Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Yeah, maybe. Good morning, everyone. Hope they get that elevator fixed soon. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses.

Witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill. Additional witnesses should state only their names, organization of any and their position on the Bill.

The one item that we will be taking out of order when she is here is Chair Pepin's Bill, since she's chairing her Committee and we want to get her out out there. But in the meantime, we will take item four, Assembly Member Crell, AB54. Oh, and we do not have a quorum. We'll be starting as a Subcommitee. Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

All right. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm bringing Assembly Bill 54. Today. California is a leader in reproductive freedom and a safe haven for individuals seeking care. However, threats at the federal level and restrictions to abortion access across our country.

Thank you. Across our country and the overturning of Roe vs Wade has reduced access for individuals seeking abortion access to medication abortion plays an important role in reducing barriers and promoting equitable healthcare, particularly for those living in rural or underserved communities. 60% of individuals who seek abortions are people of color and half live below the poverty line.

Reaffirming that limiting access has a disparate impact on marginalized communities. Ensuring the integrity of medication abortion supply chain process, from manufacturing to distribution to Administration of mifepristone and Misoprostol is essential to protecting. Is essential to protecting access. AB54 reaffirms California's commitment to protecting access to reproductive health care. Yes, we have a constitutional.

Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion. But right is only as good as access to it. And with restrictions all around the country, we need to make sure that our supply chain of medication abortion is accessible to patients and their healthcare providers here in California. So I respectfully request your.

I vote with me is Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Brokaw from the Attorney General's Office and Angela Pontus from Planned Parenthood affiliates of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, good morning. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General here with the California Department of Justice on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is proud to sponsor AB54. And we'd like to thank Assembly Member Crell for her leadership on this important issue.

AB54 would ensure continued access to medication abortion and shield providers and manufacturers from liability for transporting and administering such medication. Since the overturn of Roe V. Wade In 2022, abortion access has been under attack. Nationwide, 60% of abortions are done by using medication abortion. So it is crucial that we ensure continued access to this reproductive care.

And ensuring access means maintaining the ability to transport and deliver such medication throughout the state. AB54 affirms that doing so is legal in California and shields providers, manufacturers, distributors, pharmacists and individuals from civil and criminal liability and professional discipline. AB54 is an important step in keeping California a safe haven for reproductive access.

And I have here with me Deputy Attorney General Erica Connolly. Here to answer any technical questions, we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California, representing these seven Planned Parenthood affiliates throughout the state, serving patients from every county through 115 community health centers here today in strong support of AB54 as a CO sponsor as well.

Though medication abortion has been used by millions of people for a quarter of a century and decades of research show that it is safe and effective attacks on access and providers who offer this care persist. AB54 reassures Californians that their right to essential health care is and will remain protected by ensuring that medication abortion providers are shielded and that the drugs used remain legal.

Any federal efforts to restrict medication abortion and the drugs used are not only dangerous and cruel, but also a direct attack on our state's constitutional right to reproductive freedom. Thank you for your consideration of this important policy. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB54? Just name organization, if any, and your position on the Bill. And I know folks are making their way up here up the elevator fiasco.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association in support. Thank you.

Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public affairs representing Reproductive Freedom for All and strong support.

Thank you Symphoni Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California, proud co sponsors and support. Thank you.

Katherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, proud co sponsor.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB54?

Good Morning Chair and Members. I am Sophia Lori with California Family Council and we stand in opposition to AB 54, misleadingly titled Access to Safe Abortion Care Act. Let's be clear, there is nothing safe about what this Bill promotes.

AB54 focuses on the abortion pills mifepristone and misopristol and yet ignores the brutal reality of what these drugs actually do. A so called medical abortion is a gruesome two step process. First, mifepristone chemically starves a preborn child of the vital hormone progesterone, causing the placenta to wither.

The child is cut off from oxygen and nutrients, a slow, intentional death. Then, 24 to 48 hours later, the woman takes Mifepristol, forcing her body into violent contractions, heavy bleeding, and the trauma of expelling her dead baby, most often alone at home over a toilet. And we call this safe. Just yesterday, fresh evidence shattered this false narrative.

A new study released by the Ethics and Public Policy center analyzed 865,727 mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023, making it the largest known study of its kind. The findings are horrifying. 10.93% of women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion.

That's 1 in 10 women, a rate 22 times higher than the manufacturer's clinical trial claims. Yet California lawmakers are rushing to double down on promoting this drug without even a pause for caution, as the study author urges the FDA should immediately reinstate its earlier, stronger patient safety protocols and reconsider its approval of mifepristone altogether.

If our goal is truly safe health care for women, this Bill is the opposite of what they deserve. Instead of protecting women, AB54 abandons them to dangerous, solitary and traumatic abortions and calls it care. I urge you, reject this dangerous Bill. Women and children deserve better than the lies and the lethal consequences of chemical abortion. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB54? Any questions or comments from the Committee Assembly Member Zbur

Yes. Could I ask the folks from. Or any. Anyone from Planned Parenthood or otherwise to address the. What I believe outrageous allegations about the safety of methapristone. Someone could just respond to that.

Sure. I would just note that medication, abortion drugs have a lower mortality rate than Viagra. They've been proven safe for over a decade. You know, my colleague on the other side here, and I disagree with each other about this, but from a safety standpoint, there's nothing unsafe. They've been approved for a long time.

This Bill has wide support in the medical community from doctors and other healthcare providers.

You know, I know that in the world we're living in that facts no longer are real facts, but I think the fact is accurate that these are medically safe. They're widely used, and I applaud the author for bringing this Bill.

I think it's a really important one to make sure that that women and people get the health care they need in the State of California. I would love to be at it as a co author and would love to move the Bill at the appropriate time once we have a quorum.

I want to also thank the author. I think it's no surprise to anyone what's happening right now as we see reproductive rights under attack throughout this nation and women's rights under attack.

And I don't think that we should consider ourselves immune here in California, particularly given the fact that we're going to be asked to take on a greater burden of caring for a lot of individuals that are seeking care that may not otherwise be able to. And so this is incredibly important.

I want to thank the author for her many years of advocacy long before even entering into the steps of this building, but especially now with the voice that you have by continuing to use it to ensure safe access to reproductive health. Would you like to close?

Yes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. I'd also like to be added as a co author at the appropriate time. And I believe you have one other Bill.

I do.

And thank everyone for being here. By the way, we can't take a motion quite yet. We don't have a quorum, but we can still listen to some bills here. And so we are going to item 22, AB 1137. All right. Whenever. Whenever you're ready.

Hi. Thank you. Good morning again. Let me tell you about AB 1137. This is a great Bill which addresses social media reporting mechanisms for child sexual abuse material, or CSAM . CSAM is brutal and graphic content that permanently captures a child's trauma and exploitation. And tragically, it's very pervasive on the Internet.

There's over 500,000 cases of CSAM on platforms like Snapchat, TikTok X. They each have over half a million Facebook and instagram combined. Over 28 million. So so far, we've already made great strides in creating reporting mechanisms in order to take these images down immediately and try and prevent them. And that's what this law does.

AB 1137 addresses this problem by strengthening the existing tool to report child sexual abuse material on social media platforms by allowing anyone to report csam, not just the victim who's depicted, and then also requiring that the reports be reviewed by a national person and empowering victims to take legal action.

It would also give public prosecutors the ability to take legal action when the reporting mechanism is not being complied with. Existing law allows social media companies to be protected from liability for commercial sexual exploitation if they conduct a biannual audit aimed at identifying designs and features contributing to its spread.

So to improve transparency and accountability, this Bill would instead require that the audit be performed by a third party and also made public. With me today is Nicole W. A parent whose child was a victim of csam. And then also Ed Howard representing the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego.

Thank you so much. Before we get to the witnesses, if we can establish quorum, please.

[Roll Call]

My name is Nicole and I'm the mother of a child sexual abuse survivor whose abuse was recorded and has been widely distributed on a variety of Internet websites and social media platforms.

I am here today in support of AB 1137, a Bill that will provide crucial clarifications to existing California law that requires social media platforms to take affirmative acts to remove child sexual abuse material from their platforms.

When the perpetrator in my child's case was arrested and charged, I was naive enough to be grateful that there were images proving what he had done so that he would not be able to get away with it.

In the time that has passed, I have seen firsthand how the images themselves are abuse and that every time the images are distributed, redistributed and viewed, the child is re victimized. The current California law allows that only someone depicted in the images is able to request their removal.

The reality is that many of the children being depicted are below the allowable age to even be engaging on these platforms in the first place. By allowing anyone to report these images, you are taking the responsibility off of children and allowing the grownups in the room to speak up on their behalf.

AB 1137 also prevents further re victimization by utilizing the existing hash data mechanism for known CSAM and requiring human review only in cases where the images had no hash match and the abuse would and the images would not otherwise be removed.

Imagine the worst thing that has ever happened to you having been recorded and shared out into the world without your consent. Wouldn't you want as few people to see this as possible? This Bill does that for CSAM survivors.

Survivors need to have all of their remedies under the law available so that they can decide when, where, and how to seek justice against everyone who has been a part of their abuse.

AB 1137 empowers the California Attorney General, state prosecutors, and local prosecutors to use their resources to pursue justice on behalf of these children and their families. This Bill is about the safety of kids and there's nothing more important than protecting them. I know I alone could not have protected my own child.

We need help and new laws to keep children safe online and I urge the Assembly to move forward with AB 1137 to help ensure that every child has the safe childhood that they deserve serve.

Thank you Mr. Chair Members, Ed Howard, Senior Counsel at the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, pleased to co sponsor this measure. Three brief points if I may. The first is that this problem of child sexual abuse material online is getting worse.

According to In Hope, which is an international organization of CSAM hotlines, in 202390% of the child sexual abuse material that was found online was depicting pre pubescent children, overwhelmingly girls between the ages of 3 and 13 years old. That number is for 202493% of the child sexual abuse material.

The second is what motivates in significant part this Bill is that given a full year to comply. As your analysis correctly says, the implementation of this Bill, let us just say, is not compassionate. Your analysis on page six gets this exactly.

It's superb analysis by the way gets this exactly right when it says, quote Investigations by child safety advocates have documented that many major platforms bury their reporting tools deep within app settings, fragment the process across multiple interfaces and provide pathways that lead to dead ends. You can see this for yourself attached to our letter.

We attached an exhaustive series of examples with the major platforms. It appears as though the only thing that we could find that one of them did was add in fine print. This was for Facebook after 1394. The Bill that preceded this one quote reporting it's I'm actually having reporting online nudes in California.

You can make a report to Meta if you're under 18 and your nudes have been shared. That appears to be the major innovation. Third, and finally, the platforms know how to find this material.

In 2023, the Wall Street Journal did an expose which revealed that for meta this pop up screen was coming up when child sexual abuse material was encountered. It says see results. Anyway, respectfully ask for your item.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1137? Anybody else?

Good morning Chair Members. Ken Wang, on behalf of the California. Initiative on Technology and Democracy and Support, thank you. Thank you.

Hi. Apologies for the late add on California Nursing Advice Association in support of AB54. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1137.

Thank you Mr. Chair Dylan Hoffman today on on behalf of Technet and with your permission as the only lead opposition, do you mind if I exceed my two minutes? I'll keep it under four, but yeah, thank you. Appreciate it. First, want to state fully for the record that we agree with the intent behind this Bill.

We've been a proactive partner in the fight against ccm. Our platform have have led the way technologically. We've donated technology to nonprofits and to ncmec. The hashing technology that was was mentioned was developed by our Member companies to help detect and remove CSAM faster. And we were also proactive partner in negotiations on the prior Bill, AB 1394.

With the author, her staff and the sponsors of the Bill. We provided numerous detailed red lines that would have made implementation more efficient, insulated the Bill from constitutional challenges, and helped remove more c the Internet.

And while there were some issues that we wish could have been resolved through that process, we were very appreciative of the conversations with Assemblymember Wicks and her willingness to work with us.

And I say all of that to say that we're more than willing to do the same with AB 1137 and have had initial conversations with the author staff to begin that dialogue.

AB 1394 just went into effect January 1st of this year and if there's already evidence of gaps in compliance or ways to improve upon the Bill, we'd like to be a part of that conversation and provide suggestions. I do want to highlight a few issues with the changes this Bill makes.

First, the changes to the audit requirements add significant compliance hurdles without much meaningful benefit. Third party audits are not only costly, but it's also not clear that there are auditors that would meet the requirements of having experience in digital trust and safety and content moderation.

AB 1394's audit requirements were constructed to ensure that companies were self assessing their systems and looking for ways to improve their methods. We still believe that twice yearly audits make that exercise more about checking a box than about a true assessment.

If the Committee finds it Excuse me, If the Committee finds it necessary to impose a third party audit requirement, we suggest that it's on a less frequent timeline with self assessments in between. More concerningly, however, is the requirement that these audits be made public.

Platforms are in a constant battle to protect their users and their platforms from sophisticated bad actors that are trying to exploit and harm them. Providing additional detailed information about platforms moderation efforts, how they're using certain technologies and identifying gaps in their systems is a very bad IDEA and gives sophisticated criminal organizations a significant advantage.

The industry has made significant progress in the fight against CSAM and we cannot go backward. This Bill should not force companies to choose between non compliance and undercutting their work to combat CSAM on their platform. And we've already discussed this point with the author's office.

We're all obviously on the same team in this fight, but this is an instance where transparency directly conflicts with safety and security and we strongly suggest removing the public posting requirement for these audits.

Additionally, the changes to the enforcement provisions up in several negotiation points on AB 1394 namely that inadvertent immaterial non compliance due to a technical malfunction or issue outside of the control of the platforms shouldn't be grounds for penalties or a lawsuit.

While we appreciate the change to make certain sections enforceable by the Attorney General rather than a private lawsuit, the Bill and penalties currently treat small technical failures and serious intentional non compliance the same. We believe penalties and enforcement should be tailored to the harm caused by non compliance and we'll work to provide suggestions to that effect.

And then as initially drafted, the changes requiring human review of all reported material would have had a significant and negative impact on our ability to process the reports. We appreciate the amendments that are moving in the right direction. We may have additional suggestions around further making sure that platforms can incorporate automation to the fullest extent possible.

We think it's in everybody's best interest one it prevents re victimization to have fewer people looking at this material but two it enables us to expand our resources and the scope of our operations. Lastly, I'll just say that AB 1394 reflected a careful balancing of interests between safety, transparency and accountability.

It also balanced serious constitutional issues around the first and fourth Amendments and is somewhat unique among social media bills and that it hasn't been challenged in court to date. And we suggest caution with any changes that could upset either of those balances. And we look forward to continuing our productive dialogue with the author and her staff.

And while on paper today we are opposed anticipate moving towards an opposing unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1137? You have a motion and a second. opposition.?

Good morning. Ronak Dalami with Cal Chamber. Respectfully outline our position with TechNet in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Aiden Downey with the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Want to ditto what technet said in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions or comments? Well, I want to thank you. Did you please.

I just wanted to thank the author for bringing this forward. When it comes to having these kind of images on the Internet, they're there for a very long time. So time is of the essence to get them removed.

And when it comes to protecting our children from harms like this and taking their innocence away, I won't stop at anything to stop that. So thank you for fighting for children. I would be honored if you would add me as a co author to this Bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member Stefani.

Thank you, Chair. I would also like to be added as a co author and I want to thank the witness for your story. I am so sorry for what happened to you. There's some really sick people in this world and I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I too, appreciate your Bill. Some of us who are on both privacy and judiciary are seeing a number of these kinds of bills. We're kind of coming at it from a number of different areas because we're trying to speak loudly and clearly that this is a problem.

I appreciate the industry and I see you testifying often. I hope this is the legislative year that we could really come to some successful meeting of the minds to protect children, protect everyone who needs protection, especially children. And again, my sympathy for the tragedy her daughter endured. So there are many bills.

I've been supporting many of those bills. I'll support this Bill. We have to come at it many different directions, and it's time that we really move these bills forward. So thank you for moving them this far. And I look forward to continued progress for these bills and this legislation. And I sincerely hope you can work something out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. You know, this is one of those issues that before coming Legislature didn't know a lot about. It's one of those things that you really don't want to learn a lot about. But, you know, based upon prior legislation, Member Wicks, and the work you're doing now, we can't ignore what's happening to victims.

And I would just. I want to commend you for bringing the Bill forward and certainly continue to work with opposition on some of the implementation aspects that were raised. But appreciate your efforts and would also like to be added as a co author. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

[Roll Call]

All right, that. That Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Murasuchi. And while he's coming up, can we have a motion on item four, AB54 crell, the first Corel Bill. And a second motion. A second. Can we go ahead and do a roll call vote on that Bill?

[Roll Call]

It's the first. The first Krell Bill. All right, that Bill is out. Senator Muratsuchi , whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. We are trying to locate. We're getting a witness in the hallway. Yeah, but. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here to present Assembly Bill 49, which is to try to do everything within our power to keep Ayes out of our California public schools.

We know that for many years, our public schools have been safe havens, recognized by the Federal Government as safe havens for immigration enforcement activities. Unfortunately, recently, the Trump Administration has lifted that designation of schools as sensitive locations.

And as we saw, and as your Committee analysis points out, just recently in April 7, in the Los Angeles Unified School District, there was an attempt for plainclothes federal agents to enter into two Los Angeles area elementary schools looking for five children who they claimed had entered the country without authorization.

We know that since 1982, under the United States Supreme Court case of Plyla vs Doe, that all children, regardless of immigration status, have a right to. To a public education. We want to make sure that our kids feel safe in our schools.

Kids cannot learn if they are afraid of being deported, if they're afraid of having their families separated. And so that is why we are introducing this measure. I would like to turn it over to our witnesses to testify and support, starting with Charlie. Thank you.

Second, Good morning, Chair and distinguished Members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. My name is Matthew Toyama. I'm the managing attorney of the Removal Defense Unit at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles.

The right for all students, regardless of immigration status, to attend public school in the United States has been safeguarded by the Supreme Court and Piler versus Doe.

And the state's ability to pass AB 49 flows from the basic due process requirements already required by the Fourth Amendment that federal agents present a signed judicial warrant to make immigration arrests in private areas of homes and workplaces, adding only to that approval from a principal or Superintendent if occurring on a school ground, and the requirement that any Ayes activity occur not in the presence of students.

This is a reasonable ask and necessary regulation. And overall, I would opine that it's a very reasonable bill considering the Department of Homeland Security overturning its Private Sensitive Locations memo, which now allows for Ayes arrests at or nearby places of worship, health care facilities, and educational institutions.

I can testify that we are already seeing a chilling effect on people's willingness to participate in these necessary functions, such as increasing reticence to seek medical assistance, attend court hearings, and distress in bringing children to school. One of the major functions of AB49 is to guard against the harm of absenteeism in school attendance. AB 49 is necessary.

I can confirm that these Ayes arrests and detentions are actively occurring in the proximity of California schools. Moreover, AB 49 does not thwart the Federal Government from enforcing its immigration laws. This Bill does not hinder Ayes arrests around school grounds, but rather only ensures the right of children to attend public schools, not infringed.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote in support of AB 49. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Dr. Christopher Anderson. I am in high school English, E.L. and graphic design teacher in the Stockton Unified School District and President of the Stockton Teachers Association and a Member of the California Teachers Association.

I'm here to speak in support of AB 49. Students have a right to attend school and learn, and schools should be a safe place for students to learn. Unfortunately, schools are no longer safe havens.

The fear of the federal agents are now pervasive at our school sites, not only for undocumented students and children of undocumented immigrants, but even legal citizens who may not look or sound like they were born in the United States. Parents are fearful to drop their children off at school for fear of surprise interaction with federal agents.

Students cannot focus on their learning, fearful of what may happen to them and their loved ones when they are apart. Despite Stockton Unified declaring itself a safe haven, parents are still afraid to send their kids to school. Kids are afraid that their parents will not be there when they get home. And I.

I have students in my high school that are afraid that they will be picked up on their way out of school. School should be a place where students only focus on learning and growing, a place where they're safe from outside intervention, whatever it may be. For these reasons CTA and I ask for your.

Aye vote for AB 49 and I leave you with this. If we're not lifting up the least of us, then we will be judged for that. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB49?

Nicole Wortleman, on behalf of The Children's Partnership and support.

Thank you.

Mitch Steiger, with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support.

Thank you.

Annie Chou, with the California Teachers Association in support.

Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Quality California in support.

Thank you.

Morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advantage of Justice Southern California, we're proud. Co sponsor. Also providing #MeToo on behalf of Southeast Asian Resource Action Center, also known as CRAC, Californians Together and California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative. Thank you.

Good morning. Cynthia Gomez on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Treater Lab, Proud co sponsor. Also giving a. #MeToo, on behalf of the alliance for a Better Community, the Central American Resource Center, and also the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Kathy Mossberg on behalf of the First Five Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Maria Flores here on behalf of Hispanas organizer political equality at TrustWest, Karazin and Long Beach City College. Thank you.

Oh, in support. Sorry.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Cuzona with the California Faculty Association and the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Valerie Johnson with the California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mr. Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Deborah Water though and the Los Angeles County Board of Education in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association, also in support.

Thank you.

Morning. Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Thank you.

Spencer Street on behalf of the City of Soledad in support.

Thank you.

Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and support.

Thank you.

Vanessa Cajina with KP Public affairs on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center here in support.

Thank you.

Yadi Younse with Oakland Privacy and support.

Thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nosman here on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Tasia Stevens with Catalyst California in support. Thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 49? Right. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? We already have a motion and so I just want to thank the Author. We see what's happening right now.

In fact, even during the first term of the current Administration of Trump Administration, there were protections that were put in place by the state. I think now what we see happening around the country with folks that are without uniform, without identification, snatching up people, snatching up children.

This bill is incredibly important to maintain the safety on campuses, allow administrators and teachers to maintain safety and ultimately to protect our children. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much for your support. Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. And I'd also like to be added as a co author. Thank you. Go ahead and take a roll call vote, please.

Motions do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, so that vote, that bill needs one more. So I'll place it on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

And as I stated at the top, we're going to take something where Papin, because she has her Committee meeting starting at 9. She has a long agenda there. So what's that? Wanna come do it later? Yeah, I'll do it later. Okay, so we'll go ahead then. To our patient, Mr. Ward.

Not our patient as in medical patient, our very patient individual Assembly Member Ward.

I understand there are. You have a long agenda. You have quite an order and I like following the rules so I appreciate. Thank you being before you Mr. Chair and Members to present first AB82 file, item six in your file. So thank you for this opportunity.

This Bill is here to be able to protect the privacy of individuals health data and protect the public safety and well being of patients, their families and health professionals when accessing and providing legal health services.

In California, we know there's been a growing national attack on individuals rights, including the right for people to access legal health services such as reproductive and gender affirming health care.

Reports not only highlight hostile entities utilizing our data systems to target those who are accessing these legal health services, but also illuminate a rise in harassment and violence directed toward those who would work in healthcare settings. Instances of harassment and violence include but are not limited to assault, doxing and bomb threats.

Such threats impact the physical and psychological safety of patients or loved ones and healthcare professionals. They require increased security measures and exacerbate overall access and workload of legal health systems. Further concerns have risen about The Health Privacy Data and Controlled Substance Utilization Evaluation System, or cures, which is California's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, or pdmp.

For instance, organizations with a history of hostility towards the LGBTQ community Members are advocating for the use of PMDP to identify transgender patients with information then shared across state lines. Further, there's a national effort to place mifepristone on the controlled substances list for purposes of tracking.

For example, Louisiana is using PDMP data to track mifepristone prescriptions as the state has passed a law to reclassify mifesprostol and mifepristone as controlled substances, similarly allowing for the tracking of sharing of individuals healthcare data across state lines. So AB82 seeks to tackle this issue through the five following protections.

First, it prohibits the reporting of testosterone and mifepristone to cures. Second, it expands the state's Safe at Home program to include health care professionals who provide gender affirming care. Third, it expands existing protections to mitigate the criminalization of families who are simply ensuring that their loved ones access the most necessary health care.

Fourth, it expands the FACE act existing protections against the doxing of health care professionals and patients to include those who provide access to gender affirming care services. And lastly, AB82 would expand the confidentiality protections for the exchange of health information to include gender affirming care.

It is imperative that we support the privacy and safety of patients and their families whose basic obligation is to ensure the utmost health for themselves and loved ones, as well as the safety of our healthcare professionals whose basic obligation is to provide necessary care for their patients as they were trained to do so.

With me to speak in support of AB82. On behalf of our co sponsors, we have Renee Bernardo with the alliance for Trans Youth Rights and Trans Family Support Services. And I think we have a witness here for any technical questions. Nope, we don't. We have a second witness as well.

Symphoni Barbee with the Planned Parenthood affiliates of California.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. My name is Renee Bayardo, and I'm privileged to serve as a board Member of the alliance for Trans Youth Rights. We're a proud co sponsor of AB82, which help would help protect the privacy of California families like my own.

As a parent of a transgender teen, I'm very concerned about the growing national hostility toward LGBTQ+ people, particularly transgender youth. After the last election, my son and I were nervous about what it would mean for him and Trans youth like him.

It turns out that our initial fears back in November were founded in fact, I am concerned about my child's safety every day. During this difficult time. I'm so thankful my family lives in a state like California that strives to protect our children.

My son will be entering college this fall and we were going on the college tours and assessing his options. He was clear with me that he wasn't comfortable leaving California out of safety concerns and we are very proud to be attending school in the San Diego area next year.

I'm here today to urge you to support AB82 in order to continue making California a safe place for my son and other youth like him. This would help protect families like mine by making sure information about personal health care is protected, which is a concept I think can resonate across the political spectrum.

No parent, child or Doctor should be punished for providing people life saving care they need. Medical decisions like the ones contemplated in this Bill are private matters that should be kept in confidence between children, parents and their physician. Please help keep the state safe for one of our most vulnerable populations. This is needed now more than ever.

Thank you and I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Symphoni Barbee. I'm here on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California. I'm representing the seven Planned Parenthood affiliates providing sexual and reproductive health care to patients from every county through 115 community health centers and we're proud co sponsors of this Bill.

AB82 protects the health data of patients receiving gender affirming care and extends California's landmark Safe at Home program to gender affirming care providers, ensuring they can keep personal information like home addresses confidential in public records and out of the hands of people who may want to harm them.

As Planned Parenthood, our affiliates are too familiar with the dangerous anti abortion rhetoric and actions that threaten the safety of patients, staff and volunteers who seek services and work at our health centers. The Safe at Home program was created over 25 years ago.

In response, it protects reproductive health care providers and others and it gives them comfort to know that publicly available documents and records do not disclose their home addresses.

Unfortunately, in speaking with gender affirming care providers, they report that the increasingly hostile rhetoric targeting the TGI community has put them at heightened risk and they now face many of the same security and safety concerns that abortion providers have faced for decades, including becoming the target of organized harassment and threats of having their information widely spread online by opposition groups.

For abortion providers who use Safe at Home, they have shared that the program gives them peace of mind for their safety and the safety of their loved ones. AB82 will provide that same sense of security to gender for Medicare providers. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And with me is Lisa Matsubara, General Counsel for any technical questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB82?

Nicole Wortleman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support, thank you.

Craig Pulsmer on behalf of Equality California, PROUD co sponsor, in support, thank you.

Becca Cramer-Mowder with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Electronic Frontier foundation and PROUD support, thank you.

Kathy Mossberg, Essential Access Health in support, thank you.

I'll just bend over. Good morning. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of Trans Family Support Services and Alliance for Trans Youth Rights, in support, thank you.

Rebecca Gonzales, Western center on Law and Poverty and support, thank you.

Yadi Yance with Oakland Privacy and support, thank you.

Ryan Spencer, American College of OBGYN's District 9, in support, thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to AB82? Okay. Bring it back to Committee. Oh there is. Okay.

Hi. Sophia Lori with California Family Council in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Stefani.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. As someone with a Trans brother, I very much appreciate this Bill. I'm the co author of the companion Bill in the Senate, so I would love to be added as co author.

Thank you, Assembly woman.

And do we have a motion? A motion. A second? Assembly Member Connolly?

Please add me as a co author as well.

Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Any other questions or comments? I also would like to be added as a co author. Appreciate your work in this space.

Unfortunately, this work needs to be done right now, and we need to ensure that those providing the care are protected, the patients are protected. And in California, we're going to ensure we protect our transgender community, our transgender youth. And this Bill goes a long way in doing that. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the strong support and the additional co authors. We're really grateful to receive. I, you know, recognize that this came out of its first policy Committee with bipartisan support and no opposition. And I think that's because the fundamentals of this Bill are to ensure a few things.

And I hope that we find agreement and alignment that no one's private health care data should be tracked and shared for others to target them and their family, that parents and families should not be criminalized for ensuring that their loved ones receive their designated and due health care, and no one should be threatened with violence and for assaulting and providing legal health care that they were trained to provide with those, I think, principles in play.

I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Motions do pass to Appropriations. Kalra.

Thank you.

Aye.

Dixon. Aye. Bauer-Kahan. Brian Connolly.

Kalra aye. Dixon.

Connolly aye. Harabedian. Macedo.

Aye

Not voting.

Zbur. Aye.

Papan. Aye. Sanchez. Stefani.

Pacheco. Pacheco Aye. Papan.

Aye.

Stefani aye. Zbur.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, that Bill is up. And I believe you have one more Assembly Member Ward?

I indeed do. Down on file item 27. This is AB 1355. I'll ask my morning witnesses to come up to the the table, but I'll get started in the interest of time. Mr. Chair and Members, first, I want to take a moment to really thank our Committee staff for working with closely on the bill, and we'll be accepting the Committee amendments which were outlined in the analysis. We know that Californians are more vulnerable to digital exploitation than ever before.

Our mobile devices are ubiquitous in our daily lives, with consumers keeping their phones with them at all times. Now, these devices have an incredible power to track a user's location and generate shockingly accurate records of a user's whereabouts and routines throughout the day.

Of course, we have a lot of other activity, a lot of other ways that data is being recorded in public spaces, which means that, even if a consumer takes steps to be able to reduce their personal device use, they are not able to avoid near constant surveillance while interacting in public spaces. In the last five years, the Federal Trade Commission has filed numerous complaints and lawsuits exposing some of the conduct of large data brokers, or large LDBs, with four cases filed in 2024 alone.

In those complaints, the Commission alleged that location data brokers collected billions of location data points and timestamps, which could affect and offer insights into people's movements. This information is then repackaged and sold to their clients, who often use it to trace the movements of individuals to and from sensitive locations.

Some of those sensitive locations could include medical facilities, places of relationship worship, domestic abuse shelters, welfare and homeless shelters, and on and on. Location data is extremely sensitive, and when collected en masse, it can expose every aspect of a consumer's life.

The sale of this data undermines our civil liberties and puts our most vulnerable populations at risk of stigma, discrimination, and violence. So this bill, AB 1355, also known as the California Location Privacy Act, would safeguard the privacy of Californians by placing restrictions on the collection, use, and sale of location data.

Specifically, the bill would make it unlawful for a covered entity to do any of the following: collect more precise location information than necessary to provide the goods or services that's requested by the individual, retain location information longer than necessary to provide the goods or services requested by the individual, sell, rent, or trade or lease location information to third parties, or derive information from derive or infer location information from any data that is not necessary to provide the goods or services requested by an individual.

The FTC made it clear in their reports that this conduct undermines our civil rights and puts all consumers in danger from exploitation. Unfortunately, since the publication of the reports, all actions at the federal government level have seemingly stalled. AB 1355 takes bold action at our state level to safeguard consumer privacy, ensure the safety of all Californians is a top priority. We have here today to speak in support Matthew Schwartz, a Policy Analyst for Consumer Reports, and Lan Le, the Policy Advocate at Asian Americans Advancing Justice for Southern California.

Thank you.

Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Matt Schwartz. I'm a Policy Analyst at Consumer Reports. Thank you for allowing me to testify. I'm here as a proud sponsor of AB 1355, which will establish common sense protections around the collection and use of geolocation information.

Most importantly, it will ban the sale of consumer sensitive geolocation outright, ensuring baseline protections that will take the burden off of consumers to protect their own privacy. This should not be a controversial idea. The weather app on your phone may well need access to location information and give you an accurate forecast, but it shouldn't be selling that information to data brokers behind your back.

Location information is an incredibly sensitive form of personal information that can reveal where you worship, where you go to the doctor, the location of your family and children throughout the day, whether you're at a protest, or more. Given the sensitivity around this topic, we've seen several states around the country move to create similar protections to the ones being considered today. Last year, Maryland enacted a broad prohibition on selling geolocation data that was part of their comprehensive privacy law. Lawmakers in Oregon and Massachusetts are currently considering similar prohibitions.

While the CCPA does cover geolocation information along with other personal data and CCPA's provisions are difficult to use in practice. For example, CCPA gives you the right to opt out of data sharing, but you generally have to do it site by site, app by app.

Plus, with the rise of smart technology, more and more devices are collecting geolocation too. If you have a car made in the last 10 years, it can probably collect your precise geolocation data. Several carmakers and insurance companies have been caught secretly collecting and sharing our location data in just the last six months.

Do you know how to go and turn that off? Because most people don't. CCPA is a good start, but it was designed to be improved over time. This bill would simply enact universal protections for location data so you can trust the apps on your phone just as well to deliver the services you requested. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Lan Le. I'm a policy advocate, and for many years, I've worked directly with survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual assault, many of whom are immigrants with limited English proficiency.

And in a moment of crisis, survivors who are fleeing violence should not have to stop and wonder if using their phones to text someone for help, find directions, or request a ride might further endanger them, especially when the stakes are already so high. For many of us, asking for help is difficult.

Imagine how difficult it is to ask for help in a language that you don't speak, let alone try to understand and navigate the complex terms of service, the privacy settings, or understand how your personal information is shared, even when language isn't a barrier and a survivor takes every possible step to stay hidden.

Change their name and address, move to a secure shelter, start a new job, enroll their children in a different school. None of these efforts matter if their location data is sold without their knowledge. For survivors, the sale of their location data is more than just an invasion of their privacy. It is a threat to their safety and the safety of those around them because a handful of data points can lead an abuser or a trafficker straight to their door.

As both an advocate and a survivor, I ask you to vote for AB 1355 to stand with survivors, advocates, and other vulnerable community members, including immigrants, LGBTQ plus individuals, students, all of whom are in your districts, many of whom are living in fear. Your support would affirm that their lives are worth protecting, their dignity worth defending, and their futures worth safeguarding. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1355?

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a proud co-sponsor, and TechEquity Action in strong support.

Thank you.

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of PFLAG Sacramento, Tech Oversight California, Electronic Privacy Information Center, EPIC, Access Humboldt, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, ACLU California Action, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Consumer Federation of California, Secure Justice, and CALPIRG in strong support.

Thank you.

Yadi Younse with Oakland Privacy in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you.

Nichole Rocha on behalf of Tech Oversight California in strong support.

Thank you.

Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Robert Herrell with the Consumer Federation of California, was able to make it inside from the sauna, in support.

Thank you.

Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you. I didn't know we had sauna services here. Anyone here in opposition to AB 1355?

Good morning. Ronak Daylami with CalChamber in opposition to AP 1355. When the Legislature passed the CCPA, it did so as a tech neutral and industry neutral comprehensive statute governing all forms of PI for all California consumers and businesses who meet certain thresholds, regardless of whether they are online or in brick and mortar stores.

The act covers more than just personally identifiable information. It covers any information that is reasonably capable of being associated with or could reasonably be linked directly or indirectly with a person or household. Since its passage, one of the categories of PI that the law has expressly covered includes geolocation information.

And when voters passed Prop 24, they added precise geolocation information as a form of sensitive PI with special protections, such as the right to limit the use and disclosure of that information. As a result, consumers now have greater knowledge and control over their data, which includes various rights most relevant to this bill.

Those rights relate to the collection, processing, use, sale, sharing, disclosure, deletion access, and more. And the various rights and obligations apply to service providers, vendors, and even third parties, not just the first party business that the consumer comes into contact with.

Whereas covered businesses may be limited, third parties notably include everyone, including data brokers, for example. And once information is in their hands, they cannot further sell the consumer's data without providing the consumer explicit notice and opportunity to opt out.

As recently amended, AB 1355 would now try and replace geolocation data, displaced geolocation data from the CCPA, moving it into its own statute prohibiting the collection and processing of that data as uniquely defined under the under this bill in a manner that's totally different from the CCPA.

Under the current version of the bill, the bill neither allows an opt in nor recognizes the CCPA's existing opt out, nor does it port over any of the necessary exemptions from the CCPA that are essential to making a law that deals with such an overly broad framework of PI workable, let alone delete any... Sorry, let alone move over any of the exemptions from that framework that are necessary to make it work. So again, we do oppose. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman, Members Committee, Assemblyman Ward. My name is Jake Lestock, and I'm here today on behalf of CTIA, the trade association representing the wireless communications industry. First and foremost, location information plays an indispensable role in protecting consumers from security issues, fraud, illegal activities, and provides support for law enforcement as well as providing consumers a vast array of beneficial uses and services.

CTIA opposes AB 1355 as amended because it continues to raise security concerns and will create operational barriers and confusion, undermining critical goods and services that rely on location information. The bill would stifle critical security and safety uses for location information, including routine fraud detection and prevention operations.

Wireless providers analyze location information about where a consumer logs onto online accounts and where the consumer's cell phone is in order to determine that there's no fraudulent activity happening and prevent identity theft. Amendments were included to try and address this issue, but it did not hit the mark.

There's still strict limitations on the use of location information for security purposes, including a 24 hour maximum retention period. This narrow window would not be sufficient to accomplish many security activities. It also prohibits disclosing location information to the government without a valid court order.

This could disrupt already existing critical information sharing with law enforcement in emergency scenarios and exigent circumstances, which could put consumers at risk of death or other physical injury. Additionally, it defines individuals based on where they are located and not where they reside. This could have anti-privacy and anti-security outcomes by leading to more location information being tracked in order to comply.

It would also require highly detailed disclosures, which could provide a roadmap for bad actors to track and target sensitive data, as disclosing the identities of certain service providers and third parties and specific data retention schedules would be required. The bill also would disrupt innovative goods and services that rely on location information.

The bill's requirements would, requirements for the collection and processing location data would lead to unworkable user experiences. It would require an unwieldy one size fits all notice at the point where location information was captured. We respectfully oppose this, as well as further straying from CCPA standards and definitions as well as the private right of action.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition AB 1355?

Good Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matt Moretti on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers in opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Scott Govenar on behalf of the American Financial Services Association and the California Financial Services Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Jason Lane, California Bankers Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Margaret Gladstein, Security Industry Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Hi. Juanita Martinez on behalf of CalBroadband in opposition.

Thank you.

Aodhan Downey representing the Computer and Communications Industry Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Eileen Ricker with the California Credit Union League in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Bring it back to Committee. Any... Assembly Member Zbur.

Assembly Ward, thank you for bringing this bill. I'm going to support it today. I do think that there's some legitimate... These are really complicated bills and recognize that, and it's really hard to get it completely right at the outset of a bill. But I do think that the opposition has raised some legitimate concerns.

And I know that we had some texting back and forth and that you had really indicated that you're willing to continue working with the opposition to sort of narrow some of those issues. And so just wanted to confirm that on the record and let you know that I'd be supporting the bill with that.

Thank you for the question. Yes. So there have been, I think, a number of issues that were discussed in Privacy Committee that we have been starting to address. Had some meetings with some of the opponents that have been coming into the office to be able to work on some of those, and certainly more to be had on issues. For example, about a 24 hour retention requirement. I think it was a good starting point.

I acknowledge that it's one that, you know, reasonably can be extended as well to a point where you're balancing that need to protect the security interests of the retailer and the public, but also making sure that data and the intents of the bill that we're doing to safeguard your privacy data is adhered to.

There are some challenges when we come into, you know, the intersection of what law enforcement could or could not be able to do with regard to procuring some of this information. The ability to, you know, certainly have that information subject to a court order, you know, would be unimpeded.

But I think it's that issue about whether a court order needs to be required or not. I think that's just sort of as a black or white question. It really does need to be and doesn't impede their ability to be able to use information that already is sort of subject to ALPR data or other data systems that are already really regulated within public, the public domain.

I know this is something that also is running into what was tested by the Supreme Court with regard to cell phone tower data as well. Some of the very same principal issues are now being resuscitated and rehashed not just through other cases, but also in this case as well too.

So we're trying to be consistent with that precedent established in 2018. Of course, this is going to take, I think, a lot of other conversations and many steps ahead of us. I know the Assembly Appropriations Committee is coming up as well, and I expect we'll probably be taking some amendments there. If the Chairwoman is present, you know, she's heard me on the record there too. And so I hope that that would give you some comfort as well.

No, it does. I just, you know, I just think the Chamber and Retailers have raised some legitimate concerns and really appreciate your willingness to continue working with them.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate hearing that you're working with those who have expressed opposition, especially the letters and the contacts we've received from law enforcement. It is concerning and especially on the license plate reader. I know in many cities in Orange County, I can't speak beyond Orange County, but there is a technology that is identifying after a home robbery. The license plate reader triggers law enforcement awareness, and those people who have been committing those crimes, alleged to commit those crimes, are being sought after and arrested.

So it's creating positive effects in our communities to deal with the continued rising crime and home invasions and other kinds of invasions of robberies and such. I cannot support it, but I'm very pleased to hear. And the private right of action is a concern of mine. It seems very excessive. Any private right of action is excessive in my mind. But I appreciate it seems that you're working on privacy issues in both committees. So I know you've got a lot of work ahead of you, but thank you for working on ways to improve it.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. And again, just to underscore and give you some modicum of comfort that nothing prohibits, for example, I think what you were talking about, a lot of our publicly owned systems that are using ALPR technologies is not affected by this bill.

What about the court order? I don't really understand.

The court order reply. Let's say if I'm just going to use, not call them out, like specifically like I know anything in particular. Let's say like Home Depot was a company that, you know, was using cameras and technology to monitor and safeguard, you know, their parking lot and look for retail theft.

What would prevent law enforcement to come in there and saying, hey, Home Depot store, I want to see all your information. I want to know who is here and I want you to digitally download all this information. And then once it's gone and it's out of Home Depot's control, right, then you know, that's not very well regulated then within the space of what they can and can't do with that information and that data. So that stood that could be for subject for a court order.

If we have this, you know, person that's out there driving around in the community and you want to be able to get information that could be broadly subject and then would allow them to be able to transmit that information if you're looking for that person. But I don't want to look for the 5,000 other customers that intersected that parking lot there that day to understand who was about, out and about shopping on a Saturday morning and kind of what they were doing with their personal lives.

Is that really... Does that happen?

It is absolutely able to happen. And then I think the open privacy question, right, is, you know, what happens to your personal information if it's now housed on somebody's server?

Well, just for my own edification, is there an expectation when you have a car license plate that it's private information? I mean, you're driving everywhere, you're exposed. You, I don't know, legally, have you given up the right to privacy when you're driving your car and you have a license plate and you're... It gets swept up. I don't...

It's a big question about how we want government to intersect with our right to be able to move about freely with privacy in mind. So you have, you have that, which is why we regulate that in the public space.

I'm sorry, what?

That's why we regulate that in the public space. About what you can and can't do with regard to procuring that information, accessing it, and then what the public agencies would need to do to hold onto that information or otherwise destroy it.

But that, that's just, that's a conversation that we have at both the state. Sometimes it'll look a little. But I appreciate that and I know that you've offered bills as well that have a tackle to private right of action as well. And the interest here is that if somebody was materially harmed, that they would have an opportunity to be able to seek restitution.

I'd like to see the data on that. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Stefani.

Thank you, Chair. I would just like to align myself with the comments of Assembly Member Rick Zbur, and I will be voting for it today, but hoping that those issues can continue to be worked on. Thanks.

Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Thank you, Assembly Member Ward. Very challenging issue to delve into, but very important. I do think that it does require us to kind of get in the weeds somewhat. But I think your intention is an important one. And so it does have a do pass as amended recommendation. Would you like to close?

Respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion's do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that needs to be more replacement on call. Thank you, Senator McKinnor. And before we get started here, just for the record, at 1, we're going to have a special order of business at 1:30pm for AB 56 Bauer-Kahan and AB 1064 Bauer-Kahan.

Additionally, AB 1157 Kalra, in consultation with the co sponsors as well, will be withdrawn.

Good morning. Yes. Mr. Chair and Members. AB62 seeks to provide a pathway for restitution to individuals and families who were displaced through the use of racially biased eminent domain.

Throughout the 20th century, local and state governments used eminent domain for public development, urban renewal and highway construction, displacing mostly poor black and Latino communities and causing significant economic, emotional and physical harm to these residents. These actions devastated families, destroyed intergenerational wealth and fractured entire communities.

AB62 responds to these harms by authorizing local and state agencies to evaluate past imminent domain takings and where inappropriate or unjustified takings are identified, offer appropriate restitution, including returning land to providing compensation. This bill is about right in historical wrongs and creating a process to address and repair damage still felt today.

It is important to note that AB62 builds on the work of SB796 by former Senator Steve Bradford, which enabled the return of Bruce's speech to the Bruce family in Los Angeles County. A concrete example of how the government can and should address these types of hysterical injustices.

An additional example is in the City of Palm Springs recent settlement agreement to provide restitution to black and Latino families living in what was then called Section 14. California has already taken steps to examine the legacy of past policies through the Racial Equity Commission and other efforts.

AB62 continues this work by addressing one of the most significant forms of harm caused by the use of racially biased eminent domain. It is time for us to repair this harm and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote on AB62. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB62?

Mitch Steiger, with CFT in support.

Good morning. Monea Jennings, on behalf of the Greater Sacramento Urban League in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tasia Stevens, on behalf of Catalyst California in support.

Thank you.

Yada Yance with Oakland Privacy and support.

Thank you.

Lizzie Kutzona with the California Faculty Association in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry. Coming again, Tasia Stevens, for the Alliance on Reparations, Reconciliation and Truth, and strong support.

Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty and support.

Thank you.

Melana Davis, speaking for Where's My Land? In support.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to AB62?

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or. We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Thank you so much, Assembly Member McKinner, for bringing this Bill forward. We already have had clear. Well, the evidence is clear.

But we've also had cases, as you met, as you referred to, that have come to light of racially motivated takings. And so I appreciate you furthering the work of the Reparations Commission. Would you like to close? Thank you.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you. Senator. Get in that seat right now before someone else shows up. I know I've been in that position before. Like looking at the door. And you have two bills before yesterday, starting with. But it worked, right? You're a file item 14. And here you are. AB853.

Yes, AB 853. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. AI technology provides new opportunities to grow our economy and when used properly, can improve efficiencies in everyday lives and industries. However, with this technology, new concerns have been raised. One of the most significant issues that has been raised surrounding AI is transparency of the content that is produced.

Specifically, AI technologies have been evolving rapidly, and these technologies have been developed to make it easier for images, audio and video to be created, manipulated and edited. Bad actors can use AI technology to create scams and fraudulent impersonations, disseminating harmful content of women and children, and spread disinformation and deep fakes which impacts public trust and information.

There have been a number of bills from previous sessions that have aimed to address some of the transparency concerns raised by AI and AB 853 would build upon the work of previous legislation by requiring more transparency of content on large online platforms and capture devices.

Specifically, AB 853 would require large online platforms to retain Providence data that is provided or posted on the platform and make that information available to users and require capture devices to offer the ability to include providence data in content. Testifying in support, I believe. Yes.

Who just arrived are sponsors of the bill from cited Ken Wang and David Evan Harris.

This is on hopefully. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Ken Wang and I'm the Senior Policy Advisor for the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of California Common Cause. We're proud to sponsor AB853 which would extend the provenance requirements under the SB942, the California AI Transparency Act, to large online platforms and capture devices.

Sighted was established to seek state level solutions to the threats that disinformation, AI and other emerging technologies pose to our democracy. Through a cross disciplinary approach advised by leaders from civil rights and civic engagement, law and public policy, industry and tech, and more, It fights for a digital democracy that works for all.

To that end, CITD is proud to sponsor AB 853, which would add important tools to our arsenal to help stem the tide of online disinformation. This bill builds on important foundations laid by SB 942 by strengthening the law's existing providence requirements through extending it to recording devices capturing authentic content.

This bill also increases the utility of providence information by requiring large online platforms to make providence available to access by users. We hope these urgent policy interventions will help rebuild trust in our information ecosystem.

Given the absence of meaningful federal policy, California must continue to lead on this critical issue and we'd like to thank Assemblymember Wicks for your continued leadership. And with that, I'll turn it over to CITD's technical advisor David Harris to walk through the technical aspects of the bill.

Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, it's an honor to speak with you here today in strong support of AB 853, a bill that will help Californians differentiate between authentic and AI generated content online. My name is David Evan Harris and I'm here in my capacity as Senior Policy Advisor to CITD.

I also am a Chancellor's Public Scholar at UC Berkeley and a Senior Advisor for AI and Elections to the Brennan Center for justice at NYU Law School. I've advised the White House, Congress, Eu, Un and NATO on AI.

I also previously worked at Facebook and then Meta from 2018 to 2023 as a research manager on the Civic Integrity and responsible AI teams. A lot has changed in the years since I last testified before this committee about provenance. Sharing of AI generated content on social media platforms has risen. Barriers to producing realistic imagery decrease every month.

Realistic real time AI generated audio and video are here Nonetheless, the Coalition for Content, Provenance and Authenticity, the most important group developing provenance tools, has continued to improve upon its technology, strengthening its resilience against bad actors. Integration of provenance tech into cameras, another crucial requirement of the bill, has also increased.

Leica, Sony, Canon, Nikon and Fujifilm now support C2PA technology. Major online platforms including Meta, TikTok, Amazon and LinkedIn also now nominally support C2PA, but alas big tech companies are still failing to deliver on promises. They've made involuntary commitments at the White House and the Munich Security Conference to meaningfully implement provenance technology.

Without legislation like AB 853, we absolutely cannot count on tech companies to follow through on their voluntary commitments to implement provenance tech. Please support AB 853 to protect women and children from the threat of non consensual intimate imagery, to protect the elderly from scams, and to protect the integrity of our information environment and our democracy.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 853?

Good morning. Sam Gordon with TechEquity here in support. Thank you.

Nicole Rocha with Tech Oversight California in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 853?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet, respectfully opposed to AB 853 in its current form. Last year the Governor signed SB 942 which TechNet negotiated amendments and successfully removed our opposition to and that bill takes effect in in 2026.

We also had very productive conversations with Assemblymember Wicks on her bill and the sponsors as well, and anticipate doing the same again this year.

But we believe more time is needed to evaluate that existing framework and how some of these provisions in 853 would apply to consumer focused products as most don't support this technology natively as of yet, manufacturers and platforms are actively working through industry led coalitions such as CTPA which was mentioned earlier, to develop these provenance standards and these technologies are still evolving and many of the bill's requirements, especially for capture devices like cameras, are not yet technically or commercially feasible.

Phased approach could better balance consumer choice and implementation realities. Also want to raise that the bill's retention requirements raise some operational and privacy concerns as provenance data can be lost unintentionally and clarifying platform responsibility, especially for embedded or third party content, would help avoid some of that confusion.

We appreciate the conversation thus far and look forward to working with the author's office as the bill moves forward. Appreciate it.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm Aodhan Downey. I serve as the State Policy Manager for the Computer and Communications Industry Association and international not for profit Tech Trade Association.

As digital content authenticity tools such as provenance and watermarking advance leading manufacturers and online services are collaboratively shaping emerging standards to enhance trust and transparency across the Internet. These technologies hold considerable promise, but they're still evolving and premature regulatory mandates risk imposing unnecessary costs on consumers, stifling innovation and creating new vulnerabilities for user privacy.

A flexible phased approach grounded in open standards and voluntary adoption is essential to ensure sustainable progress. At the same time, rigid compliance mandates introduced at this early stage raise profound constitutional concerns. In particular, policies that condition intermediary liability or obligations on the presence of Providence and metadata threaten to chill lawful speech and violate core First Amendment protections.

If websites are exposed to penalties for hosting content where the metadata has been stripped, altered, or lost, whether intentionally or inadvertently, they will face strong incentives or over or strong incentives to over moderate. Faced with the risk of enforcement action or lawsuits, sites would likely remove lawful expression preemptively even when the underlying content possesses no harm.

This chilling effect would fall disproportionately on marginalized, dissenting or vulnerable voices, specifically those communities most reliant on user generated content sites to reach audiences.

Moreover, by compelling private businesses to act as an enforcement arm of government policy based not on the substance of content but on technical attributes such as Metadata, such mandates would risk violating the First Amendment prohibition against government compelled censorship.

The Constitution does not permit the state to coerce private actors into suppressing lawful speech under the guise of regulatory compliance. The mere absence or imperfection of metadata, particularly in a dynamic global content system, cannot become a lawful basis to penalize websites or suppress speech.

Policies that fail to respect this principle risk not only constitutional infirmity, but also undermining broader public trust in the very systems they seek to bolster.

The unintended consequences of the bill risk undermining the progress achieved through Senate Bill 942 from last session toward building more trustworthy internet as the framework for digital content authenticity continues to evolve, policymakers must prioritize approaches that protect innovation, safeguard user privacy, and uphold the fundamental rights to free expression that form the cornerstone of democratic society. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone here? Anyone? Anyone else here in opposition to AB 853? Okay, bring it back to the committee. Assembly Member Zbur.

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. This is not one of the marquee bills out there, but I think it's actually one of the more important ones and so I want to thank you for bringing it. I'll be supporting it today and would love to be added as a co author.

Any other questions or comments? Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you brought the similar bill last year. Yes, I agree. It's, it's going to be important. I'm concerned that we're and we're quite not there yet. Could you just edify for me? I've heard provenance data. We know what provenance means, but how do you actually see it visually?

What would happen inside a camera or computer or whatever? What would that look like?

Yeah, well, in its most basic form, what we're trying to do here is for a user to understand what is real and what is fake and requirements both to the hardware, but also the distribution platforms to be able to ensure that.

I'd love to turn over to my technical witness firm to describe though, what that actually looks like.

Yeah, thank you so much for that excellent question, Assemblymember Dixon. There are multiple types of provenance data that loosely fall into a couple of categories. One you can think of as digital signatures.

And what this bill would require is that you not be forced to, but have the option to on your phone, when you take a picture or record a video or audio, that you get the option to click a button that says I want to sign this.

And that signature could say that you took that picture, that it was recorded on a certain date. If you opt in, you could say this is where I took it. And that would give you the ability to prove and to say to other people that that's your piece of authenticity.

Isn't that already on our Iphones?

So the interesting thing is that information, when you upload it to social media platforms often gets stripped away. And part of what this bill does is require the social media platforms not only keep that information, but but create a label that's visible to everyone who sees that on social media.

That where you can click and you can see it's probably the label says something like authentic image. Then you click on it, you can see all the details of it. And there's a similar process for generating a label that a social media platform would show for AI generated images and that wouldn't rely on.

It could rely on a signature.

If you're an artist that uses AI to create your work, you could sign it, but it could also be something that simply says this was AI generated by OpenAI or by Google Gemini and allow you again to click on that and get more information about what system generated it when the details of the version.

Well, I think actually I support that latter part that require AI generated images content to be identified. It's like branding that as this has been generated. I think that's excellent idea. However, personal information I actually am concerned about. I mean, we all see that on our images. It says where was it taken? You know, Stanford, Connecticut.

What do I want people to know that I was in Connecticut or where I was. If it's a picture of Thanksgiving dinner or something. You know how I would like that information not to be released? And I think I can control that now, right?

Yeah, you can control that now.

How can you segregate it, I guess is my question.

So the way we've designed this is that it is opt in. So the default, when you get a new phone, that information is not shared with anyone. You have to click on something to say that you want that to be there. Okay.

But on the AI, that it is not opt in.

On the AI, it's automatically there.

Okay. But when do the two intersect?

If you're in your newsfeed on Facebook or Instagram or X, you might see an AI generated image followed by I'd like to know that. All right. And there would also be a label that says, no provenance information available to tell you that that's not there. So you might see in your newsfeed three different types of labels.

One for authentic, one for synthetic. And those words are up to the companies to choose. And one for not available.

Okay. There's still work to be done, but I appreciate the direction you're going in.

Part of the reason why this is not overspecified is the feedback that we got from our opposition last year that they didn't want us to be overly prescriptive in this legislation. So we're doing our best not to single out a particular approach, specific language or a specific standard. Create a general set of guidelines. Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Do we have a motion?

We have a motion and a second. Thank you. Assemblymember Wicks for taking on another. A big challenge here, but I think something that's very important to preserve the sanctity. Is that a good word to use in this case, the sanctity of the internet? Yeah. Would you like to close? Could work. It could work.

It's a task these days, given the current Internet. But I do think this is the lowest hanging fruit of what we can do. And I also appreciate the analysis saying AB 853 complements and extends California's AI Transparency Regiment, building a more robust and inoperable digital provenance infrastructure.

So appreciate the analysis and your committee's great work and respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you. Motion is do pass to appropriations.

[roll call]

All right. That bill is out. Thank you so much. And I believe you have one more item and for let's see, that's going to be item 21, AB 1043. We have a motion, a second. And before we continue to proceed on this, just for the record, the next item up will be AB 7.

Bryan, I don't want that to discourage other. Oh, sorry AB 246. Bryan, that's item seven. I don't want that to discourage other authors from making their way over here. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for the motion. We will try to be as brief as we can. California's children are growing up with access to an online world that was not built with them in mind.

This lack of meaningful consideration has left young users exposed to harmful content, manipulative design features, and inappropriate and dangerous online interactions. Research from the US Surgeon General, groups advocating for children's online safety, and social media companies indicates that unregulated digital environments have harmful impacts on children's mental health, safety, and overall well being.

However, as a parent of two young daughters, I do not believe that we should keep kids off the Internet. They rely on the digital world for education, entertainment, and socialization.

It is our job, however, as lawmakers to strike a balance in statutes that provide a safer online environment for our children, protect children's data privacy, and create guardrails that do not impede innovations or violate individuals constitutional rights.

This is not an easy task, one which I have been working on now for seven years, but it is an important one that AB 1043 will help facilitate.

The goal of this Bill is to create a statutory age assurance framework that establishes a knowledge standard in California while balancing privacy and usability by creating a framework to assess an online user's age. The Digital Age Assurance act will provide a crucial step in ensuring kids can explore the digital world more safely.

Specifically, this Bill requires manufacturers of a computing device or operating system to have a mechanism for device owners to indicate the device user's birth date, age, or both at time of setup and send a digital signal to application developers indicating the device user's age range, essentially at the App Store when an app is downloaded.

This also requires parental or guardian consent prior to a user under 16. Downloading an app from an app Store requires that parents be connected to a parental feature that are available in the apps when the age signal indicates that the user is under the age of 18. And I know there's been conversation I've had, particularly with Mr.

Zabur about the parental consent piece, and we are working with Equality California and the Trevor Project around potential amendments around this, so I'm very committed to that. Mr.

Zabur, the Committee analysis has raised a number of important points, including the need to clarify definitions and specify the types of conduct that would constitute an enforceable violation for covered manufacturers and developers.

I'm committed to continue work to address these concerns raised by the Committee analysis, and we'll work with the opposition, of course, and all stakeholders should this Bill move forward today. With meer to testify and support are Dr.

Samir Hinduja, Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal justice at Florida Atlantic University, co Director of the Cyberbullying Research Center and Faculty Associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University, and Nicole Rocha, a subject matter expert.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Dr. Samir Hinduja. I've written nine books, over 60 academic articles, and my research on youth online safety has been cited over 26,000 times.

I founded the Cyberbullying Research Center 20 years ago and I've been studying and publishing on a number of online risks and harms that affect young people. My life's work is to reduce the frequency and impact of these concerns.

It must be stated that online engagement allows teens to share daily experiences and feel connected to their peer groups, even when physically apart. It's also essential for identity exploration and self expression. This is important for underrepresented youth who can find supportive communities online that they lack in their immediate physical environments.

Finally, it can serve as a powerful avenue for civic engagement and social activism where youth can use their voice to be agents of change. However, the risks compel us to do more. Let's consider one specific harm that I've deeply sextortion. Imagine that a 13 year old boy is contacted by an adult on a social media platform.

The adult manipulates him into sending explicit images through a separate secure messaging app and then threatens to distribute those images unless the boy sends money with a third app, a digital payment service. Because he's overwhelmed and afraid, the boy decides to comply in the hopes that the extortion will then stop.

It does not, and results in financial loss, severe emotional consequences, and psychological trauma. With device level age verification, each stage of the sextortion process, contact, coercion and payment can be interrupted before the harm occurs. The boy's device could prevent access to any messages received from an unknown adult.

His device could also block the installation or use of any secure messaging app not appropriate for his age. Preventing the conversation from moving towards riskier, less monitored mediums. Finally, his device could signal his underage status to the Digital Payment Services app, which would prevent him from sending money and cut off the predator's ability to extort.

When a platform or website knows that a user is a minor, it can automatically enable robust safety features to support them, automatically blur images that might be explicit, require parental approval, connect minors to supportive resources or crisis text lines, and provide age appropriate educational content.

Our goal is to balance the protection of youth and while giving them the online freedoms they need to grow and thrive. AB 1043 aligns with this goal and has my support as a child safety subject matter expert, a researcher and a parent of two. Thank you, thank you.

Good morning Chair and Committee Members. My name is Nicole Rocha and I am a data privacy attorney and have been working on children's online priv issue since 2012. For years, young people have been sharing how their mental health is being negatively impacted by their online interactions and legislators have listened.

They have actively passed legislation at the state and federal level to help families protect their youngest constituents. Unfortunately, the vast majority of laws enacted to benefit children online only apply if the platforms have actual knowledge of the age of their users.

Despite evidence showing that users ages are known for advertising, platforms continue to claim they have no way of determining how old their users are. AB 1043 will close this loophole by requiring that devices and app stores share privacy protective age bracket information with app developers.

This seeming technical requirement will dramatically improve the digital world for California's kids as platforms will be forced to follow laws they have long evaded.

If platforms applied existing laws to children on the Internet, much of the harm we have seen over the past decades will be reduced as the mining and sale of kids data would be sharply curtailed and with that the ability to profile, target and exploit kids for their attention.

The opposition will argue today that age assurance is privacy invasive and that sharing granular age data with thousands of Apps will compromise kids safety. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in this bill requires that Apps alert the world to the age of platform users or make kids a sitting target for predators.

This bill also does not require the upload of government IDs, facial recognition or anything of this sort. It simply requires that user age information is input during device setup and frankly, parents have no incentive to lie. De identified age bracket data is then shared with app developers prior to a user being permitted to download an app.

This information cannot be used for any other purpose. The opposition will also argue that platforms are working diligently to create safe online spaces for kids and empower parents with responsive tools. But industry designed parental tools do not and will not affect the data driven economy of the Internet.

Children's well being will not outweigh profit until online platforms are forced to do so. AB 1043 is simple, technical and desperately needed to ensure that the Internet is a better, more supportive place for California's youth. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1043?

Good morning. Delilah Clay, on behalf of the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference. We haven't gotten a letter in yet, but we are in strong support and grateful for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1043?

Chair and Members, Samantha Corbin, on behalf of the Chamber of Progress, My name is Samantha Corbin. I representing the Chamber of Progress today in respectful opposition of 1043. We share the goal of protecting children online. But as written, 1043 oversimplifies the problem and risks causing serious new harms without solving the threats that children face first. It misplaces responsibility.

The greatest risk to children online comes not from the existence of platforms, but from millions of unregulated app developers, many of whom push unsafe, exploitative and sometimes predatory content.

Yet AB 1043 leaves these developers largely untouched while shifting overwhelming operational and legal responsibility onto platforms and app store providers, entities who cannot realistically police or control the conduct of every third party developer in their ecosystems. This is not a neutral infrastructure. It's a liability shift that punishes the wrong parties without reaching the true source of risk.

1043 also fails real world families. It assumes a best case scenario that every child has an engaged, digitally literate parent setting up and managing their device. In reality, many children, including foster youth, those from non English speaking households, those in single parent families, and LGBTQ youth may not have that support.

Children can and often do also misrepresent their ages during device setup. Devices are often shared across users or passed down, and burner phones are easily accessible. Nothing in 1043 prevents circumvention. It risks creating a false sense of security without actually reducing harm. And in fact, as written, 1043 undermines California's privacy leadership and child protection laws.

California's privacy laws, including the ccpa, CPRA and Age Appropriate Design, prioritize data minimization and privacy by design. 1043 reverses that progress by forcing the unnecessary transmission of children's demographic information to millions of developers. Many of whom may not be regulated or trustworthy.

In fact, as written, AB 1043 stands to significantly weaken existing penal and civil code specifically regarding critical areas of laws that establish protections for minors from harmful content like pornography and self harm.

By introducing a one time signal based system that's able to easily bypassed or misused and providing broad immunity for developers who rely on it, it discourages additional due diligence that might otherwise protect children from harmful content.

In essence, it creates a false sense of compliance while potentially making it easier for children to access adult content and harder to hold platforms who share this information with children accountable. I know I'm over time, thank you.

Well, you're the only, since you're the only opposition witness, I give you a little little extra time there. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1043?

Yadi Younse with Oakland Privacy and respectful opposition will continue our dialogue with the sponsors.

Thank you

Morning Chair Members. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Technet and respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Let's bring it back to Committee for any questions, comments or motions. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. And I want to start by thanking the author. I think as many people know, we have kids that are the same age, well, years younger than mine, but I like to make myself look younger. And you really have poured your heart and soul into figuring out how to keep kids safe online.

And I think that on behalf of really all the mothers, thank you. And fathers too. Sorry, do you need to leave the men out? My husband would agree. And grandparents. I mean I say it week after week, but I think that keeping our kids safe is the highest calling we have in this building.

And when we go home every day, our children and look them in the face, I know that you can look yours in the face and know you're doing everything you can for them. And that's a really meaningful thing.

And I think it's important to note and this is something that's come up in my Committee that, you know, Chamber of Progress is funded by Google and the other entities that will be affected by this bill.

And you know, I've heard Chamber of Progress say that we shouldn't do it at the platform level now, we shouldn't do it at the device level. I guess. You know, I remain confused what the platform and the devices think we should do to protect our kids.

And I think that the answer to that after six and a half years of listening to this testimony is that they don't want to protect our kids, that they want to commodify them and watching the harms that it has done to them. And we've already seen some this morning with Assemblymember Krell's Bill.

But I know we will see more. I have some bills coming later today about kids safety in this Committee. It's time to do more. And I think what is brilliant about this is that we hear time and again we can't protect the kids because we don't know who the kids.

That has been the opposition we have heard for years. And so you finding a privacy forward way of identifying the children online is critical to the work that we do. And it is embedded in the Bill you're doing here today.

But I know it will allow and enable us to do so much more policy that will protect our children. And so this is a critical, critical step forward as we think about our kids and keeping them safe online. And I couldn't be happier to support it.

And I think, I think I've now been added as a co author. And so I'm happy to be a partner on the bill. And with that, I will be excited to support it today. Madam Vice Chair.

Yes.

And you've heard me speak publicly. I'm very grateful for what you're doing for grandchildren as well as children. Could you address some of Chamber of Progress's concerns just to get that out there to hear your point of view?

And I would also point to the analysis as well.

And I didn't make a list of all the things, but just on some of the key points on page 10, halfway through, developers receive a signal indicating users under the age of 18 are deemed to have actual knowledge of that user's age and must activate any readily available parental tools.

Accordingly, developers remain liable under children protection statutes if they have actual knowledge contradicting the signal. So basically this, this Bill will create a knowledge standard by which then the developers, that is the, you know, meta, et cetera, they know the age then. Because what we've seen time and time again is they say we don't know the age.

Right. How can we create any sort of, you know, guardrails when we don't know who's on our platform? Now, we all know they know who's on their platform. They literally have thousands of engineers devoted to knowing exactly who's on their platform because that's how they make money.