whatever, it's like, oh, they didn't pay their dues, versus, oh, they lied about something, or they were violated for violating some ethic rule. Why can't we just have a summary of what the enforcement action is? Because I do think it is a big barrier for a lot of people to call in and have to deal with a bureaucracy to get that information.

And I'll let my witness answer the second part, but I will say the first part. If you right now were to Google, find a nearest mental health therapist by me, find one in Sacramento, you could do that right now. You won't see this online system pop up, not even your first three or four links.

That's not where consumers go. Consumers will then click on a link says mental health therapist by Sacramento, and you would find different entities. You'd get a bio from them.

That's how majority of the consumers find a mental health therapist. You heard from one of my witnesses. This online system is usually used by employers to get information to confirm that you are, in fact, a licensed mental therapist, to then look, in fact, to see that and confirm that you don't have enforcement action.

So this is really mostly for potential employers to look through your history, because the consumer will not be going through the system whatsoever. But the amendments we took both author, both mine and the committees, is to help with mostly the employers to be able to check. So it is an extra step for the employers, not so much for the consumers, because, believe me, they're not going through the system whatsoever.

But Senator so, for example, should I have had a previous enforcement action taken under me, which I have not, but should I have, there is a currently, if you were to look me up on the BreEZe system, it would say my current name and my dead name, and then there would be a PDF attached with an enforcement action underneath. All people who have enforcement actions have this PDF attached to it. So my understanding of the updates to the current Bill is that the names would be redacted from the enforcement action and that they would call for further information about to get the original name under the request, but it would still be pulled up under my license record.

So, for example, if someone put in license number 27973, which is my license, it would come up with my current name, would still have the enforcement action attached, and then still would ask for them to call for that updated information. And there is an association in the sense that...

Wait wait, you're saying the enforcement action is still displayed on the record? Is it a redacted version?

That is my understanding of...

That is a really important distinction.

What is currently happening.

That will affect my vote.

Yeah, I can't answer that question right now.

Okay. Well maybe we can get clarity on that. If there's If there is a redacted enforcement, if the enforcement records are redacted and associated with the licensee, I would support this. So if we don't can't get that answer today, that's fine. We'll get that before the floor. But I appreciate it.

I don't have that.

Because it is my understanding DCA will disclose those records upon request.

Okay, we'll look into it. Ms. Pacheco.

I'll just follow up on that. So my understanding, the amendments were taken. And so would the amendments be that if there were an enforcement action, say, for instance, I look up the number and I see below, will it say there has been enforcement action but you have to call? Or will it say enforcement action and attached is enforcement action but the names will be redacted?

So one of the most recent amendments we took from DCA on technical assistance, because in a previous committee we wanted to make sure it was even more clear and more explicit on how someone would be able to see the enforcement action, is that one would still be able to tell if a license has an enforcement record, even if you have to contact the board to see those records. So it is just further clarifying. And we can even go back to DCA.

Because we've been going back and forth with them to even make it more specific that upon searching someone on the licensing system, you would be able to search that. Because it's my understanding right now that you will be prompted to contact the board to get further information. And we just made it even more clearer that there is an enforcement action without specifically saying disclosing everything, but more than happy because I will say this has opened up a new question that no one has asked me yet, and I'd be more than willing to make it even further clearer before we get to Appropriations. Should we get to Appropriations?

One more question. So say, for instance, there was no enforcement action. You look up the number and then below it won't say anything. No enforcement action. Is that correct? It would just say...

Maybe I can be helpful. If you look at section of the amendment, section one, section 27.5 2B, it says as notwithstanding other law for licensees or registered subject to subparagraph A, referencing the individual's former name or gender as applicable, the board shall not post enforcement records online, but shall instead post online a statement stating that the individual previously was subject to enforcement action. And then below that, in section C, it states, if a public search of the online license verification system is performed using a licensees or registrant's former name that was replaced pursuant to subparagraph A, the Board shall pass post an online statement directing the public to contact the Board for more information about the licensee or registrant.

So that's what it would contain underneath there, if that's helpful.

We just have that statement. But if the person didn't have an enforcement action, that statement would be omitted.

Yeah, it would just have the name, but it would cover in my belief, it would cover what Mr. Essayli was asking. Okay. Any other further questions or, Ms. Reyes.

Senator I want to thank you for the Bill, quite frankly, and trying to work with those who opposed it unless amended, and trying to figure out the amendments and then telling us right off the start, well, I've already I'm going to answer the question before you ask it and made more questions come up. But nonetheless, it's clear that you're trying to work with the parties to try to figure out the best way. We know what you're trying to accomplish. You've already taken some amendments that took care of part of that.

With what my colleagues have brought up treating, if everybody has a note on theirs that says, for enforcement questions, call this number, then I think that's what Ms. Dixon is saying. If everybody has the same thing, as opposed to only if you had a name change, because it may raise a red flag also, oh, why do I have to make a phone call? So that's a point well taken. But I thank you for working with the opposition to come up with some amendments that addressed it, because clearly you're trying to take care of the issue and trying to take care of the opposition.

So I thank you for that. Thank you, Majority Leader. Yes. You know, At the end of the day, I want to make sure and when we're talking about treating everyone equally, if you're a bad egg, then your information should be shown that you're a bad egg whether you're transgender or not. So we'll definitely take this back. If you allow me to get out of this committee, we can promise to take it back and further clarify, because that is something that I'm looking to ensure we strike a good compromise with.

Thank you. So we'll take that as your close. We have a motion and a second, and the motion is do pass is amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call vote]

Your Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you, committee Members,

I'd ask for a motion on the item number one, SB 60. Umberg, motion from Ms.. Reyes, second from Mr. Connolly, and the motion is do pass to Approps. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call vote]

That's out. We'll call item number three, SB 385. Atkins; Ms. Ashby is here to present; and I'll also ask for a motion on the consent agenda. Motion Ms. Reyes; second from Mr. Haney. The consent agenda includes items: SB 9 Cortese, SB 428 Blakespear, SB 630 Dodd, SB 712 Portantino, SB 756 Laird. Ask the Clerk to please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Agenda is out. I have to present another Bill, so I'm going to turn it to our vice chair.

Turn it to our vice chair, Ms. Ashby, you may begin on SB 385 Atkins.

Thank you so much. Thank you for having me, Committee. It's an honor to be here today to present SB 385 on behalf of our Senate President, pro tem Atkins. Just about a week has passed since our dubious anniversary to the Dobbs outcome. And as we know, last year brought us a lot of issues in terms of reproductive freedom. People faced unprecedented threats from the Supreme Court and other states.

Since then, California has been taking bold action to protect and expand access to quality, reproductive care. As other states continue to erode access to abortion, it's clear that we need to remain steadfast in California. To that end, SB 385 would improve reproductive care training opportunities for physicians assistance and enable them to provide first trimester abortions within the scope of their clinical and professional education and training.

This builds off the success of Senator pro tem Atkins prior bills to strengthen access to abortion and increase the number of providers in our state. In 2013, AB 154 was enacted to allow nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physicians assistants to provide first trimester abortions. Last year, Senator Atkins authored SB 1375 to update training standards and address workforce barriers for nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives seeking to provide first trimester abortion care.

SB 385 would apply the same training standards to physician assistance and that SB 1375 established for those practitioners and midwives. This Bill is a complementary follow up to the prior bills and would further strengthen and expand the access to reproductive care, while also lifting up a workforce of skilled physicians assistants, giving them more opportunities for their patients. I respectfully, on behalf of the pro tem, ask for your aye vote. And I have with me some support witnesses who will be brief in their comments. I know you have a packed agenda. These are not unfamiliar faces to you. Ms. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and Ryan Spencer, who's here on behalf of the American College of OBGYN.

Motion by Ms. Reyes. Second by Mr. Haney. And please, go ahead. Thanks.

Good morning. Molly Robeson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. We represent the seven affiliates in the state who operate over 110 health centers and provide 1.3 million patient visits annually here today.

In support of SB 385; I will cut this down. SB 385 is going to update the training standards for physician assistance for abortion to be in line with that of other advanced practice clinicians, to continue to meet the needs of patients coming to California for care and the patients in the state. It's critical that our abortion workforce remain strong and the folks that want to be trained in abortion are able to be trained in abortion and provide that care.

So with that, I would respectfully urge your support on this Bill today to support the abortion workforce in California. Thank you.

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OBGYN's (ACOG) District Nine in support of the measure; and I'll be brief as well. ACOG has long supported the assistance of trained advanced practice clinicians like PAs to perform and or to assist physicians in providing important services related to reproductive health care, and this includes the ability to perform first trimester abortions within their scope.

SB 305 ensures Pas are sufficiently adequately trained to perform first trimester aspiration abortions, both safely and effectively. This Bill will appropriately align their training with those of nurse practitioners and nurse midwives, as previously stated and approved last year, and nothing more. It's a simple, yet very important Bill with a very significant impact. Thank you for your time and I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support? Please state your name and position.

Jen Chase, University of California, in support.

Karen Stott on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice California, as well as the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Tiffany Matthews on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses. Are there any witnesses in opposition? No witnesses in opposition. Committee or bring it back to the committee. Any questions. You want to close?

Pretty straightforward, Bill. Need a trained workforce. Urgent aye vote, thank you.

Thank you. We'll call the vote.

Motion's do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. Needs two more votes. It'll stay on call.

All right, thank you very much. I have one more Bill.

Yes, we'll call item number eleven, SB 731.

Yes. Thank you so much. Okay to proceed?

Yes, please go ahead.

Alright, this one is my own. This is SB 731.

It is a return to office notification act. As you all know, many of the employers in California are now starting to send people back to the workplace after two or more years of remote working. Also don't have to tell this body that there are certain groups that have been disproportionately impacted by the changes in workforce being at home versus being in a building that we're more accustomed to.

While remote work has provided some flexibility for employees to manage their jobs and family responsibilities, transitioning back to in person work requires adjustments that may impact their personal lives. I just urge you to think for a moment about the changes it made for you. I had children at home, dogs at home.

All of that had to be changed once I went back to the workplace. That has to happen for everybody. Working moms and parents need adequate time to arrange that childcare restructure, school schedules, drop off, and pick up, the whole thing.

Employees who rely on public transportation or do not have reliable transportation need to coordinate travel, carpool, all the things that we do on a daily basis. And lastly, and potentially most importantly, employees with disabilities need time to explore alternative work arrangements, such as requesting remote work through disability accommodations, adjusting their work hours, or finding alternative work options. As we know, there were many people with disabilities who were able to work from home, but are not able to do those same jobs when asked to go back to a workplace.

So, SB 731 is very simple. It aims to ensure that employers give 30 days to their employees, so that they have the necessary time to make arrangements before returning to in person work. This Bill also requires employers to provide information to employees about their right to request disability accommodations, ensuring that employees work in good faith with their disabled workforce.

I have a couple of really amazing witnesses with me today that I'm super proud to have with me, and I think you'll love meeting them. Scott Richmond is the former President and current Board Member of the Association of California State Employees with Disabilities. And Bobby Dutta is the President of the Association of California State Employees with Disabilities and co-chair of the Statewide Disability Advisory Council to the California Department of Human Resources. And they both have brief comments for you as well.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. Good morning. My name is Bobby Dutta, and as Senator said, I co-chair Statewide Disability Advisory Council and current President of ACSED or Association of State Employees with Disabilities.

As you know, COVID-19 pandemic has a significant impact on the way we work. Many employees with disabilities have found that working from home has allowed them to better manage their disabilities and be more productive. SB 731 would ensure that these employees can continue working from home if they so choose, or at very least, have some minimal notice of return to work environment.

There are several reasons why SB 731 is important. First, working from home can improve the health and well being of employees with disabilities. For example, employees with mobility impairment can avoid the stress and fatigue of commuting. And employees with chronic health condition can avoid exposure to germs and allergens.

Second, working from home can improve the productivity of employees with disabilities. For example, I'm a state employee with a disability requiring certain accommodation. I get those accommodation working from home from my remote location. If I am called to work tomorrow, I would need a little bit of notice to negotiate my accommodation needs with my employer. That will also give state employers some time to get the procurement that they need for me to return to work.

This is also an issue of equity. Many people that provide who are single parents or provide care to young children can return to work with some notice and make alternate arrangements for their young folks at home. And this is a question of equity.

I feel like this will strongly support the basis that the foundation of the Bill is equity, fairness, and fundamental vision. So I strongly urge you to support this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. My name is Scott Richmond. I'm the immediate past President and current legislative co-chair of the Association of California State Employees with Disabilities.

Second Witness.

I'm here today to testify in strong support of SB 731. I think Senator Ashby has done an outstanding job at trying to balance the interest of both employees and employers from the standpoint of a person with a disability. Just to give you a little bit of an example, I was really worried a minute ago whether I'd be able to find the mic.

One thing that is very important for us as people with disabilities, if we have time to work out the logistics of accommodation, we can perform jobs as well as anybody. But if we're called back to work on a snap decision by our managers, that may not be the case. Senator Ashby's Bill provides 30 days notice and also provides specific language that enables people with disabilities to work with their employer to arrange for and achieve the accommodations that they need.

And let's face it, a lot of us have been working from home quite well for about three years now, and for most reasons, there's no reason for that not to continue. Senator Ashby's Bill sort of takes the arbitrariness out of the process and basically provides a mechanism where the interest of all parties can be factored. Thank you so much for allowing me to testify today.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses in support in the room? Please state your name and position, please.

Good morning. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California. In support.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers. Is there any witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing no witnesses in opposition. Does the committee have any questions, comments? Yes, Mr. Haney.

I just want to thank the Senator for your work on this. This is entirely reasonable and necessary.

I know that there was just an incredible change to the way that people work during the pandemic, and that has, in some cases, been positive for people and given people opportunities to work and contribute in new ways. And as work continues to change and adapt, this is having huge impacts on people's lives, people with disabilities and without. And so, this type of notice is critical and essential.

And this is the second time I've seen this Bill. And just really grateful for all of you for coming together for this. It's going to impact many people in positive ways and help them as they adjust and continue to contribute to their workplace in the best and most appropriate way possible. Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member.

Any other committee Members? Is there a motion?

Move the Bill.

A motion by Ms. Reyes.

Second by Ms. Pacheco. We'll call the vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Second

I just thank my witnesses. It's a big deal for them to make their way down here to testify for you, and I'm really grateful. I always feel really proud to hear them speak. Thank you. I urge an aye vote.

Okay. Motions do pass to appropriations. [Roll call] It needs one more vote.

It needs one more vote. It'll be on call.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you so much. And our next Bill will be SB 478 by Senator Dodd.

Good morning, Senator Dodd.

Good morning, Vice Chair and and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 478, a Bill sponsored by the Attorney General in the California Low Income Consumer Coalition that seeks to combat the deceptive practice in which a seller advertises at an artificially low price to attract a customer before springing additional unavoidable charges later in the buying process. Simply put, 478 makes it unlawful under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, CLRA, to advertise a price for a good or service that does not include all required charges other than taxes and fees imposed by a government on a transaction.

We've all felt that pain of hidden fees, from unavoidable resort fee at your hotel to the outrageous fees that are added to concert tickets just before you go to check out. These fees hide the true price, and manipulate consumers into overspending. The issue of hidden fees, or junk fees, has garnered national attention, with President Biden calling on Congress to take action on deceptive price advertising. Hidden fees cost consumers billions of dollars each year and hurt California families at a time that they can least afford it.

This practice not only makes budgeting difficult for consumers, but also harms honest businesses. It discourages competition and ultimately leads to higher prices without any corresponding benefit to consumers. Some opposition groups claim that the existing laws are sufficient in addressing the issue of false advertising.

But the magnitude of the problem at hand speaks for itself. We need more enforcement tools, not less. For that reason, the Bill utilizes existing enforcement mechanisms allowable under the CLRA to ensure that consumers have the protections they desperately need.

Lastly, as the Bill moves forward, I'll continue to engage with stakeholders in good faith to address existing state or federal transparency laws, or consider additional clarifications to Bill while upholding important consumer protections. I have two witnesses to speak in support of the Bill: Anthony Lew on behalf of the Attorney General and Ted Merman, Director of the California Low Income Consumer Coalition.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Anthony Lew, deputy in the AG's Legislative office. AG Bonta is proud to sponsor SB 478 to bring an end to hidden fees in California. On behalf of the AG, I want to thank Senators Dodd and Skinner for authoring this important legislation to protect California consumers.

As the Senator described, businesses use hidden fees to pitch an artificially low headline price to attract the customer before revealing the additional charges later in the buying process. And these hidden fees are bad for consumers and bad for competition. We all know how frustrating it is to get to the checkout, to get to the point of purchase, and find out that something advertised as one price actually costs much more.

Obscuring the true price of a product or service makes it hard for consumers to choose to sort by price and make the decision that is best for them and their family at the outset of a transaction, to plan and to budget. This lack of transparency also makes it hard for honest businesses to compete on price. We're seeing this deceptive pricing scheme adopted in many industries.

And rather than moving towards transparency, some businesses are choosing to hide the true cost to the consumer. We know at least 85% of Americans have encountered an unexpected hidden fee over the past two years, according to research.

There's no reason to tolerate hidden fees. These junk fees cost consumers billions of dollars each year and hurt working families at a time when every dollar matters that much more. This deceptive practice also hurts businesses that are doing business the right way by being transparent about their prices.

This necessitates legislative action. So SB 478 would prohibit the practice of charging hidden mandatory fees. It would prohibit advertising a price for a good or service that does not include all required charges other than taxes and fees imposed by government on the consumer's transaction. It's a simple solution. And with this legislation, California would make clear that the price you see should be the price you pay.

So AG Bonta urges your aye vote on this important legislation and have my colleague Michelle Van Godren to answer any questions you might have, after Ted Mermin testifies. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. You have two minutes.

Thank you, sir. Chair and Members, my name is Ted Merman. I'm here today on behalf of one of SB 478's co sponsors, the California Low Income Consumer Coalition, CLICC, to explain why this Bill means so much to Californians living on the financial edge. CLICC's members provide free legal services to the state's most vulnerable residents.

Day after day, we hear from people who are barely getting by. They're managing to hold on, but are one surprise charge away from falling off an economic cliff. These are the people who can't afford to pay the hidden 20% convenience fee for a restaurant delivery service when they don't have time to cook, or the service fee for a concert ticket they'd saved up for for their daughter's birthday.

As you heard, 85% of Americans have encountered these surprise fees. 96% of those people said they do not like them. As President Biden observed in the State of the Union address this year, quote, junk fees may not matter to the very wealthy, but they matter to most folks.

And the White House has gotten oral commitments from some big companies to mend their ways. But those commitments don't mean much if there's no law to back them up. This Congress isn't going to act, but we believe this Legislature will.

Honesty in price advertising has been required in this state for more than 100 years. The drip pricing trick has infected a lot of industries. Perhaps you have heard from them.

We know above board businesses don't want to deceive consumers. But how are they supposed to compete when the store down the block is advertising a price that doesn't include all mandatory fees? SB 478 would establish a level playing field to benefit both businesses and consumers. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses? Additional witnesses in support? Please state your name and position.

Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. Robert Harrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We support the Bill and view it as an important floor beyond which the Legislature could go in specific industries. Thank you.

Good morning. Samuel Goodman, here on behalf of Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, representing the California District Attorneys Association, here in support.

Good morning. Dani Candle Kaiser on behalf of the National Consumer Law Center. In support.

Amelia Zamani with the California Travel Association. Thank you to the author and sponsors for working with us. We don't have a position, but we look forward to seeing the amends in the next committee. Thanks.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce. And we are respectfully opposed to SB 478. First, I'd like to thank staff for their analysis in the Bill, which I think covers, I think, the positions and the points pretty well. I want to be clear, we are not here in defense of the hidden fees issue. Our concern is with the way the Bill approaches this.

We've spoken to the author and sponsor to this and I appreciate the analysis acknowledging this point too, that there are already tools for the AG to pursue such actions. The shutdown of Paul Blanco's car dealership, which by freak of chance, I was at a firm that was defending him at one of a string. So I was a firsthand witness to tat and I will tell you, it was very effective in shutting him down.

Our concern with this change is that it creates a new private right of action issue for us, which again is acknowledged in the analysis and appreciated. And that is kind of where our concern is focused.

We have tried to speak to the author and the sponsor about limiting that specific concern, but haven't been able to resolve that piece. Second, I want to flag, as I think the author and sponsor recognize there's a number of industries that have concerns about conflicting obligations, federally and specific industry regulations, and want to thank the author and sponsor for working on addressing those specific pieces. And there's been some amendments to that effect.

I know others are still looking to work on those. So those are the two broad concerns for us. And again, it's not about the core goal of the Bill and clear pricing, but about the methods to get there. For those reasons, we are respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition? Please state your name and position.

Mr. Chair and Members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of [inaudible] in opposition.

Lia Nitake with TechNet, respectfully opposed but very much appreciate ongoing conversations with the author and sponsor.

Good morning, chair and Members Naomi Padron on behalf of the California Credit Union League and opposition, but also appreciate the continued conversations with the author of the sponsor.

Indira McDonald here on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association. Respectfully oppose and unless amended.

Jason Lane, California Bankers Association. Oppose unless amended.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members Anthony Sampson on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA. CNCDA was noted as opposed in the committee analysis, but I'd like to clarify that their position is actually neutral based on the amendments dated May 18. And we appreciate the author and sponsor for working with us.

John Moffat on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Oppose unless amended, appreciate the author and sponsor's ongoing conversations with us.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, turn it over to the committee. Yes, Ms. Pacheco?

So Thank you to the author, and I see that you're working with opposition, and I will be supporting the Bill today, and I look forward to improving this Bill. And I know you will continue to work with opposition, and I want to thank you for doing that.

Seeing no other committee Members. I'll turn it back to you to close, Senator Dodd.

Yes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. We've been working on this. We'll continue to work with the opposition, but at the end of the day, we've got to get this right. And it's all about transparency and adding on fees that are the cost of doing business after the fact is I just think whether you're poor or you've got a lot of means, it's a major annoyance. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator. Do we have a motion? A motion by Ms. Reyes, second by Mr. Connolly, and we'll call the vote.

Motion's do pass to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [Roll Call]

It needs two more votes, so we'll be on call. Thank you. Our next matter will be number five. Item number five: SB 642, Senator Cortese. Good morning, Senator. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present SP 642 to you today. SP 642 gives county councils the same authority to prosecute hazardous materials violations.

As city attorneys, district attorneys, and the Attorney General authorizing additional public prosecutors to prosecute these violations can help to protect our communities, particularly low income communities and communities of color, in your hazardous waste facilities. In 1993, the Legislature passed AB 1934 to augment civil enforcement of hazardous waste violations. That Bill amended the Hazardous Waste Control Law to authorize county councils to prosecute these violations and promote a level playing field for the regulated community.

However, the Legislature did not at that time make conforming changes to several related statutes such as the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program and Medical Waste Program. This incomplete authority limits County Council's ability to effectively prosecute polluters. For example, the above ground Petroleum Storage Act program requires certain petroleum storage facilities to develop and implement the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan.

A violation of those requirements could lead to an oil spill, which can, of course, cause respiratory damage, liver damage, cancer risk, and reproductive damage, among many other issues. SB 642 helps communities prosecute violations like these, helping to more completely enforce California's hazardous waste laws. It gives certified, unified program agencies, otherwise known as coupas, the choice to refer these cases to a wider range of prosecutors.

That's why the coupas support the Bill. The Bill also has the support of environmental organizations that can speak to the consequences of under enforcement of hazardous material laws. The Bill was recently amended to require notice to be provided to the DA or County Council when their counterpart files an action following a referral from the CUPA.

This was done in response to concerns raised by the California District Attorneys Association. I would also note that the Bill is supported by Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon, who's a part of the Progressive prosecutors alliance. With me to testify today, we have Sonya Wills with the county of Santa Clara, and John Kennedy with the rural county representatives of California.

And with that, at the appropriate time, I'd ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the committee and to staff for your work on this Bill. Santa Clara County is pleased to cosponsor SB 642 and grateful to Senator Cortese and his staff for bringing it forward.

The committee's analysis succinctly highlights all of the key points. First, this Bill is a cleanup measure in multiple senses. The Legislature sought to give county councils hazardous waste enforcement authority in 1993 to promote a more level playing field for the regulated community.

The Bill simply puts county councils on the same basic footing as their 482 city attorney counterparts and helps fill gaps in enforcement. Second, this Bill mirrors recent legislation that expands the scope of county council's authority. The Legislature has vested civil prosecutorial authority in county councils in numerous statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, narcotics Abatement Act, unlicensed Cannabis provisions and the Public Nuisance Act.

This reflects the growing role of county councils as the chief civil law enforcement agent of county governments. Third, arguments about the use of outside council on a contingency fee basis are overblown. Outside counsel can be helpful when a jurisdiction lacks resources or is taking on a powerful industry, such as when Santa Clara County Council spearheaded landmark litigation against lead paint manufacturers.

Courts have upheld this practice, including by district attorneys, subject to appropriate oversight by the publicly accountable prosecutor. And as the analysis notes on page five, any case brought by the County Council can only happen when there's a referral from the Department of Toxic Substances Control or the CUPA. This referral process negates potential concerns about so called bounty hunting.

And finally, these practices are relatively rare and far afield of this Bill, which simply gives counties another enforcement tool in the toolbox. I urge your aye vote and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. And sir, you have two minutes.

Good morning, John Kennedy with RCRC. We represent 40 of the state's 58 counties. Our populations range from 11,000 to 500,000 people.

We're pleased to sponsor SB 642 here today with our colleagues because, as she mentioned, it provides another tool in the toolbox for local governments to address safety related violations of above ground storage tank, underground storage tank, hazardous materials, business plan, and medical waste management laws. Violations of these laws could pose serious dangers to public health, safety, and the environment. This includes to first responders, like firefighters, who have to respond and need to know what chemicals are on site so they can protect their safety when they're trying to put out fires and not create additional challenges.

We're not seeking to address any past problems or violations, but merely to provide additional flexibility in the future. This flexibility is even more important in rural communities where we have fewer resources and we hope we can work cooperatively with our local DAs. If the issue doesn't rise to the level of the AG bringing in action and the DA doesn't have the resources because they're otherwise focused on some other criminal cases or things like illegal marijuana enforcement, this would allow the local county council to step in and ensure that these violations are addressed.

For this reason, we are again proud to co sponsor this Bill. Urge your aye vote on this Bill because it will improve flexibility for locals going forward. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only, please.

Supervisors and support. Ada Welder on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, which is a proud co sponsor of this Bill, as well as Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon in support. Ezze swindler with shaw. Yader. Antwe smells urlang. On behalf of Solano County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Good morning. Josh Gaga on behalf of the urban counties of California. In support.

Thanks. Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support, witnesses in opposition.

Seeing none questions or comments from the committee. Do we have a motion? Motion from Ms. Reyes.

Second from Mr. Haney. Senator Cortese, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is due pass. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Mainshine? Aye. Mainshine. Aye is Sally Connolly. Connolly. Aye Dixon. Haney. Haney. Aye. Callera. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pappin. Reyes. Reyes. Aye Lee. Sanchez. Sanchez. Aye.

Devil of a problem. Yeah.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Next up is Mr. Min. Please approach item number seven, Bill 666. Appropriate. I didn't know. I was trying to think how to say that and I couldn't figure out maybe 66 6.

There you go. We're going to let you hear the Bill. Despite that sad joke.

Mr. Min, I got more. Go ahead. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. SB 666 would prohibit or cap specific junk fees placed on small businesses during the commercial financing process. Small businesses were, of course, hit very hard by the COVID-19 Pandemic.

With over 40,000 small businesses in this state forced to close, today, many are still struggling to get back on their feet. These circumstances have pushed many small businesses to take out loans with nontraditional lenders, non-bank lenders, just to stay afloat but often, too often, these loans have come with hidden or exorbitant fees that look a lot like the predatory loans that we saw during the subprime mortgage crisis.

Most of these small businesses have fewer than ten employees, do not have the capacity to sift through the fine print of these loans, and of course, the devil is always in the detail when it comes to these types of contracts. Are you going to ban me from this, Mr. Chair? Never mind. We need safeguards in place to make sure the lending process is straightforward, transparent, and does not come with surprises.

Having identified five different types of fees that are exorbitant provide no real service or anticompetitive. One of these identified fees is a charge for providing statement or payoff letters to small businesses trying to refinance their loans. These fees put up a barrier to more affordable options and are anticompetitive.

There are other fees, like platform and due diligence fees, that can cost hundreds of dollars and provide no clear corresponding service. SB 666 would address these fees and others to eliminate them or cap them at a reasonable amount, while also trying to provide transparency when evaluating lending options for small businesses.

Here to testify and support the bill, I have Adrian Peterson from the California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity and Bianca Blomquist from Small Business Majority.

You may proceed.

Hi. My name is Addison Peterson for CAMEO--

I'm sorry. Addison. Sorry about that.

It's okay. California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity. CAMEO is California's statewide network of 400 mission-driven entrepreneurial training programs, small business micro lenders, and other stakeholders dedicated to helping small businesses start, grow, and thrive. Annually, Cameo members serve over 200,000 very small businesses with training, business and credit assistance, and loans.

We constantly hear from our lending members that they are refinancing or trying to refinance predatory financing that their clients found online. Contributing to the predatory nature of this type of financing are high fees SB 666, appropriately named, will curtail. My testimony focuses on Kelly, owner of a personal fitness business in Long Beach.

Kelly took out a 7,500 dollar merchant cash advance in desperate need from Bitty Advance to pay her rent and her instructors. Her origination fee was 595 dollars, about eight percent of the loan, almost three times that of an SBA loan.

On top of that, she was charged a 50 dollar disbursement fee for the same day disbursement of funds, a monthly servicing fee of 49 dollars for a point of comparison. A similar mortgage servicing fee would it be about a dollar sixty and an unspecified prepayment fee. SB 666 seeks to rein in high fees and fees that don't come with a corresponding service, making some commercial funding very expensive.

This bill will support small businesses in their quest for access to responsible, affordable capital so that they can grow and succeed and build wealth for themselves, their families, and their communities. Your communities. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thanks Chairman Maienschein and Vice Chairman Essayli and Members of the Committee. My name is Bianca Blomquist. I'm Policy Director for Small Business Majority. We're a national research and education small business organization that empowers America's entrepreneurs to build a thriving and equitable economy.

I'm here to testify in support of SB 666 to promote transparency for small business owners when shopping for commercial financing products. Junk fees are often highly disproportionate to the cost of the service provided. They make it difficult for small business owners to shop around based on the actual cost of a product or service. Lenders are charging statement fees, payoff letter fees, or payoff letter fees that place a financial barrier to a borrower seeking to refinance an existing loan.

This practice is anticompetitive and has the effect of coercing a borrower to stay with a loan that they cannot afford. Junk fees are anticompetitive and stifle competition. Commercial lenders often charge large sums to small businesses as duplicate fees or fees that do not provide a clear, corresponding service.

Examples include on top of the example that Addison provided, charging a fee to accept payments via ACH or fees that are added on top of the origination fee, such as risk assessment, due diligence, and platform fees even though risk assessment and due diligence are already part of the origination process. By tackling hidden fees, policymakers can ensure small business owners are on a level playing field when accessing the financing they need to start and grow a business.

SB 666 protects California's economy and supports responsible innovation in the commercial financing marketplace. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Further witnesses in support, name and organization.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Robert Herrell with the Consumer Federation of California. We are a co-sponsor of this bill and it's part of our junk fees package. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Andrea Cao with the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support, witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, do we have a motion? Motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Ms. Pacheco. Senator Min, you may close.

I apologize for misstating the name of Addison Peterson. This is not the former Minnesota Vikings running back although he's every bit as fearsome. I have a hell of a time with names sometimes but respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. The motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein? Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayil? Aye. Essayil, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Kalra? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Lee? Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye.

Your bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next. Senator Glazer has two bills. We'll start with SB 644.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the consideration of this Bill today. I want to thank the committee staff for their good work on this, and I'm happy to support.

I don't know if they've asked for amendments in this Bill. I don't think that they have. I'm sure many of us have made reservations online for place to stay.

And perhaps many of you have also made a mistake or did something you didn't really intend to do. If you use a third party app, there's no turning back. That's a mistake that can't be corrected.

And that's really what this Bill is intended to do. We call it the Oops Bill. But basically, if you've made a mistake, it would allow you to have 24 hours to make that correction.

And that's 24 hours from when you make the reservation, not 24 hours for when you arrive at the destination. We've taken a number of amendments to deal with some of the issues that have been raised by third party apps and other lodging establishments. I think we found common ground in many of those places.

But that one day window can make a difference. I've made the mistake. Many of you may have as well.

And that correction opportunity is a short window, but I think a necessary one for consumer protection, and with that would respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Witnesses in support. Seeing none witnesses in opposition.

So, Mr. Chairman and Members, Robert Harold, the Consumer Federation of California. We do not have an official position on the Bill. We're favorably inclined.

I would just point out a recent amendment to the Bill does give us pause. That amendment is an amendment that deals with so called opaque. So think Priceline or Hotwire, where you don't find out the name of the property until after you conclude the purchase.

We believe that consumers who use those sites and those more opaque ways to try to get a better deal, quite frankly, ought to be also protected. And so we do not like that most recent amendment to the Bill. We would like to continue to work with the author and others on that.

We think that's problematic. Other than that, we think for an Oops reservation, it ought to be the case that you get your money back. We want to make sure that the industry doesn't then lower their standards, because depending on the kind of reservation I make, I might get a longer lead time to cancel.

So those are the issues that are in play. I have discussed this with the author's office, and we look forward to continuing to work with them on this issue.

Thank you. Emilia Zamani with the California Travel Association. Thanks to the author for working with us. We've removed our opposition. Thank you. Yeah. Julie Malinowski Ball on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. Also thank you. And we have removed our opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, questions or comments from the committee. Mr. Essayli, I just wanted to really thank the Senator.

I know this came to privacy first, and you gave us your word that you would work with the opposition, and you've clearly done that, so I appreciate it. I abstained lost time. I'll be supporting it today. And I encourage you to work on this opaque issue as well, which I'm sure you will. So thank you. Any other questions or comments from the community? And none.

Do we have a motion? Motion from Ms. Reyes? Second from Ms. Pacheco.

Senator Glazier, you may close just to.

Close address that issue. I didn't want to, but it was a part of accommodations that we took the opaque issue, the opaque amendment out. And these are things that are part of the lawmaking process that don't get everything you want.

But I think this goes a long ways and why I think it's deserving of your support today.

Thank you. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the role.

Mainshine Aye. Mainshine Aye. Essayli. Aye Connolly. Connolly. Aye Dixon. Haney Haney. Aye Kalra Pacheco. Pacheco. Aye Pappin Reyes. Reyes. Aye Lee Sanchez.

Your Bill is out. Next, we will hear your second Bill of the day, SB 683. You may proceed.

Thank you, Chair. And this is a Bill you have heard before. My colleague, your colleague, Assembly Member Mark Berman, and I have similar bills, almost identical bills. First, let me say that we're happy to accept the committee's amendments. One of them was to align the Bill with Mr. Berman's version. That's in the Senate now.

But I'm sure that, again, we've all had these experiences in making reservations where you think you're getting a certain price on the Internet and then you discover maybe at the end of the reservation process, maybe not till you check out of the hotel that you are staying at. You learn that there's additional fees and costs that were never really disclosed and you weren't really aware of. And so that's what this Bill tries to get at.

And we're learning even every week about new fees. I was up at a hotel recently, last week in Lake Tahoe, and never before knew of a civic fee that was added on at the checkout. So environmental fees, resort fees, and now a civic fee.

But there have been studies done about this issue of fees and whether it artificially increases the search cost. The Federal Trade Commission have come to that conclusion. This is going to require that there be upfront pricing, which is a healthy thing, I think, for all of our world, including the business world, that there's integrity in what they put forward.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your support today. With me is Rebecca Marcus here on behalf of the California Public Interest Research Group Calpirg to testify in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman China and Members of the committee. I'm Rebecca Marcus. On behalf of Calpirg. We're a statewide consumer advocacy group working to protect California's and ensure a fair marketplace. We're proud to support SB 683 and thank Senator Glazer for his work on this legislation. Consumers deserve to know what they are paying for and how much upfront.

It's that simple. Unfortunately, many companies, including hotels, are blindsided us with hidden fees. More and more hotels are unbundling the cost of your stay, advertising the room price up front, and then separate, often compulsory fees that check in for things like WiFi, parking, use of the pool and health clubs, in room safe, and the phone in your room.

These additional fees, commonly called resort fees, are often not disclosed upfront and rather charged at check in or when you pay for your stay. Recently, the FTC did an analysis of resort fees and concluded that separating these fees from the room rate without first disclosing the total price is unlikely to result in benefits that offset the likely harm to consumers, which include additional time searching for a hotel's mandatory fees, or making an uninformed choice resulting in a costly hotel stay. California consumers deserve complete pricing information to help inform our purchases.

That's why Calpirg supports this Bill requiring transparency for all mandatory fees associated with hotel and lodging stays. For all these reasons, we respectfully urge your vote on this important measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only, please.

Mr. Chairman, we have no official position. Robert Herrell with the Consumer Federation of California look forward to continuing to work out the issues between the Berman Bill that we're a sponsor of and this Bill. Thank you.

To be clear, we're not opposed to transparency in any way. We're just asking for a balanced approach to consumer protection that doesn't create a competitive disadvantage for an industry that is finally recovering from the economic impacts of the pandemic. Tourism promotion on the state and local level is funded through tourism district assessments TID enabled in California statute and collected from various segments of the industry.

According to visit California and reflected in the bill's analysis, visit california's. Industry funded promotions have California on track to reach 154.4 billion in visitor spending. This generates billions in state and local tax revenue, which saved California households roughly $906 in 2022.

TOT paid by hotel and vacation rental guests also power local communities across California. These taxes and assessments are currently broken out in lodging transactions near the end of the transaction. We're not unique in using TID and TOT to Fund tourism promotion, infrastructure improvements, and essential government services.

But should this Bill pass, we would be unique in that those government approved levies would be included in the advertised rate of every short term rental stay. We are opposed to this and believe it will put California at a competitive disadvantage. Yes, tourism numbers statewide are better than ever, but this recovery is uneven in gateway destinations like San Francisco and LA, which are still facing challenges due to lagging business and international travel, as well as global perceptions of California's homelessness, violence and drug issues, visit California.

Forecasts show that the entire state will surpass 2019 numbers sometime this year, but those numbers are not adjusted for inflation, and not all counties will fully recover in 2023. The cost of visiting California is already high.

Visit California's traveler sentiment says that 37% of domestic consumers, including Californians, and 40% of international consumers, say the price of travel is a barrier to them traveling. Please don't artificially inflate our lodging rates. And lastly, the federal government is considering legislation that would ensure consistent pricing policies, and we prefer this to level the playing field nationwide when it comes to advertising rates. Thank you.

Thank you. Further witnesses in opposition.

Julie Malinowski Ball, on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association echo those sentiments from Cal Travel. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, do we have a motion from Ms. Reyes? Second from Mr. Haney? Senator Glazier, I really want to thank you for bringing what's an important transparency Bill.

All of us, I think, as consumers, have experienced a frustration, as you've said, of going down, seeing resort fee and cleaning fee and all these fees that kind of come up at the end that don't seem to be included in the first advertised price. I think that's important that that get disclosed in the advertised rate. I do share some of the concerns that Mandating disclosure of the government impose.

Taxes and assessments in the advertised price will put California hotels and short term rentals at a little bit of a competitive disadvantages with hotels from out of state, especially, say, tourist areas like Lake Tahoe, but really anywhere but Lake Tahoe or maybe out of state competition is even more closely nearby. So just what I'd ask is that I just urge you to please keep working with the opposition. Maybe that could arrive at a solution that accomplishes the goal of transparency, but at the same time takes into consideration that we want to make sure people continue to visit California large, whether it's small groups of vacationers or whether it's these huge conventions that we want to make sure continue to come to California.

So I will be supporting the Bill, but I just urge you to please work on that issue as this moves forward. And with that, you may close. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair and these are our friends in the lodging and the tourism business. And I've enjoyed working with them on this issue and others.

And we share the goal of keeping our properties competitive. I would agree that, look, this does deserve a national fix and President Biden has advanced some language about trying to do that and that really is the better way. I don't think this Bill is in its current form is going to allow for too much of that of a competitive disadvantage problem.

But I'm continuing to have these conversations and I'm committed to it because they are our friends and we want them to prosper and we all prosper. So with that, respectfully ask for your support today. Thank you.

The motion is due. Pass the appropriations as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the role.

Mainshine aye. Mainshine aye. Essayli no. Essayli no. Connolly. Connolly. Aye Dixon. Dixon. No. Haney. Haney. Aye Kalra Pacheco. Pacheco. Aye Papan. Papan. Aye Reyes. Reyes. Aye Lee. Sanchez No. Sanchez? No. Your

Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you all.

Next is Senator Portantino, and I'd ask Senators Skinner and Rubio to please head over. Those are our final two items after this.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'm here to present SB 696 which would allow remote online notarization in California. As businesses shut down during COVID-19 Pandemic, it highlighted the importance of giving people options for safe, notarial transactions beyond traditional means.

Remote online notarization revolutionizes the notary process, conducting business online via two-way audio video communications. This is an enhancement to not replace traditional notarization, but provide consumers more options and therefore more flexibility on their documents that are being notarized.

SB 696 allows consumers and notaries the ability to complete their mortgage, will, medical directive in a safe, secure, and transparent environment, breaking down geographical barriers for rural communities, and with me today, I have Mike Belote from the California Advocates representing National Notary Association, and Dale Hardy from Notarize. And obviously, when appropriate, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mike Belote on behalf of the National Notary Association and some other groups in support. This is an issue that has been a long time coming. It's been before the Committee, before in both Houses.

We are in strong support of the bill as it exists now. I guess it goes without saying that over time, business and people's lives have become more mobile and we are attempting to align California law in rough form with that of now 46 other states. We are one of four now that does not permit remote online notarization.

I think the analysis does a really good job of laying out the policy and practical questions. But to be clear, a consumer in a notarial transaction might be one of us in an end-of-life situation. It could be a real estate principle, but it could also be a national or even international business, and this is an issue that has to work for all.

Yes, we believe that the notarial process is a critical consumer protection function, but it also needs to evolve, and we have had stakeholder discussions with real estate groups, consumer groups, the Attorney General's Office, the Secretary of State's Office and we think that you've arrived at a fine balance.

But to be clear again, California already is every day recording thousands of documents involving California principles acknowledged out-of-state and that is a principle in the Civil Code and has been for decades, that we recognize a notarial act from out-of-state if performed in accordance with the laws of that other state. So this is happening now.

It is time to put some protections on the system, both policy and practical, and we think the bill achieves that. Happy to answer questions, but we would strongly ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Dale Hardy. I'm Senior Counsel here on behalf of Notarize. Just here for any technical questions.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only.

Lia Nitake with TechNet in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the California Credit Union League in support.

Jim Lites on behalf of DocuSign in support.

Aaron Coons with California Advisors on behalf of Zillow Group in support.

India McDonald here on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association in a support if amended position.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Cliff Costa on behalf of the California Escrow Association and Govern For California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. See no further witnesses in support. Witness in opposition, I'm guessing?

Pardon me, Mr. Chair and Members. The Secretary of State's Office. Ted Muhlhauser on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Ann Weber, PhD. Not in support. Not in opposition. Appreciate the Chair giving us an opportunity to suggest some workability amendments focused on the implementation of this bill.

Appreciate the Committee staff all the time and spent on this issue over the years and look forward to working with the Chair and the other stakeholders on these amendments as we weigh our options on this bill going forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi. I wasn't planning to speak, but this is Anthony from the Attorney General's Office, and we don't have a position on the bill, but we want to thank the author and the sponsors for working with us. We're in discussions with them to try to address some of our concerns. So thank you.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, do we have opposition--oh, I'm sorry.

Those were the tweeners.

Yeah, I was trying to help you here, apparently, Senator Portantino. I apologize for that. In opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Matt Miller, President of the California League of Independent Notaries, and while we appreciate the effort to move into the digital age, we feel that this bill is lacking adequate safeguards to protect access to notarial services in the State of California.

Being one of the few states remaining to adopt online notarization, California notaries have been able to observe what's happened in other states, and what we have observed are the larger technology platforms that facilitate the transactions moving to consolidate the business and funnel it through notary farms in low cost states with lesser standards, and therefore, that is putting pressure on local notaries.

In fact, since March of 2020, California has lost over 20,000 active notaries public and to illustrate this, take a look at Sierra County, California, which is a county more than 3,200 residents. That is down to just four active notaries public.

And when you consider something like the Solidify Mortgage Experience Report that routinely shows us year after year that more than 80 percent of borrowers prefer an in person closing experience, we feel that any bill that pushes to adopt online notarization in California should include language to address this issue. So until that is done, we remain opposed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Dani Kando-Kaiser on behalf of a few different organizations. First of all, want to thank the author's office and the sponsors for the conversation about our concerns. I am here on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Counsel, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Elder Law & Advocacy, Legal Assistance for Seniors, and California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. Continue to have concerns around privacy, data breach, and elder justice. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, Ms. Papan.

So I just had a quick question because lots of times a notary comes into play because it affects real property, and that's certainly within the jurisdiction, if you will, of California. So I just want to make sure it is that any notary that's operating outside of the state is going to have to know all of the rules that apply to notaries within our state and follow those because we don't want to give up our ability to ensure that real property transactions have any compromise to them. So that was kind of my question, because I didn't hear anything about what's going to be mandated for the out-of-state notaries.

That's not the case under the bill. So notaries are public officials that are commissioned by each individual state, and they have to follow the laws of their own commissioning state. Those other 46 states that have allowed online notarization do not restrict where the signers can be located.

So the notaries are performing a notarization based on those states' laws. That's all that they're doing is following the notarization. California does recognize notarizations performed out-of-state, including remote online notarizations. I believe every county has recorded a remote online notarization performed by a notary out-of -state.

That does not affect the other requirements for the document for it to be recorded. Recordability is not touched by the notarization. They're just completing that one portion of the closing signature verification. Is that--that's all I needed to know. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Essayli.

Thank you.

Yeah. Technical question. I do support modernizing the notary business. Would these be like video conferences? Like, how would the actual transaction go down?

So there are multiple steps that are involved. A very brief and rough explanation is that the notary and the signer are connected. They are usually connected over some kind of platform like--there are many out there, and they're going to have a proprietary system to where there's the document on screen.

Both the signer and the notary are also there that's being--the interaction between the notary and the signer are being recorded. They're connected after the signer has completed identity verification. The results of that is given to the notary to help them identify the signer, which is their job. They witness the signing and then complete this document by applying their signature or seal.

I appreciate that someone's litigated this and actually being a prosecutor, actually think this gives us more evidence than we have now. Most notaries, there is nothing recorded other than the signature and the thumbprint and this sounds like we would have video evidence of the transaction in question, so I do support this. So thank you.

Any other questions or--Mr. Kalra?

Thank you, and I appreciate the representative for the Attorney General's Office here, indicating the continued effort and desire to continue to work on this, and a couple of the items that were raised in the Committee Analysis, one having to do with limiting the bill to California licensed notaries and another one regarding liability provisions, are those things that, Senator, you're going to be continuing to work on with the Secretary of State, with the Attorney General's Office?

Yeah. Obviously, the conversations are continuing. I appreciate them both being here. We're trying to address the concerns. Can I promise you that every single concern that everybody's raised is going to be addressed to their satisfaction? No, but I can promise you that we're going to continue to be having robust conversations because we want to get a signature on this bill.

We want to get something through the system that people are completely comfortable with because we also don't want to put it on the governor's desk and have folks saying, 'veto it.' So I think it's to everybody's interest to try to work out as many of the concerns as possible.

And on the specific issue of the bill being limited to California notaries, again, having the selfish interest of looking out for the interest of those that are working as notaries in our state as well as the validity aspect of ensuring that they can, as mentioned, can understand the ins and outs of California law in an appropriate manner, is that something that--you think that there may be a resolution on that, or is that one of the items that's going to be a little more difficult?

Well, I think the role of the notary isn't necessarily to be the lawyer in the transaction. The role of the notary is to make sure that the right and appropriate people are signing the right documents. So I think we have to be careful of making sure that we're not saying all notaries need to be attorneys and so I think we'll look into that.

Again, I can't promise you that we'll end up with something that will be, to the nth degree, saying that everyone has to be intimately familiar with every aspect of every contract, but that's not necessarily the role of the notary.

I understand, but there is legal implications, obviously, with having a document notarized, especially, as mentioned, with property transactions. And the last thing is just on the privacy aspects of the data collection and ensuring that the consumer privacy is that we do tend to have stronger laws than many other jurisdictions and that will be accounted for as well in this legislation or as you continue to work on it?

And if you have specific suggestions, I would like to hear what you can bring on that conversation as well, but no, we're not looking to have something be prone to data breach. So thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Ms. Pacheco.

So my question is more of a logistical question. I'm actually licensed notary, and we always collect thumbprints. How will that work if it's going to be virtual? Is there an ability to collect thumbprints? Are we going to be foregoing collecting thumbprints?

The thumbprint collection is exempted for online notarization and the reason for that is because of the additional pieces of evidence that Member Essayli mentioned before regarding the AV recording electronic journal, electronic document with the tamper seal protection, the identity verification that the center has gone through before. All of that information is retained indefinitely as written for the journal. So the thumbprint is not going to be part of it.

So are we supposed to have two different types of journals? Are we going to have our paper journal and then our online journal?

That's correct.

Thank you.

Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, do we have a motion? Mr. Essayli moves. Ms. Sanchez seconds. All right, with that--that's kind of an exciting one. I'd ask--Senator, you may close.

I was riveted in my seat by all that, Assemblyman, but I'm a boring person. So judicial's exciting. I really appreciate the conversation and I think the comment of losing 20,000 notaries really means that it's hard for people to find somebody where it used to be much easier, in particular in rural parts of the state and so we have to modernize this. We have to have set best practices. We have to create a system where we're in the 21st century and we allow people access to transactions in a way that makes sense for them and so we're trying to get there, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein? Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli? Aye. Essayli, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan? Aye. Papan, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Lee? Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye.

Your bill is out. Senator Skinner. And while she is approaching, I'd ask Senator Rubio to please come over. She is our last item and I'd ask any Members of the Committee who are not here, which is Assembly Member Lee, to please head over.

And we'll do add ons at that time. Welcome, Senator Skinner, you may proceed.

Thank you so much, Chair and Members. I'm very pleased to be here to present SB 680. I think it is very well known to all of us the damage, unfortunately the damage that certain features that are built in to the platforms, our social media companies use those features.

While we could talk about various impacts they may have had on the culture in General or the society for our youth and our children, they have been particularly damaging. First and foremost, those design features and the algorithms being one of the key, are designed to have the user be captured and stay on. I should get captured.

That's maybe not the best phrase to use, but basically to keep the user on the platform. And the research has shown that our children are particularly vulnerable to that. And when we look at the data of the number of hours that our children spend on these platforms, it is clear there is no research that refutes it.

And to put the burden on parents, that parents are supposed to control this circumstance, we know it's an unfair burden. Now not only do these platforms features contribute to the addiction of our kids on the use of these platforms, they target the user to very damaging or material that we have seen and the research is documented causes children to inflict harm on themselves or others and that includes on eating disorders, on suicide on a whole variety of areas like that. And then finally, what research has shown is that it is easier to procure something like a ghost gun or illegal substances, different illegal or controlled drugs that contain fentanyl faster on these social media platforms without you even searching for either of those items.

But they pop up depending on the user. It is faster to get hold of those items through social media than to get the Uber or Lyft car that you have called for on your app. Now it are when we see harm that a company has not corrected.

And of course, all of us would hope that with such research, companies themselves would correct these things, but they have not. And we're more than a decade into this very dominant use of social media by everyone but our kids especially. And of course, it is legitimate that for years we were pretty much hands off in terms of the tech industry because we did not want to stifle innovation.

But we're now at the point where it is clear that these certain aspects of the design features of our social media are really causing harm and we need to act to help correct it. So that is the purpose of the Bill. I will go into some key points at my close, but I'm going to let my witnesses and support speak first.

And I have Anthony Lou from our Attorney General's office. He's Deputy AG of the Office of Legislative Affairs and the Bill is sponsored by Attorney General Bonta. And I have also Nancy McGee, who is the superintendent of schools for San Mateo County.

Thank you. First witness, two minutes each. Go ahead, Jerome.

Hi, good morning. My name is Anthony Lew with the California Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs, AG. Bonta is pleased to sponsor Senate Bill 680 and we thank Senator Skinner for leading on this important legislation to protect the mental and physical health of California children.

As children spend more time on social media platforms, it's apparent that the use of social media platforms can lead to harmful outcomes to children in a number of ways. For example, research shows that social media platform addiction has a negative impact on healthy socialization in children and contributes to feelings of social isolation in young people. And other research indicates that time spent on social media is correlated with the rates of suicide and depression among teens, especially girls.

Social media addiction and its resultant harms are an urgent threat to California's children. And in the AG's office, we are tackling this threat daily and with SB 680, would give California law enforcement important new tool to protect our children. The Bill would prohibit large social media companies from knowingly or negligently using a design, algorithm or feature that the company knew or should have known causes child users to experience addiction to the social media platform, develop an eating disorder, or inflict harm on themselves or others.

Under the Bill, social media companies could be held liable for sending child users information regarding how to obtain firearms or controlled substances, or how to die by suicide. If the child acts on that information, the AG reaffirms the need for strong safeguards in California that protect not only the privacy rights of children, but that also address the real demonstrated harms the real demonstrated harms to the physical and mental health of children associated with the use of social media. So, for these reasons, we're pleased to sponsor SB 680 and urge you to vote aye today.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Nancy MaGee, a lifelong educator with 20 years as a high school teacher in San Diego before moving to San Mateo in 2010.

Elected San Mateo County Superintendent in 2018. I'm here today to urge support for SB 680. Senator Skinner's proposed legislation prohibiting social media companies from designing platforms that cause harm to youth.

As a teacher, I can attest to how technology can enhance instruction. At the same time, as an education leader, I contend daily with the mental health crisis gripping our youth. In fact, only weeks ago, the US surgeon General released an advisory on the impacts of social media on youth.

Despite the many ways it poses risk. 95% of 13 to 17 year olds report using social media, and more than a third say they use social media almost constantly. More concerning the advisory reports, one third or more of girls age 11 to 15 say they feel addicted to certain social media platforms.

Our schools are not spared these impacts. For better or worse, social media driven culture influences student behavior. How they treat others and themselves, how they show up for learning.

It's rare to meet a parent who doesn't share worries about their child's anxiety. I hear story after story from parents who've tried every trick in the book to establish clear boundaries between their children and their devices, usually with limited success. SB 680 provides an onramp to action.

We cannot put this solely on our families and our schools. Social media companies can prioritize user well being over metrics and still profit as great innovators. They can and should implement safeguards to protect youth against addictive algorithms.

SB 680 would be historic towards establishing common sense regulations that protect our greatest resource California students. I urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Samuel Goodman here on behalf of Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, representing Children's advocacy institute and the California district attorneys association. In strong support. Good morning. Kathy Van Austin, MBM Strategy Group, representing American Association of University Women California, in strong support. Good morning.

Chair and Members, McKenna Jenkins with next gen California in strong support. Good morning. Corey Hashida, on behalf of the Steinberg Institute. In support. Cammy Pierre with Common Sense Media on behalf of Hashtag half the story jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco and Parents Television and Media Council in support. My name is Ellie Sutliffe. I'm a high school student here in Sacramento and a youth lobbyist for Half the Story.

I'm here to support SB 680. My name is Anita White. I'm 16 years old and I'm a rising senior at St. Francis High School. And I'm here in support Stella Johnson from Children's Advocacy Institute in strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support witnesses in opposition. Do I commit the table? Would you like me to create space on the table? Yeah, we need two chairs for that. Okay, great. Yeah. Thank you. We'll bring you back. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Leah Nitake with TechNet. And we are respectfully opposed to SB 680.

We fully support the goal of this Bill to protect child users on social media platforms. Our platforms take aggressive action to identify and remove third party content that violates their policies. The bill's approach, unfortunately, violates First Amendment principles and is preempted by federal law.

First, we believe this Bill is fundamentally about content. The Bill calls it information and is therefore preempted by Section 230, which gives platforms the right to moderate content without the threat of liability. Second, the Bill prohibits any designs, features, or algorithms that could cause a child user to take certain actions.

But the Bill is incredibly unclear about how that causation happens. One of the actions subject to liability is if a child develops an eating disorder. We acknowledge the seriousness of this issue, but it's fair to ask.

Under this Bill, would viewing a workout video be considered to trigger an eating disorder? Does cause mean that the platform is the only factor for the eating disorder a contributing factor, a substantial factor? And would that apply to all child users? Any child user or the average child user? And again, the Bill calls out not the content they view, but the designs or features that delivered it to them. Because of this ambiguity, the safe harbor is unusable. Should the platform know that the user would develop an eating disorder because of the newsfeed? Features, designs, and algorithms are not limited to showing just one type of content, which is why they will scope in more than what's being targeted in this Bill.

It isn't possible to sufficiently correct these kinds of core features without completely dismantling a platform's fundamental design, or limiting or restricting access for child users. Finally, the threat of liability will lead platforms to over, remove content, silencing lawful speech while attempting to protect child users from harm. This Bill would, in fact harm other child users, including teens who find their only welcoming and safe communities to be on these platforms.

Again, we appreciate and support the intent of this Bill, but for these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 680. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Cameron Dmitri. On behalf of Net Choice. Net Choice is a coalition of trade associations, ecommerce businesses, and online consumers, all of which share the goal of promoting choice and commerce on the Net. Net Choice respectfully opposes SB 680 as it would exacerbate many of the challenges that California teens and parents have when it comes to navigating their mental health. The Bill does little to address the underlying issues raised by social media, which is responsible use of the technology.

The Bill exacerbates an already unconstitutional law following the same approach California took 20 years ago, when video games were the focus of legislation at the time. Then the Supreme Court struck down the law seven to two decision when the state tried to ban the selling of video games displaying harmful content in 2003. Today, teenagers use the Internet online, seek out to help and use assistance, particularly those struggling with identity, and address mental health and social issues.

To them, this is a form of information. This legislation would deny teenagers an important tool to help them with their social and emotional growth. For example, there is a provision that bans the showing of ways for teens to stay healthy.

Such a provision makes illegal advertisements or PSAs telling teens to get up and move, go to the gym. And there can be cases where if you are asking a child to eat less processed meat, that would even be illegal under the auspices of the current language. Even the APA's own report on social media, contrary to SB 680, says that they extolled benefits of social media data suggests that youth psychological development may benefit from this type of online social interaction, especially for youth who experience adversity or isolation in offline environments.

In addition to its impact on teens, this Bill would hinder a legitimate speech of California adults. This law is even more broadly applied as it is related to all websites, making California an ID for Internet use state. We hope that rather than doubling down on unconstitutional legislation, the state instead should help take the national lead and educate chain's parents and all residents on how to be good digital citizens and protect their privacy and data security online.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Good morning. Chair and Members, Naomi Pedron, on behalf. Of the computer and communications industry association, in respectful opposition Mr. Chair and Members Courtney Jensen on behalf of Cjac, in respectful opposition. Good morning. Ronak Dilami with the California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition. Any questions or comments from the committee? Motion from Mr. Kalra.

Second from Ms. Reyes. Mr. Essayli.

I have some questions. Hi, Senator. No one can dispute the crisis I think we're having. It's a public health crisis with youth on social media.

I mean, it's clear that depression, anxiety, suicide, eating disorders, bullying, you just go down the list. It's a public crisis. The question is, how do we address it? How do we do it? I support this Bill and its efforts, but I do have some serious concerns given the Supreme Court case.

And so I would ask the Attorney General's Office, given the Supreme Court's case where they said ISIS recruiting the algorithms that were pushing ISIS content to recruit terrorists, that that was protected. And the court said it's no different than a telephone company whose services are used to broker drug deals. So given the Supreme Court's interpretation, how are we going to overcome this in court? Big problem.

Good morning. I'm Stacey Schesser, here on behalf of the Attorney General's Office. I think that the best way to answer your question is that the Supreme Court declined to actually reason in the recent case law regarding the case that you just cited about whether or not this was protected speech or protected content.

They did not make a decision, for example, if it was prohibited under the Communications Decency Act 230. The Bill is not about content. The Bill does not run afoul of 230.

It makes no reference to content, but instead requires platforms about how they make design decisions. And that is why this does not create a concern about speech.

So we see design though. I mean, so if you're saying that, let's say a student wants to buy drugs or something and they use a code word or plug, I think is a very ubiquitous one, and then the algorithm starts giving them profiles associated with that, you're saying that's not content based, what they're searching and how they're being connected. I'm having a hard time understanding how it's going to logistically play out on the platform. Again, I support this, I'm just trying to understand it.

So I think what the Bill does, first of all, it explicitly says that if there's anything that is protected as content, it's not going to cause liability. There's a savings clause regarding 230 regarding the First Amendment. And so that sort of balances those obligations there.

What it does is it requires examination on whether or not the algorithm or the design of the product, it needs to be reasonably safe for kids. And so if the algorithm is designed in such a way to cause a child to harm themselves, that is what the Bill tries to get at, as opposed to like, for example, if it leads them to specific content. There's a distinction there, right? It's focusing on maybe I can give a good example here.

So if there is a design or a filter, for example, that shows kids how they would look if they were 40 pounds thinner, or they could create a thigh gap or something that would promote unhealthy body image, that is a specific type of filter that would be prohibited under Supreme Court case law like lemon versus Snap. Okay? That is specific and geared to what is this product, what is this design of the filter trying to promote in terms of causing potential harm to kids? That is really where this Bill tries to direct, not at the message or the content.

That sounds very willful. So I mean, if they're designing something specifically, but what if they're just being connected with other people or profiles that are trafficking and harmful content? That's the struggle. I'll just close with this again, I think this is a very thorny, difficult issue and so I hope we can figure out how to navigate it.

My personal views on it. I don't think kids should be on social media and then we wouldn't have these issues. So I know there's some states that are taking that lead and I think that's something we have to seriously consider.

But today I support this and we'll see how this plays out. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. I applaud your efforts. I think everyone in at least the country is looking at this.

Congress has been looking at that. So that's number one of my questions. What is the status of the congressional hearings on this? And then question number one.

Number two, with artificial intelligence coming into play here and designing all the, what do you call it, content or information, I think that's going to be kind of blurry at some point. How do you even control that? And then number three, I applaud the efforts of California wanting to be on the leading edge of these critically important issues. However, how is it going to be whether it's TikTok or Facebook or Instagram that are operating all over the world, and how would they operate in California? That's not our problem to solve.

They'd have to comport to California laws. But maybe this is such a complex issue in how we manage information for anyone, whether it's children or anyone, it's becoming all consuming that I don't know if it's fully baked yet. I think you're on the right track.

I just think there are a lot of questions, whether it's content that the Supreme Court or 230 and freedom of speech and these arguments that just put such an onerous penalty on the platforms when there is almost with artificial intelligence, I don't know how anyone can control it. I don't know if there is an answer. So I applaud your efforts.

I think I'll just perhaps abstain. I just think there's so much more to be determined. How this gets in limited hearings that we've had, congress has had weeks of hearings on this, and we're just dealing with two days of hearings with about an hour or 30 minutes.

I don't think we're adequately devoting the time that this important subject matter requires. I applaud you for trying to do this and advance the discussion, but I think we need to spend a heck of a lot of time looking at this and the consequences. That's my opinion.

Any other questions or comments from the committee seeing none. Do we have a motion? Mr. Kalra made a motion. We have a motion. A second? Okay, we have a motion. A second. Senator Skinner may close.

Thank you so much. So I will address just a few of the comments. So I think our technical expert from the Attorney General's office did give the distinction about how this was very carefully crafted to not run afoul of the Federal Communications Rules or the constitutional free speech issues.

And I personally believe ultimately, we should have the type of regulations that the EU has. And you have much less of these problems in the EU due to the regulations that they have adopted. But we could not repeat those given the Federal Rules so this Bill does not do that, though I would very much be in favor of it.

So this Bill instead is crafted very carefully to give our social media platforms a safe harbor. That if they themselves audit their own features and can document that if a case is brought against them, they can document that. They've addressed something like this fact where researchers have, posing as adolescent girls gone onto social media, done no search related to food or eating or any of those things.

And within 39 seconds, and then every 39 seconds thereafter, if not more frequently, we're directed to sites promoting either Binging, Purging, or anorexia. So there's a clear documentation of where the user themselves does not have to do any search whatsoever in terms of any of this content, and yet a design feature will direct them towards certain. Again, it's a feature problem versus a content problem.

So, again, the Bill is designed very carefully. It does not allow for an individual to take an action to hold them responsible, even though we see now school districts up and down the state suing, bringing lawsuits around these platforms. What this does is only allow a public prosecutor, meaning a DA or our Attorney General, to if they can document that the company has not addressed an issue that they identified in an audit, then they can bring forward a case.

However, the social media entity is completely free of any liability if they show what they have done to address this in these audits. So I think it's a very carefully crafted and again, doesn't even go as far as I think we should, but it does respect the various laws that are in place, both federally and otherwise. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. A second. The motion is due pass to the Privacy Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the role.

Maienschein Aye. Maienschein. Aye. Essayli. Essayli. Aye. Connolly. Connolly aye. Dixon. Haney. Haney. Aye Kalra. Kalra. Aye Pacheco. Papan. Papan. Aye Reyes. Reyes. Aye Lee. Lee. Aye Sanchez.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. We're on to our final Bill.

Good morning. Thank you, chair and Members.

My understanding is Senator Rubio has asked Senator Papan to present for her.

And to be clear, you accept the amendments on behalf of Senator Rubio?

Yes, thank you. I do indeed. That's part of my notes. All right. So thank you for letting me present on behalf of Senator Rubio. Let me begin by thanking the chair and the staff for the feedback on the Bill and the amendments to improve the Bill that came from those conversations.

I'm proud to present SBA Four Eight, a Bill that will bring comfort to people who experience one of the worst traumas imaginable, a reproductive loss. Every year in the United States, nearly a million families experience the heartbreak of losing a pregnancy because of miscarriage or stillbirth. And many other families experience trauma from an adoption agreement falling apart or an unsuccessful IVF treatment, all in the hopes of becoming a family and having children.

SBA 48 will ensure the families experiencing reproductive loss have the time they need to process their grief and heal by providing them up to five days of unpaid, job protected leave after such a loss. SB 848 takes a thoughtful, balanced approach to providing this leave. And recent amendments address several of Cal Chamber's concerns, including capping how much time off can be taken.

I am committed to continuing conversations with Cal Chamber so is Senator Rubio. And to address their concerns so that we get the Bill to a place where there's no opposition. I must confess, I didn't read this before coming to present it, but I've had personal experience with these types of situations, so I'm really honored to be able to present this Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair

You did a nice job. We have a motion from Ms.. Reyes.

Second. From Ms.. Pacheco.

First witness, please. Yes.

Chairman Maenschein and Members of the committee. My name is Janelle Greenley, and I'm a delegate for one of the co sponsoring organizations, Junior League CalSPAC. I'm here today to read testimony on behalf of Aaron Bartolome, a behavioral services professional in Long Beach who writes distinguished Chairman and Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to voice my support of Senate Bill 848.

Over the course of several months in 2018, my partner and I experienced multiple unsuccessful attempts with fertility treatments. Our fertility treatment team was amazing. Our doctor was ethical and fair.

They did everything right. They walked us through the steps and what to expect. They required an initial assessment through a licensed therapist to ensure that we were doing this for the right reasons and that we understood the percentages of success based on my own personal factors for these procedures.

He stated up front that he would not recommend any more than four to five treatments before having to make a decision on more invasive and costly options, or to decide that conception was just not going to be in the cards for us. Even with that support, I was taken completely by surprise with how devastating each and every one of these attempts felt. The after effects of one failed attempt bled into the next when rounds of hormone shots and follow up assessments happened in short succession to track progress and viability of the monthly IUI procedure.

The stress and grief of loss was cumulative with each failed attempt. It was surreal to feel like you are mourning something or someone who never was. It's even weirder when you work in an industry populated mostly by women and seen friends and coworkers having their own fertility successes.

I struggled to not feel resentful of those around me. Once I decided to give up on my fertility journey, it took over two full years to feel like myself again. Had leave been available to me.

Perhaps the time spent healing from these reproductive losses would have been less. Only now, in hindsight, do I realize the time needed to fully process and give each loss the respect it deserved. I ask the committee, please consider passing SB 848 and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Distinguished Chairman Maienschine and Members of the committee, my name is Nancy Nodell CalSPAC, senior Delegate for the Junior League of Sacramento, and today I'll be amplifying the voice of an everyday Californian in support of SB Eight Four Eight, who was not able to attend today's hearing. Chairman and Members of the committee, I thank you for your time and earnest consideration of SB Eight Four Eight.

My name is Dr. Louise Lawrence, and I am the Vice Chair of Translational Research and the Director of Perinatal Research for the UC San Diego Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. From my perspective as a maternal fetal medicine or high risk obstetrics doctor, I can say that for many families, the loss of a baby in the prenatal period can be just as devastating as a loss of a child after birth. Although in nearly all cases, these events are nobody's fault, families experience feelings of grief and guilt.

They need time to process not only the event itself, but also come to grips with the fact that terrible things happen to wonderful people. Further, many families are making decisions about whether to have follow up testing, such as an autopsy or genetic testing that may give them information about potential risks for future pregnancies. And it takes time to understand these options, make decisions, and sort through the logistics of obtaining these tests.

Overall, I think that five days of time to deal with such losses is, if anything, excessively short, and hope that we can do at least this much for these families. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate your attentiveness today and kindly ask for your aye vote on this important Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Mr. Chairmember is Mariko Yoshihar on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Legal Aid at Work in support Hi. Karen Stout on behalf of narrow pro choice California, as well as the California Nurse Association. In support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members, courtney Jensen, on behalf of California chamber of commerce. We are in opposed unless amended, continuing to work with the Senator on the day cap in the Bill and appreciate the continued work of the Senator, her esteemed colleague and the staff. Thank you.

Thank you. See no other witnesses and support witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none.

We do have a motion. A second. Ms. Papan, you may close.

This is the right thing to do. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the role.

Maienschein Aye. Maienschien Aye. Essayli not voting. Connolly. Connolly. Aye Dixon. Dixon not voting. Haney. Haney Aye Kalra Kalra Pacheco aye. Pacheco. Aye Papan. Aye, Papan. Aye Reyes. Reyes. Aye Lee Lee. Aye Sanchez.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Now we will do add ons and consent.

We will start with the consent agenda. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Dixon on consent. Dixon Aye Kalra. Aye Papan Aye Lee Lee Aye.

Dixon on item number one. Yes. Dixon Aye Kalra. Aye Papan. Papan. Aye Lee. Lee. Aye

Dixon no. Dixon no Papan Papan Aye Lee Lee. Aye

Item number two, SB 372. Menjivar

Start then with item number one or continue with item number one. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Will move to item three, SB 385. Ask the Clerk to lift the call.

Maienschein aye. Maienschein Aye Dixon no Dixon no. Kalra Kalra Aye Papan Papan Aye Lee. Lee Aye.

That Bill is out. Move to item number four, SB 478, Dodd. Ask the Clerk to lift the call.

That Bill is out. Item number five, SB 642, Cortese. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Maienschien aye. Maienschien Aye Dixon no Dixon no. Kalra Kalra Aye Papan, Papan Aye Lee. Lee Aye

Dixon opposed? No. Dixon no. Kalra. Kalra Aye Papan Papan. Aye Lee Lee Aye.

Item number six, SB 644 Glacier. Ask the Clerk to call the role.

Dixon no. Dixon no. Kalra Kalra Aye Papan Papan Aye Lee. Lee Aye

Item seven, SB 666 men. Ask the Clerk to call the roll. We have everyone on item eight.

Okay. Item number nine, SB 683 Glacier. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Item eleven, SB 731, Ashby asks the Clerk to please lift the call.

Item ten. SB 696, Portantino asks Clerk to call the roll.

Kalra Aye Lee Lee Aye

Lee Lee Aye

Maienschein aye. Maienschein Aye Dixon no Dixon no Kalra. Kalra Aye Papan. Papan. Aye Lee Lee Aye.

And item twelve, SB 848, Rubio is out. I lift the call in 1111, SB 731, Ashby is out. And then at nightm twelve, SB 848 is also out.