Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right. Good morning, everyone. 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 there. Each side will be allowed two main witnesses. Each witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill.

Additional individuals should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the Bill at the appropriate time.

As you perceive a witness in public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands Committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much to the public within limits of our time. The rules today's hearing include no talking allowed notice from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at designated times. As stated previously. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. And please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal from the hearing or other enforcement processes.

We will begin as a Subcommitee, and I'll invite up Senator Krell to present file item two, AB416.

Good morning, Assembly Members, and thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, I wanted to thank the committee staff for working through this bill. Appreciate the analysis, accept the amendments. California emergency departments are overwhelmed with 25 to 50% of beds occupied by patients who are actually awaiting a 5150 hold just to be transferred to an inpatient psychiatric facility.

And under current law, only professionals designated by the county or law enforcement can initiate these 5150 holds, and that's led to significant delays, and sometimes it's hours, sometimes it's even days for patients in crisis. These delays prolong the suffering for patients in crisis and contribute to the overcrowding in emergency rooms, and ultimately, this delays care for all patients.

AB 416 authorizes emergency room physicians to initiate the 5150 holds, which will allow patients in crisis to get the specialized care that they need faster. Emergency physicians are already highly trained to assess behavioral health crises and recognize when a patient is in danger to themselves, others, or otherwise gravely disabled.

This is a proven solution. In fact, three counties--Santa Clara, Ventura and San Diego--already allow ER physicians to initiate these holds, and it's proven that this approach really works. Passing this bill will ensure that this important permission is available to emergency physicians statewide.

Providing this authority means ER departments will be able to free up critical bed space, improve care for all patients with timely access to psychiatric care, and ultimately reduce their suffering. This bill is supported by the California Chapter of American College of Emergency Room Physicians, Sutter Health, the Steinberg Institute, and the California Professional Firefighters Association. With me here is Tim Madden, representing the American College of Emergency Room Physicians. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, and we're a co-sponsor of AB 416. We would like to thank Ms. Krell for championing this issue for us and we'd also like to thank the committee consultant for her great work on helping us tighten the bill and get it to a place where the language matches our intent.

AB 416 will help patients with behavioral health conditions receive the care they need in a more timely manner. Emergency physicians treat patients with behavioral health conditions on a daily basis. Generally speaking, behavioral health patients fall into three categories. Some patients can be stabilized, treated, and then discharged. Some patients need additional community services, and in working with the social worker in the Emergency Department, they can be connected to a crisis stabilization unit or an LPS designated facility.

This category of patient is voluntarily seeking care in the Emergency Department, and we can connect them to that without placing them on a 5150 hold. But there are a smaller number of patients who are in danger to themselves and others and also may be greatly disabled and need to be placed on a 5150 hold to ensure they remain safe and get additional assessment and care at an LPS designated facility.

We cannot start looking for an available bed in an LPS facility until the patient is placed on a 5150, which in some places can take many hours, even days. So this patient is in crisis that is a danger to themselves or others or gravely disabled, is stuck waiting for someone to come show and place them on a 5150 hold. AB 416 will help us get that patient to the care they need in a more timely manner. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Randall Hagar, here for the California Psychiatric Physicians Alliance. We're in support. We think this is a good bill. I'm here to answer any questions if there are technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 416?

Leah Barros, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Coby Pizzotti, on behalf of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the California Medical Association asked me to add their name in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 416?

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, and the Urban Counties of California, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association. We appreciate the proposed amendments, but we remain to the--remain opposed to the bill in print. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? We'll bring it back to the committee. We don't have quorum yet. Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Recently I had the privilege of sitting down with the Superintendent at one of my high schools who told me the number of students being 5150 out of our high schools. It is shocking what is happening right now with our mental health crisis, but I have to say that I had in my mind a real question of whether every single one of those kids, more than one per week, truly needs to be involuntarily held. And I think that the 5150 system has become one that is used by default for people who are suffering, and I think it is a real disservice to a lot of people.

I absolutely believe there are some people, as you noted, who need a 5150, but I think there are a lot of people who are held under a 5150 for whom we could provide much more compassionate care and especially for our juveniles.

I think it is important to note that taking a juvenile out of the care of a loving family into a hospital when they are struggling, if they don't absolutely need it, is not necessarily the course, and so as I was reading this--and I understand we currently provide this immunity--it was fairly shocking to me that there's nothing that ensures that people who are being held on a 5150, that that is being done to the standard required and that is a serious concern to me.

So I actually agree that the ER doctors are probably better poised than most in the current system to be doing this, but I'm struggling because I don't like current law. So I don't--I really think we need to take a long, hard look at this system and make sure that these 5150s are really a tool of last resort. And I don't think that this law lends itself to that being the case. And especially as it relates to our juveniles.

I just am concerned of how the system is working and how little compassion is going into the decisions that are being made to make sure they are really getting long-term sustainable care that gets them back on their feet learning and thriving, and that's partially the work we have to do to build the beds and build the system and get more therapists out there and into our schools, but I just wanted to express those concerns because I feel like this is putting a band-aid on a system that is not serving some of our most vulnerable the way they truly need to be served.

Any other questions? Comments? I generally agree with those concerns. I'm one of the few people that did not support the CARE Court system that was set up partially because of that reason, right, you know, expanding the authority of folks to be able to kind of make the call, so to speak.

With the amendments in this bill, I'm certainly much more comfortable because it really--I think that it allows counties to go through a process, and I know Santa Clara County very well and I know they have very rigorous systems in place in terms of ensuring the health and safety of everyone that comes through their medical system.

That being said, with the amendments kind of allowing counties to consider ER docs to be eligible as one of the professionals, I think, gives me much more comfort with the, with the additional guardrails that are put in the bill because I don't have as much concern that with ER docs as much as I do with law enforcement out in the field and what have you, which may have other kind of intentions that aren't really about the well-being of that individual or patient before them.

And so I think the guardrails that are put in place allows the county to set up a system and we can always come back and say, 'hey, you know, it's not good enough. We need to put more guardrails in place.' But I think that with the amendments that the author has accepted, it allows us to kind of just expand the number of ER docs into the, into the professionals that at least are eligible to be able to make that call and then we can see if the concerns that are raised that, you know, they're just starting to send a bunch of people, 5150--I don't believe that will be the case, but again, with the county having that oversight--but we'll see.

But I think that it definitely deserves an opportunity for us to allow the counties to have the chance to use the expertise they have with their ER docs that are on the front lines every single day, give them a chance to at least do the training and, as appropriate, counties can then deem whether they're eligible or not to be able to make that call. So we still don't have a quorum yet, but would you like to close?

Sure. Thanks very much, and I want to acknowledge the concerns raised by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. I mean, I think those are very legitimate concerns. I do think they're outside the scope of this bill, which is limited to making sure that emergency room physicians who are best situated really to handle these mental health crises are empowered with the ability to do this.

And as Mr. Chairman alluded to, we have law enforcement out there calling the shots, but we actually have some law enforcement agencies that are now not responding to mental health crises, which ends up putting even more pressure on the emergency rooms. So right now, this bill helps to dissipate negative effects of a bottleneck situation in ER rooms, but I'm committed to continuing to work on this issue as long as I'm here.

And it does break my heart to know that there are more juveniles falling under this system than ever before. I think we have a lot of work to do, but for today, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this bill.

Thank you so much, and when we get the opportunity, we'll--we can take that up. Thank you. All right. Up next, we'll go to File Item Three: AB 446: Ward.

His timing was perfect.

I know.

Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the Committee for a Lot of their hard work on this bill. We've had to think through a lot of the technical detail, and so I'm happy to be accepting a number of Committee amendments this morning.

I do want to know that we're going to continue to work on some of the concerns that the Committee had. I noted those in the analyses. And I think as we're continuing to have meetings as well with a variety of stakeholders, we'll continue to incorporate that should this bill continue to move forward.

You know, this really began last year. Not that the practice is anything new, but Consumer Watchdog really highlighted through an article in December exposing some businesses for aggressively engaging in the practice of what's called surveillance pricing.

So this is a practice in which your own personal information of any consumer is used to be able to adjust the price of goods based on some of their individual profile characteristics.

In 2022, in my home County of San Diego, there was a $5 million lawsuit that was settled by the District Attorney for raising the prices of products as soon as the customer entered the store because the geolocation information from their phone suggested they were in the store and effectively entrapped them, because what were they going to do, leave that store without the good that they there to be able to buy in the first place?

This is, of course, paired with the company's existing ability to be able to collect and analyze massive amounts of customer data, the installation of facial recognition and the electronic shelving labels which are coming at a lot of us very soon.

This gives company the example the ability to change some prices in real time according to a customer's individualized data profile. I maintain this is predatory, it's discriminatory, it violates public trust at a time when consumers are already stretched thin and don't deserve to be unwillingly exploited.

So additionally of the evidence of surveillance pricing is also suggesting it disproportionately affects lower income individuals and those with fewer shopping alternatives. So this bill is about ensuring fairness in pricing. It's not just about economic justice, it's about preventing a new form of digital exploitation.

Nobody wants to be unfairly charged for higher prices due to their own personal, actual or perceived characteristics. While California has some of the strongest privacy laws in the country, which gives consumers control over the data, this emerging practice appears to exist through loopholes that allow some companies to charge different prices based on that selective data.

So AB446, which is the Surveillance Pricing Protection act, will prohibit the practice of surveillance pricing by making it unlawful for businesses to use personal data when charging different prices for the same product or service, whether online or during an in store checkout.

It is the right to fair pricing, which should be not a privilege for the few, but fundamental protections for all. With me to speak in support of this bill are two of our co-sponsors, Kim Stone on behalf of Consumer Watchdog and Kristin Heidelbach, the Legislative Director for UFCW Western States Council.

Thank you, thank you so much. Good morning Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog. Enthusiastic co-sponsor. What this bill does is prohibit companies from spying on us and then using that information to raise prices against against us.

If we don't stop this, we're not going to put this genie back in the bottle and we have laws that protect us. When you go into a store, the price on the product is the price that we should be available to pay. That's the principle. One price, one product.

Research that Consumer Watchdog did found that orbits caused customers who were making travel plans more if they were shopping on a mac than if they were on a PC. target charged people more for television based on where they were located. And Lyft charged some riders more based on the amount of battery left in their thing.

I do want you to look at the language of the bill because some of the things that opposition says is not supported by the language. Surveillance pricing is a customized price based on data that is collected from surveilling you. That is what the bill prohibits. Discounted pricing is permissible. A discounted price based on promotional communications.

A discounted price offered to teachers, veterans, senior citizens, legislative staff Permitted a discounted price through a loyalty club permitted. The bill has specific language excluding insurance and credit. Urge your support.

Thank you.

Good morning chair and Committee Members. Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, proud co-sponsors of AB446. I wanted to we represent about 180,000 workers in California, Nevada and Arizona across the food service supply chain.

And I did want to take my time in Committee today to address some of the statements from the Last Committee where I highlighted that we are on the cusp of right now. We know that we're being price surveilled or surveilled via tech phones, our computers. But there was some pushback.

I believe the word was dystopian that we would be in a place where our grocery stores would actually surveil us. And so right now I just want to bring some some facts to bolster my statements from the last Committee.

On August 52024 Senator Elizabeth Warren and Robert Casey sent a letter to Kroger, a large grocery chain, requesting further information on the rollout and implementation of electronic price labels in many of its stores, allowing stores to calibrate price increases to extract maximum profits at a time when the amount of Americans income spent on food is at a 30 year high.

In addition to Kroger, several retailers are actively adopting the technology including Walmart, Whole Foods, Amazon Fresh Schnooks and more. In a press release dated January 72019 Microsoft News center shared that Kroger and Microsoft have partnered to redefine the customer experience and introduce digital solutions for the retail industry. What does this mean exactly? Facial recognition.

Kroger plans to place cameras at its digital displays which will use facial recognition tools to determine the gender and age of a customer captured on camera and present them with personalized offers on the edge shelf.

Edge will allow Kroger to use customer data to build personalized profiles of each customer and then use those profiles to determine how much price hiking each of us can and will tolerate. It's not dystopian. They have the tech, they have the algorithm, they have the tools to do this in our grocery stores. Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in support of AB446?

Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer federation of California in strong support. Thank you.

Becca Kramer Mater with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Coalition of Low Income Consumers and also coming on in late support, Consumer Reports.

Thank you.

Alexa Chavez on behalf of UDW asked me local 3930 in support. Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of Tech Equity Action in support.

Thank you.

Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in strong support.

Thank you.

Navneet Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Jp Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, in support, thank you.

And is there anyone here in opposition to AB446? And before we get to that, if we can establish quorum, please. Kalra. Here. Dixon. Here. Barrickahan. Here. Brian Connolly. Harry Beedian. Here. Pacheco. Here. Captain. Here. Sanchez, Stephanie. Here. Zabur.

Correct. They have quorum established. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, good morning. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed AB446 as a cost driver.

Before I get to the substance, and there's a lot to say, of course I want to thank the author and staff for discussions we've had and thank Committee staff also for repeated discussions, both this Committee and privacy at a basic level. And I'll explain how this comes about later.

We are strongly opposed to this as a cost driver because we believe it will force businesses to litigate to defend the discounts they have. And how that comes out with the use of the private right of action is like this, the opponents say the proponents made a statement if we've looked at the bill and the exemption.

So I'd like to actually be precise about that if we're going to have that. The Bill works like this. It prohibits any changes in price based on data, whether aggregate or personal. And that's important because the proponents have repeatedly said personal data. The bill is not limited to that.

Then it goes on and says any price change up or down is covered by the bill and must fit into four specific exceptions. That's 7202B 1-4.

If your price change fits one of those exceptions, you think, then you must also meet the obligations of 7202D1 or 2 or E in order for you to be able to make the price change you'd like to make, including discounts. We are not here to fight in defense of personal targeted price increases.

That's absolutely not why we're opposed. In fact, we've offered amends to limit the bill to that. To say, hey, if you make this about targeting individual people based on price and raising that we would not be here. Right. The amendments we've shared to address that.

Our real concern here is that the bill's language is not limited to the examples given and in fact will make us litigate to defend our choice to offer a discount because the only enforcement is a private right of action. So any ambiguity in the terms, we will then be litigating.

You know, that's really where we're coming from here. And again, I think the central problem is the breadth of the definition of the surveillance pricing element. And we have flagged this for the author and staff to that point. I mean, I could give more examples for time. There were a lot of things said.

I can't address all of them. Glad to take any questions and appreciate the addition of exemptions. Thank you. But strongly opposed.

Thank you.

Hi, Ryan Elaine. On behalf of the California Retailers Association, I'll keep it fairly brief. We're very supportive of the amendments that the chamber and my colleague over here has shared. Just wanted to highlight that the retail industry, very competitive industry, very slim margins, that we are not in the business of personally raising prices.

We want to lower prices. We want to make our customers happy and generate sales. And by doing that, that is our the retail industry doesn't want to push them away because I'll push them to competitors. There's a lot of other options throughout the state and neighborhoods to go do the shopping or online as well.

So that's something that I just want to come here and highlight and then same thing with the aggregate data that the retailers may use to clear inventory and offer discounts to their loyalty programs or rewards programs.

I do appreciate that the amends are in here, but I think they're a little bit clunky and we'd like to see it just a cleaner of not raising prices and kind of leave it at that. Not, as my colleague said, have to defend any of these in court in order to offer the discounts. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB446?

Good morning. Tim Taylor with the National Federation of Independent Business in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, on behalf of the California Travel Association.

Thank you.

Skyler Wonnacott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Angie Manetti on behalf of Adobe echoing the concerns regarding the discounts.

Thank you.

Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Emily Dell with the California Credit Union League. We have an opposed unless amended position. Appreciate the ongoing conversation.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart with the California Attractions and Parks Association. Have concerns about our ability to provide discounts. Thank you.

Good morning. Allison Adey on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the American Pacific Casualty Insurance Association in respectful opposition. Working on amendments with the author. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Trent Smith on behalf of the Walt Disney Company in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair. Members Jose Torres with Technet in respectful opposition and aligning our comments with that of chamber.

Thank you. All right, any questions, comments, motions? Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author. You know, this is one of those bills that when you think about explaining things to your grandparents, you know, my grandparents would think this is a great idea, shouldn't be.

It's not fair to target people based on who they are, the car they drive, their demographics and increase prices against them because that's, you know, clearly not a world in which a rational, reasonable person would want to live in. And I think the results are really scary. So thank you for bringing this Bill.

And I think that this is much needed. I think that the opposition has a couple of points that I'm sure you're going to continue to work with them and get to a spot where we're addressing this targeted personal price increase manipulation versus some of these other things that clearing inventory and things like that seem.

I don't think that you or the sponsors really have any problem with that. So I'll leave that aside. My only question really is the private right of action. And to the opposition, if we don't have the private right of action in there, and I'll leave it to you and the sponsors and the author to figure this out.

I'm just curious, how do you think we enforce it? You know, I don't, I don't really see a reasonable path forward to enforce it without it. And that's really my only question. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

We can both respond, I suppose. You know, my interest in having that in there is recognizing that an individual had been harmed, that they had been subjected to this practice and when discovered they would be able to recover some differential.

Obviously there's an upper limit to what a proper right of action can be able to reward an individual upon judgment. And that would be the mechanism there to be able to help make that customer whole.

And I recognize that the Committee staff and I agree, I want to continue to work on maybe, you know, a parallel option as well to have a public attorney, District Attorney or Attorney General where something is grossly evident that a number of class of customers have been affected, that there'd be a public's interest to be able to come out, to be able to utilize that as a, as a mechanism to enforce this law as well.

So it's something, you know, I'd like to be able to continue conversation with, but I'd love to hear the opposition's point of concern.

Yeah, I appreciate the question. And this is something that, you know, I've spoken to your staff about. Right.

I think this is something where we look at this as, and this may be a difference in opinion, maybe profound, but we look at this as something that is parallel to CCPA and that it deals with how data is dealt with for customers. And we don't see, you know, we see enforcement in that area through that agency.

Now, I mean, obviously that may be a profound difference. But when most privacy regulations around data are dealt with through that agency, and that's the idea, and PRAs are, I mean, expressly excluded in the CCPA except for in one case, data breaches, you know, we see this as, it should follow in that vein but we understand the concern, right.

Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thanks.

You know, we saw this as was noted in privacy and I want to thank you because I think this is, although dystopian I think is not the wrong word to be frank with you, but also real, both can be true at the same time is really something that, and I, Assemblymember Ortega, I think did an incredible job in that hearing of really driving home the point of what if you are raising prices for a single mom in a low income community for diapers because you know that she needs those diapers.

Right. And that's the kind of example, and I see you shaking your head that none of us want to see come to fruition, but I think those are the kind of things you're addressing.

I will say on the point about the privacy agency being the right regulator, I find that to be a fascinating position for the Chamber to be taking since the Chamber is constantly throwing stones at the Privacy Agency. So I don't know. I'm confused by that.

And I don't necessarily disagree with the Chamber often about their positions about the Privacy Agency, but I don't know that I think that's the right answer, although I appreciate that conversation being ongoing. And then I will. The one thing I wanted to address was the question around discounts because I think it's a really important one.

I think that I would guess everybody sitting in this room wants to provide as many discounts to Californians as possible. That feels like an obvious thing to say.

I guess my concern, and I haven't seen the language proffered my concern around that would be where you have a label that sets an individual price for every single person, what would stop a store from sort of setting the price egregiously high so that they're always saying they're providing a discount, in which case it's sort of a false claim of discount because you're still.

You're inflating it to do that. So that would be my concern. And that's in the most difficult case. Right. I mean, this also deals with online stores where that is incredibly easy to claim you're doing. And so I agree that I want to ensure discounts are available.

It's why, you know, I appreciate the exceptions that were put in here. But I do have a concern with the language being drafted in a way that doesn't artificially inflate to claim discounts. So I don't know if you want to address that Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you for the question. Some Member. So yes, the Committee amendments that, you know, we worked on post privacy and consumer protection did address discounts and quite comprehensive way. Those are analyzed on page six of your analysis as well. None of us want to be able to see that mitigated.

We like our discounts and so we want to make sure that we're offering consumers the best pricing opportunities. And frankly, whether it's our veterans or our students or our legislative staff or whatever you're trying to do to be able to either attract new customer base or to be able to reward.

Again, it's about treating everybody equally even within like those professions or sort of those, those demographics. Right. That's where the difference is.

Again, this, there's four really tests for whether or not certain surveillance pricing is met and whether it applies under this Bill that you are seeing a customizing of the price, that this is the customizing is really available for one consumer or one select group of consumers that is based on their personal information and that is integrated with the use of electronic technology.

Right. When those four tests are met, then by as we are defining it now, this is the definition of surveillance pricing. The exceptions are there as well as for the insurance industry as well.

We're trying to work as well with the credit unions and with our banks when it comes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act issues. But I would recognize, because it's been raised by the opposition as well to your question about. I think your point is spot on.

You know, we have concern about proposed amendments that are out there because it would fundamentally change the structure of what we're trying to do under this Bill from away from what we are seeing as customized pricing, but rather under these, under this line of thought, it would prohibit, you know, yes, you don't want to see a raising of the price.

But to your point, that doesn't mean that then we go ahead and sort of reset the entire universe where all the prices are high and we're able to use customer information to be able to selectively lower the price.

It achieves the same end, but it is a different way to get around implementation of this law while still, in my opinion, violating the intent of surveillance pricing.

Thank you. And I'll say I've never seen a discount at Disneyland. I noticed Disney got up. So if I miss it something, I'm here for it.

They do. They have the California residents. Thank you, Disneyland. They do.

Okay. We should protect that. Mr. Chair.

That is protected, yes. Assemblymember Zbur.

Thank you. Assemblymember Ward, for bringing the Bill, you know, in the way you've described the goals. This is a righteous Bill. I think, you know, having individual pricing focused on an individual, I think is something that, you know, we need to make sure that as, you know, technology progresses, that we're not, you know, that.

The examples that have been brought up, that those kinds of things can't happen. With that, you know, this is a super complicated area. And, you know, I looked at some of the comments that were in the, in the chamber letter, and it just sort of seems that there's some validity in some of those things, just in the complications.

So I just wanted to urge you to continue working with them. To me, it seemed some of the issues related to the aggregate uses of aggregate information, the discounts, which I think is something Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan raised, I think those take some more refinement and I trust that you'll do that.

Yeah. Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur. So we have worked on some of the discount language as well, and I think that was recognized by the opposition. We, of course, you know, maintain that we're going to continue to be able to work on the detail here.

We have to get the detail right because we don't want to inadvertently trip up something that consumers enjoy and we do think is righteous and not in violation of the spirit of what the law is trying to do here. But, you know, that, you know, the door is still open.

A motion, a second. Assemblymember Papan.

Any consider, I recognize that you have the private right of action because you believe that people have been injured.

What about this idea of having the AG do the enforcement with a collection of a fine and it goes into a fund and then if a consumer, because, you know, 12,500, but you might have been injured to the tune of 20 bucks or something. So I'm trying to, trying to find a happy medium.

What about a fund that the consumer could then make a claim against for its damages? Any thoughts?

That is definitely an outcome that we could explore. And I think, as the Committee amendments have noted as well, or Committee analysis noted as well, that is something that we should explore. And so I want to get our stakeholders together and look at that as well as maybe a parallel option or in lieu of.

Okay. And I applaud you on the, the noble cause that you are pursuing. Thank you.

And I think, you know, the, the private right of action is also to deter the conduct. Right.

Again, at the end of the day, if we're agreeing, that's, you know, there's some agreement here on what people don't want to see happen, what companies even agree that, you know, we shouldn't be doing, you know, certain things in agreement with that. That's the kind of conduct we want to deter.

And a private right of action can certainly, I think, is probably the best tool to be able to do that.

But just to make it clear, I mean, if you look at the language right now, a lot of what was mentioned, the loyalty programs, all that, they're still allowed, you know, there's nothing that I heard that there was concern from that would not be allowed under this Bill with the amendments that currently exist.

And when you go to the stores now, you'll see there's some pretty dramatic my local grocery store has some pretty dramatic savings if you are a part of that loyalty program. So there could be a question as to whether prices are already inflated somewhat to try to get you to become part of that loyalty program.

That being said, you know, the market supply and demand is going to dictate a lot of what you're able to do with that.

But on the issue of aggregate, look, I mean, at the end of the day, and this is also, if you look at the language, whether it's specific consumer or group of consumers, if they're using surveillance technology to say if you have, you know, as an individual, if you have brown eyes, you pay 50 cents more for this product?

What's the difference between that and saying every person that we use our surveillance technology on that we now find has brown eyes is going to pay $0.50 more? That's what the aggregate issue is here, is using that kind of technology to then group folks and treat them differently.

Not that you can't, you know, groups and say, hey, we want to give veterans a discount. Completely allowable. And it's got to be publicly noticed, but it's completely allowable. It's the use of the surveillance technology in order to aggregate a certain classification of people, which is the problem.

And so the term aggregate can be used in different ways.

In some ways, it could be used under this Bill with the amendments, you can absolutely aggregate certain groups of people if you do it the right way, and if you do it in a way to discount seniors, whatever it might be, we don't want the surveillance technology to be used to then separate people from one another and charge them different prices.

And so that is because I know the word aggregate keeps getting thrown out there, still allowed, if it's done the right way, even under the language of the Bill, as it's currently amended and written. So I just want to put that out there, that it's not as onerous as it might seem.

I think that the companies do want to go down that route of using the technology, but at some point we got to say no, we just cannot allow that to happen to go down that dystopian path. We just can't. Because I think that the outcomes then really take us down a dark path. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate those observations. And you said it very correctly. I think that there's a lot of technical detail that we will continue to work on right now and make sure that we are not violating the intent and the principles of why I wanted to be able to further this Bill in the first place.

And, you know, this is a new area, but really it's a new area that's thrust on us, you know, beyond dystopian. It is a reality that we may have been living with for several years.

This came to us upon observation because really we had all hoped the Federal Government would have stepped in and really started to be able to call the balls and strikes on this issue.

And in fact the FTC did begin to some investigations on that from which there were documents subpoenaed and housed before the Administration change which demonstrated from corporate consulting that you could have in their analysis 2 to 8% greater profit if you used surveillance pricing algorithmic based technologies that are determining the pricing of your products.

So this Bill is about saving customers money. This Bill is about preventing discrimination based on their characteristics and who they are. We know that this practice is available out there and we've got to say, just like is currently being worked through legislation in Colorado and Illinois that for California consumers this practice crosses a line.

We want to go. We want to maintain a way that we've always had a consumer relationship and that it should be one price for one product for all people. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill is out. Thank you. On to item-- Yeah, if we have a motion on consent. Second?. There we go.

Consent items include AB 774, Bauer-Kahan, AB 1162 Bonta and AB 1369 Ramos. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll go ahead. The next item is file item 4, AB 632 Hart. While he's making his way up there, do we have a motion on item two, AB 416 Krell? We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, roll call on item on AB 416.

This is AB 416 Krell, do pass as amended. [Roll call]

That bill is out. Mr. Hart, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank your team and for their analysis of this bill, and we'll be accepting the Committee amendments today. Currently, cities and counties are able to enforce local ordinances by imposing administrative fines and penalties that may be collected through property liens.

Unfortunately, the existing penalty statutes are not well suited to address serious code violations, such as large hazards, substandard housing conditions, and large scale illegal cannabis activities. AB 632 will provide local governments with the authority to collect penalties through an expedited process for egregious violations.

The bill allows local governments to obtain an order for a money judgment for unpaid fines after the administrative process is complete. This includes a judicial review if the property owner wants one. The model can be effective in cases where existing code enforcement mechanisms may be insufficient, such as slumlords or illicit cannabis operators whose assets are hidden.

AB 632 also clarifies the existing case law by reinforcing the authority of local governments to impose ordinary property liens, ensuring those who break laws are held accountable. Speaking in support of the bill is Sarah Dukett with the Rural County Representatives of California and Faith Borges with the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers. And here to answer any technical question is Arthur Wylene, the former County Counsel for Tehama County.

Thank you. We do have a motion. Is there a second? All right, we have a motion and a second. You may proceed.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. So this bill does two things. The first is looking at serious violations, including illegal cannabis, state housing law, and fire hazard violations that are typically very hard to enforce and where compliance is difficult. And through the traditional code enforcement mechanisms, including collections, just isn't severe enough.

So we borrowed from the Food and Ag Code, which is already used to deal with illegal pesticide use, and expand that to these three violations, which allows these violations to be entered as a money judgment, thereby providing the full range of enforcement mechanisms available for judgment under the Code of Civil procedures.

The second part is really codifying existing case law that local jurisdictions have the authority to utilize an ordinary priority lien. There was some confusion with an unpublished federal case that's regarding super priority liens. And so this codifies that this is really about ordinary priority liens. We also put an additional language in there codifying best practices regarding noticing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, a proud co-sponsor of AB 632, which gives local agencies an essential tool to ensure that administrative fines are not ignored, helping resolve violations such as fire hazards and unsafe housing conditions before they escalate to more serious public health and safety risks.

Without a way to enforce payment, agencies are often left with few options to achieve compliance with safety measures other than costly and time consuming litigation, which drains public resources and delays resolution of public health and safety matters that have evaded much needed code enforcement. A lean mechanism streamlines the process, making enforcement more effective while keeping cases from dragging on unnecessarily. The primary goal of code enforcement is compliance with health and safety laws.

To ensure the safety of residents, we need to better empower local agencies to deal with dilapidated properties that foster unacceptable living conditions, such as insect infestations, unsafe drinking water, inadequate restrooms, and fire hazards. California state and housing and health and safety laws are some of the most comprehensive in the nation.

And to assure decent, safe and sanitary housing for all Californians, we need to make sure that local governments have the enforcement ability to bring those laws to fruition. Holding property owners accountable. Some owners do ignore these fines because they know there's no immediate consequence. A lien ensures that any unpaid fines cannot be dismissed or avoided.

It also empowers local governments with efficiency and a better way to allocate their staff resources, which helps more serious offenses to be dealt with in a timely manner. And it, it prevents repeat violations for property owners when they face real consequences and are more likely to correct violations in a timely manner. This bill helps cities and counties enforce compliance fairly and efficiently while avoiding unnecessary legal costs. And for these reasons, we request your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 632?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, a proud co-sponsor of the measure, and also in support by the Urban Counties of California. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 632? All right, well, we have a motion. Any further comments or questions? Assembly Member Papan.

Did you have a second? Okay, great. I just like to say that I know that in the cannabis world it's heavily regulated and that there are actors out there that are not in compliance with the regulations. So I'd like to be added as a co-author because I think we really do have to level the playing field with those that are on the straight and narrow, crossing their I's, dotting their T's and those that operate right next door and are not good actors. So that's all I got to say, no questions, just I applaud the endeavor.

Will add you as a co-author. Thank you.

Thank you. Any question or comments? Thank you so much, Assembly Member Hart. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

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

All right, that bill is out. Thank you. Assembly Member Jackson.

Item 11, ACA 7. You may begin whenever you're ready.

I am going to make this very short. Mr. Chair. Thank you so very much. The very intimidating women legal bench. Good to be with you all. I present with you ACA 7, which aims to clarify section 31A of the California Constitution.

The intent is to curtail the abuse and misuse resulting from its improper application and to ensure the constitutional provision aligns with the voters' intention in 1996. I respectfully asked for an aye vote for this Black Caucus priority bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of ACA 7?

Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm Brian Rivas on behalf of the Education Trust West, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to ACA 7? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any motions, questions, comments? We have a motion and a second. Thank you, Assemblymember Jackson for bringing this forward and for this nuanced approach.

I know this issue on a larger scale certainly creates a lot of energy, but I think the way that you're approaching this can really lead to equitable outcomes for a lot of our youth. Oh, just to clarify, you accepted the Committee amendments?

Yes, I'm accepting Committee amendments.

All right, thank you. And would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Motion's be adopted as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll place that bill on call. Needs one more vote. Thank you. All right, item five, AB 649 Lowenthal. Whenever you're ready.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair.

--and Members, I am pleased to present AB 649 which grants businesses that proactively get an inspection from a certified access specialist or CASp and correct all construction-related violations identified in the inspection, a six year window and in that six year window, they're given 120 day right to correct a violation identified in a construction-related liability claim.

I want to start by thanking the Committee and by accepting Committee amendments. I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their attention to this issue and their work on this bill.

The goal of AB 649 is to strike an appropriate balance between maintaining the critically important rights and protections granted to disabled individuals under current law, while incentivizing businesses to obtain CASp inspections, make necessary corrections to remove barriers and to drive compliance with ADA law while granting those businesses who are complying with the law greater protection from lawsuits, frivolous lawsuits.

I pose a question to this Committee. When you walked into this room today, how many of you actively thought about whether the room was accessible to disabled individuals and ADA compliant? Most of you were probably thinking about the bills up today, how long the hearing is going to run, and a myriad of other things.

If you were made aware that this room wasn't ADA compliant, would you want it fixed? I think we all say yes. How about the last time you walked into a restaurant, a dry cleaner, coffee shop, bookstore, a grocery store?

I don't think most of us think about these things on a regular basis, but for most business owners that thought process is very similar. We're focused on serving food, paying employees, placing orders, the cost of eggs, overhead expenses, myriad of other things.

Just like you and me, most business owners don't have disability access and ADA compliance at the top of their minds. But that doesn't mean that we don't want to ensure full and equal access to everyone and wouldn't be happy to fix a problem if it were brought to our attention.

I'm one of those business owners and I want everyone to have access to my business, everyone. I'm deeply involved in my business community in my district, and the business owners that I know feel the exact same way. They want everyone to have equal access to their businesses.

Now, I won't assert that there aren't bad actors out there who do actively discriminate against disabled individuals, and that's abhorrent. Disability access is something that I believe our society as a whole should be much more conscientious of. We can do better and we should do better, and that is my motivation behind this legislation.

I want more businesses to take ADA compliance seriously and proactively make their businesses accessible to all members of the public, especially to disabled individuals, because it's the right thing to do.

Many businesses that receive a complaint or have a suit filed against them are completely caught off guard by the allegations as they did not realize that their property had construction-related accessibility issues or that they thought their property was already ADA compliant. They had no intent or desire to deny access to anyone.

Businesses are required to comply with so many laws, ordinances and regulations, and rightfully so. They're also inspected to ensure that they're in compliance with those laws, ordinances and regulations. And we deal with that all the time. They're building inspectors, fire marshals, health inspectors, ABC agents and others.

And when a problem is identified in one of those inspections, they fix it. That's how businesses operate. For ADA compliance though, there is no required inspection, there's none. Unfortunately there are certified access specialists or CASps who are certified by the State Architect to assess construction related barriers and violations of ADA compliance.

Unfortunately, there is no requirement for businesses to obtain a CASp inspection and this bill does not require such. I'm sure that some of you are thinking, well, why not just require every business to obtain a CASp inspection?

Well, there's approximately 900 certified CASps in the state and even fewer who are actively providing inspections and there are over 1.7 million private sector businesses in the state according to a 2025 report. Unfortunately, CASp inspections are woefully underutilized.

Although it is not a complete representation of how many businesses have received a CASp inspection, only 319 are publicly recorded on the State Architect's website.

Under existing law, businesses that do obtain a CASp inspection are granted 120 days or 4 months grace period from liability if certain conditions are met, including correcting all construction related violations within 120 days of inspection.

So now you're probably asking yourselves why aren't there more businesses that are getting CASp inspections to avail themselves of this protection, this 120 day protection? Well, one reason is cost.

According to proactive access of Martin Brothers ADA Inspection Services, the cost of CASp inspections can range anywhere between around $600 to $6,000 and it depends on the square footage of your property depending on the scope and service and the size of the business property.

CASp inspection report do not include the cost of correcting construction-related violations which typically also range from five grand to $20,000. So no matter how you cut it, these are not insubstantial costs for any business to undertake, but they can be particularly challenging for small businesses to take on when they're just trying to make ends meet.

The window of protection for businesses that are proactively seeking to comply with ADA access requirements is very short, especially given the substantial financial investment that a business must make to have their property inspected and to correct any construction-related violation.

The reality can make the prospect of undertaking significant expenses associated with a CASp inspection and correcting any construction related violations that are identified a zero sum game for business. But I'm not just concerned with the business side of this issue. I'm equally concerned with maintaining the important protections guaranteed to disabled individuals under existing law.

The primary tool available to disabled individuals to enforce their rights is litigation and dare I say it take decades and decades of litigation to ensure the rights that we have today. California does not have-- Excuse me, and don't get me wrong, this tool is critically important to hold bad actors accountable and it must be defended and maintained.

California does not have any entity that actively engages in enforcement of ADA laws and construction-related accessibility standards, so the disability community and the lawyers who represent them are de facto enforcement specialists.

While litigation is an essential tool for disabled individuals to enforce their rights, it does not guarantee the ultimate stated goal and desired outcome of the ADA or the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which is full and equal access to accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services. Every year there are thousands, thousands of complaints and lawsuits filed in California, most of which settle before they're taken to trial.

2023, the California Commission on Disability Access received approximately 5309 case resolution reports and of those 4178 stating they were settled.

In these settlements, there are usually a monetary award in the form of statutory damages, but there are many cases where that is the extent of the resolution and the barrier for which the suit was originally filed is not removed, which is detrimental to both the disabled party who continues to be the barred access and the business owner who is still not in compliance with the law and remains exposed to further litigation.

Of those 5,309 CRRs received in 2023, 2097 or 39% of the plaintiffs did not receive injunctive relief in the form of access barrier remediation. Unfortunately, our current system is being abused by a relatively small number of law firms, attorneys, high frequency litigants or HFLs.

In 2023, according to CCDA, one law firm that submitted the most complaints and pre-litigation letters submitted 30.9% of all submissions in the state. The top two firms submitted nearly 50% of all the complaints and pre-litigation letters.

Altogether, the top 10 law firms responsible for 95% of all complaints pre-litigation letters received in 2023. Despite this, legislature's and in fact this very committee's efforts to curtail these abuses, high frequency litigants continue to file suits undeterred.

One of the biggest issues is that the $1,000 filing fee which is intended to curb this practice, is easily circumvented and fee waivers are granted to HFLs on a regular basis.

One of the biggest issues is that the $1,000 filing fee which-- Excuse me, Aaron Murphy and Jesse Jones, for example, both high frequency litigants that have received, filed lawsuits against businesses in their district, in my district as well as Los Angeles County, Ventura County, Riverside County, San Bernardino, County, Orange County and San Diego County.

Numerous suits filed by both Murphy and Jones who are identified as HFLs, both were granted fee waivers. Since the start of 2025, Aaron Murphy, represented primarily by Scripps Ranch based attorney Ted S. Shin, has filed over 20 suits.

Want to create a system and environment where compliance with ADA law becomes the standard. Access is improved for all disabled individuals, construction related access barriers are fixed and businesses that are partners in doing these things are rewarded for their efforts and investment.

AB 649 is an important step to achieving these goals and it's just the first step. This bill isn't going to solve all the problems and much more needs to be done. I intend to continue working in this space to improve the system for disabled individuals and businesses alike. I want this program to be a success.

How do we measure its success? Well, by more businesses proactively seeking CASp inspections, by accessibility at businesses improving for disabled individuals and finally, when a problem is identified, it is fixed, resulting in the need for fewer lawsuits and real results in the form of access barrier remediation for the disabled community.

As it's amended, the sunset on this bill will allow the legislature to assess this program's success and make adjustments to make it work better for all stakeholders and I will be watching it closely.

Ultimately, I am hopeful that this program and future changes to our current system will help forge a partnership between the business community and the disabled community that will improve outcomes for everyone. Mr. Chair, I'm very pleased to be joined by Chris Sweeney, a constituent of my district and the owner of RightMealz.

He's here to testify in support of AB 649. By way of background, my bakery sells baked goods wholesale to Chris' business and we're part of the same restaurant community in Long Beach.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair, Members. My name is Chris Sweeney and I was born and raised in Southern California and was a proud college athlete at the University of Long Beach State, the city I chose to build my small business, RightMealz.

I sit here not just for myself, but for thousands of small business owners across our city and state who work tirelessly, day and night, not for fame or fortune, but for purpose. Our passion is serving our community, perfecting our craft, and being a meaningful part of the California's economy. And running a business is not easy.

We do our best to comply with every law, every permit, every guideline just to keep our doors open. And truthfully, it's expensive and sometimes overwhelmingly so. But we keep pushing because this is our livelihood and this is what we love. At Right Meals, our mission has always been to create a healthy, welcoming space for everyone.

And when actually the devastating fires broke out in La, we were one of the first to turn our restaurant into a donation hub. We were able to load 15 you alls filled with supplies for victims and distributed over 7,000 sandwiches to our first responders fighting the fires.

That's the kind of impact small businesses can have when we're given the chance to. But amid those relief efforts, while our staff and volunteers worked around the clock, we were served with an Ada lawsuit. And the complaint included violations such as bathroom rails, which were actually compliant, and a bathroom hook that I truthfully didn't know about.

It's an easy fix, too. I fixed the bathroom hook within two minutes. But instead of giving a chance to address it, I was asked to settle for $6,000. And I don't have thousands to spare on legal battles. And that $6,000 can mean I'm missing payroll or failing behind with vendors.

And many small business owners settle not because they're guilty, but because they don't have a choice. These settlements can equal a week or even a month of sales, and that's devastating. And let me be clear. I actually have myself, family Members who are disabled, close friends and relatives. And we want to do the right thing.

We want to be compliant. We want everyone to feel welcome in our businesses. But give us the opportunity to make things right. Give us notice, give us a chance to fix the issue before filing a lawsuit that can cost us everything we worked so hard to build. We're not big corporations with legal teams on standby.

We're just people, people who deeply care about our neighborhoods and more importantly, our customers. And all we ask is should be treated fairly. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, any. Anyone else here in support of A.B. 649.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We support the Bill in print. I don't think that anyone could explain the reasoning for significant Ada reform better than the opening statement of the bill's authority.

We are currently reviewing the significant amendments that were proposed by your Committee. Would note that we will probably have concerns with a few of them. So therefore, we support the Bill in print. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association. We align our comments with CJAC. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB649?

So we're actually tweeners. Oh--no, it's okay. So, Eric Harris, Disability Rights California. We're actually tweeners. We're comfortable with the bill in neutral now thanks to the committee and author working out significant amendments. So we appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dan Oakenfuss, representing the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, representing thousands of people with disabilities, echoing my colleagues' comments from Disability Rights California. Neutral as the bill is proposed to be amended.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, we'll move to our vice chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this bill, Assembly Member Lowenthal. I just wanna clarify a couple things. First of all, I do want to just comment on your opening statement, which was correct and profound. However, until--people may have more knowledge of ADA issues than one thinks.

My mother was in a wheelchair when she had ALS for a year. I was never exposed to a wheelchair life, and you become very aware of, not intentional discrimination, but just access of living. And having had that experience, personally, I'm profoundly aware, but I'm not looking to sue people.

I'm not looking to drive a restaurant out of business. It's just done very simply. Do you know that your bar isn't there? You know, the handicap, which--not in your case--but I mean, we all know that. Those amenities in our restrooms or in hotels today are very commonplace, and so we're accustomed to that, but are there times where there are missed improvements, perhaps?

I commend your bill. My one question, though, because a business--if I understand the process--this is a process question--that the business must obtain this CASp, so how many people know to do that? How many business--how is it promoted? How is it made aware? Who administers it?

Well, those are the right questions to be asking. The CASp is administered by the state or licensed by the State Architecture Board. To correct you a little bit on your question, there is nothing compulsory in this bill. Nobody is obligated to do anything whatsoever. If they choose--

Sure. It's in their best interest. Of course.

If they--I agree, but the math had to work, and that's--we work so well with the committee staff here. The problem for small business, as Mr. Sweeney articulated so well, is once you have to defend a suit, you've already lost. And that's the problem.

And that's why they settle for such a small amount because they want that sweet spot that puts the pressure on for people to just get rid of it. And in the aggregate, thousands of suits equals millions and millions of dollars. So I want to read for you really quickly some notes that my chief made for me here, just the steps it would take.

Step one: a business obtains a CASp inspection and all construction-related violations are noted in the CASp inspections report. Step two: the business fixes all of the construction-related violations identified in their CASp inspection report. Step three: the CASp inspector provides the business a CASp inspection certification, indicated that their property has been CASp inspected.

There's a sticker they can put on the window, there's a certification. Then the business posts a, quote, 'notice of participation' in the small business Right to Cure Program in a conspicuous place within five feet of all public entrances to the place of public accommodation.

And step five: the business is then granted a six-year window. We're going through that process, during which any construction-related violation that they're notified about through lawsuit or just by notice--if somebody comes in and notifies them and says the very things that you're talking about, 'hey, this access is noncompliant'--then they must correct that violation within 120 days of being notified of that. And if they don't, they're susceptible to the same litigation that they're susceptible to--

Right. I think that those process steps--I'm going back to Sub 1A. How does a small business owner--did you know about CASp when you were starting your business and outfitting your business and working with an architect or contractor?

So from what I understand, our landlord has a CASp inspection, but I had no idea anything about that until I was served.

So that's my point. I think it's great. Everything you said in the process is absolutely right. It's just going to the very beginning of it. How does a small business owner, unless they have a--with a contractor or architect, how do people know about this?

You know, we're vexed by the same thing and it is a challenge and we even noticed in our own investigation this is something that could be on the Secretary of State website for all businesses that are--that doesn't exist right now and there's actually nothing on disabled access on the Secretary of State's website regarding small business.

So I, I think--

You want to, do you want to respond to this anymore? Mr. Chair, is that okay?

Sure.

To your point, Madam Vice Chair, the counties currently do maintain CASp inspectors. There is information out there, it's limited, and the way that it's being distributed to businesses, there are a lot of businesses just like Mr. Sweeney's business that are not aware of the program, so there is more that needs to be done in that space.

Well, I would support that in any way you figured that out, but great. Great job and thank you for this major step forward to help our small businesses. Thank you.

And I think once this is out there--people know that now there's a limited right to cure--I think the news will spread quickly. I think prior to that, people may or may not have been aware of getting CASp inspections but if there wasn't that kind of benefit to doing it. I think the word will hopefully spread. That's the goal. Senator Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, and I want to thank you both for this and thank you for being here, Mr. Sweeney. I think--actually one of my favorite local cafe bakeries closed as a result of a lawsuit, just like being described here, and so I know this affects our small businesses, and our small businesses are the largest employer in California.

They are key to our communities and we need to protect them, but I also appreciate the Vice Chair's comments that we need to be balancing that with the needs of our disabled communities who need access and I think this personally strikes the right balance, and so I'm happy the author is doing it and want to support it.

I just wanted to raise a quick comment after the second bill today where we're talking about private right of actions in actually two very different contexts. In the other bill it was in, we were concerned, and this one, we're dealing with some negative consequences from vexatious litigants, and I think that it begs the question of like what is going on with the PRAs that we have to be afraid to put one in a bill, that we have to come back and fix a system where businesses are being sued.

And having been a defense attorney, I absolutely know the minute you get that demand letter, you're doing the calculation. Hiring an attorney is more than paying the small fine. So even if you're in compliance, you're going to pay the fine. That's the math. And so that is not the system I think any of us want.

And so I just would urge this body to really take a harder look at how do we do more work to make sure that our private right of actions are, as was mentioned earlier, protecting those who've been truly harmed, going after the businesses that are choosing to deny access in a knowing way. You know, that is a different thing than what you are facing.

And so, you know, clearly we have a much larger problem, and I just wanted to raise that because I think we're putting patches out there and we're dealing with bills one on one when I sit at this dais week after week feeling like we have a real problem with what I would think is perhaps fees that are out of control. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author. All the testimony, I think that you've really, you're trying to tackle something that, that is really hard, and I will say it's the number one issue I hear from my small businesses in my district, and it--over and over again, folks are, are really saying the same thing as our testifying witness, which is: I want to protect the disabled community and I also want to do it in a way that doesn't put me out of business.

And there's a elegant solution there and that's what you're trying to find here, so I applaud you for it and I'm going to support it today. My only question is my, my understanding is that the right to cure under the CASp Program does not actually cure an ADA federal claim.

So my concern is that there's almost, there's an incentive to get into the CASp Program so that you can cure state claims under the Unruh Act, but why would a small business do this if they knew that that doesn't cure the ADA federal claims and they could still be subject to a federal lawsuit?

And that's my only issue with this is that without a coinciding right to cure on the federal claims, you're sort of leaving our small businesses, including you, in this middle ground position where it's not actually taking care of the full problem. So how do we solve that and can we solve it from now until the floor?

You know, I'm going to ask, if it's okay, Mr. Chair, for my chief to take some of the technical issues around, you know, federal versus state, but anecdotally, I've been sued a few times, one in state court and one in federal court.

A lot of the time what happens is they file in federal court because they don't want to adhere to the state guidelines, as you're sort of pointing out, and really just to figure out where they can squeeze in any, in any direction. And of course I'm talking about the frivolous suits. I'm absolutely not speaking whatsoever about the very valid and important suits that are protecting the rights of all consumers. With that--

Actually, if I can ask my chief consultant to chime in on this?

Please.

Thank you, and I appreciate the concern. However, it's actually kind of, it's the reverse of situation in which a violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act, so if you cure an access violation under state law, you have also cured the ADA violation. So really what you want businesses to do is to cure the violation, which also, you know, covers the, will cover the exposure in federal court.

I think that the concern about this bill at one point is that businesses may believe that they can rely on a six-year-old CASp report and that they can't be exposed to liability under state and federal law if they, for example, let their property become--if they fail to maintain their property and allow, for example, subsidence to affect the slope of a ramp, in which case they would both be exposed to state and federal liability.

Follow up if I can? So under this new framework, what you're saying is if they cure within the 120 days under the CASp Program, a litigant could not go to federal court and still sue for that period in which the violation was in place? Notwithstanding the cure, there was still a period of violation, and technically, I think the ADA would still--under the federal scheme--would still view a colorable claim. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm not an expert here, but that is just something that my understanding was that that claim could still go forward.

Well, I mean, maybe in theory, but they would have to get to court and have their case litigated within 120 days because if it were cure--if it were already fixed, then there would be no liability and federal courts will moot a claim once the violation is repaired.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Assembly Member Stefani.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and as someone who represents a district with a large number of small storefronts and community-serving businesses, I know that it is important to provide clear pathways to ADA compliance and reduce exposure to predatory litigation. I was also the Chief of Staff to a county supervisor for four years who uses a wheelchair and I saw San Francisco in a completely different light and understand how important it is to make these corrections.

And I really appreciate our conversation this morning because when I originally looked at this bill, I felt that the bill might unintentionally weaken the incentives for proactive compliance and undercut the enforcement tools that ensure equal access and I really appreciated our conversation this morning and I just wanted to bring that up and give you a chance to address that concern.

I'm sorry, I missed the specific concern.

In terms of basically reducing the incentive for compliance here.

Yeah, let's think about it this way. What happens if we didn't have this incentive structure set up right now? Businesses would not proactively or are not proactively en masse, getting CASp inspections. And truth of the matter be told is they're just relying on the fact that if they do get sued, it's going to cost them about $10,000.

They're going to move on, the problem never gets fixed, and then everybody has lost. I had a political event last night in the restaurant, one of the restaurants that we all go to all the time in this group, and the owner there owns three restaurants in town.

I asked him, I told him, 'hey, you know, we have this bill tomorrow. Have you ever been sued?' He said, 'I've been sued three times, and every time I was able to get the settlement down to about $6,000,' and they never set foot on the premise.

They never walked in, they never looked at it, they never cared that anything was fixed afterwards, and I think that that is the situation that's giving disability access--there's a conflicted relationship with the small business community and it needs to be the converse of that.

We need to have a close relationship with disability access. The things that the Vice Chair said that I'm sure all of us have people close in our universe that are disabled that have taught us so much about those things, and, you know, I just think that this bill, the way that it's structured, where it's not an automatic right to cure but it's only rewarding those that have proactively gone into the program, you know, is the secret sauce to make things a win-win for everyone.

Assembly Member Macedo.

I just want to tell the author, I really like this bill for a couple of reasons. The predatory practices that are happening on our business communities are out of control. This is just one instance of what's happening, and people are abusing our state resources as a way to call for inspections and then use them for lawsuits.

I've seen it all over the place. It's happening in agriculture as well. What I will tell you is this actually does something. It's not just throwing money at a problem, it's fixing a problem. So I always love when legislation actually goes towards solving an issue and it's pro-business. So with that, I would ask to be a co-author on this bill and I'm excited to support this today. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Assembly Member Connolly.

Yeah, good morning everyone. Really want to also thank the author and the witness for coming forward, particularly those of us who have been involved in local government in the past. We're well aware of the issues with the small businesses, with compliance, with trying to do the right thing, frequent flyer lawsuits, etcetera.

I appreciated your explanation this morning because I think a number of us did have issues coming into this. This is a complex bill. I mean, I was a lawyer for over 25 years and I was beyond being a Legislator.

Have you recovered?

I know. I was using my lawyer hat on this, so I'm like, am I following this? And, so thank you for the explanation. I would like to amplify a couple of the concerns, though, and I will note I'm going to view this one as a work in progress. Marin Center for Independent Living. I appreciated the disability rights groups here today, but some of my locals are still opposed as amended. If I'm reading it correctly, there's incentives, there's a right to cure, but then there's like a six-year, essentially safe harbor from litigation. Is that--then how--

Mr. Chair, may I respond?

Yeah, because that's how it's written.

There is not. Litigants have all the rights that they do today. The only thing that changes is during that six-year window, that the business has the ability to cure it. If a cure is not made--and they only have 120 days to do that--if a cure is not made, litigation may go forward.

As a matter of fact, I think the litigation is stronger because they have not cured the problem after notification. All it's doing is rewarding those that are proactively by being compliant with that ability to cure during that six years.

It's not in perpetuity to the very important point that committee staff made about things that happen over the course of time and that's why there's a shot clock. So they've proactively gone into the program. At the end, when they get their report, they have to fix the problems that were put out in the report.

At the end of that, they have six years where if anybody comes in and sues them, they've got 120 days just to fix it. But if they don't, litigation still goes forward. Absolutely.

Yeah. No, that's clarifying. I mean, I was almost grasping for the old, you know, maxims around drafting bills, which are brevity, clarity, simplicity. I'm going to be looking for a little bit more of that probably in a redraft.

Another piece is certainly we all want to--and perhaps we need to even move further on the frivolous or bad actor litigants coming forward repeatedly. This seems to go beyond that, if I'm reading it again correctly, and maybe if I'm not, it actually creates presumptions around probably what are technical violations of the law.

The ramp isn't quite right. You don't have the right signs. You didn't quite paint the space enough. As technical as it seems, they're very important. So I'm struggling with why are we trying to exempt that behavior when it's--

It's not exempt.

It's pretty simple, or creating a presumption that you're not going to be liable when those are, should be based--

With respect, Assembly Member, there is no exemption whatsoever that's allowed in this bill. There's, there's nothing of the sort whatsoever, and I completely and totally agree with you that all of those issues that you brought up are critically important. They must be adhered to. That's the law, and the law must be followed.

And if I can have my chief consultant, just for clarity sake, also chime in?

The technical violation provision is actually an existing law that was passed in 2016-17 by a Roth Bill, SB 269.

So it's building on that. All right, so I think we--

Assembly Member, I also just want to say, this is a work in progress. First of all, this is a pilot with a sunset and I intend to stay around even if it makes it all the way through the system, but we certainly want to have a deep and meaningful connection with Disability Rights and all the key stakeholders involved and to get this right. And it's going to take time. It's going to take analysis. We have to get data back and measure the success and make sure that all of the key stakeholders along the way are made whole.

All right. Brevity, clarity, simplicity.

Noted.

Any other questions or comments? Assembly Member Bryan.

And I want to thank the author for his call last night and the communication happening with our Disability Rights community and Civil Disability Rights California being willing to continue working with the author and then seeing forward progress with the committee's amendments.

I just got confused about the curing process in terms of the 120 days versus the six years. Are you saying if you voluntarily go and you get this assessment, anything that's found in that assessment that somebody files a suit on, like each individual suit has 120 days, but there's a six--like I got confused on the 120 versus six years.

Yeah. And I--because you weren't in the room, I went actually through and broke it down, but really, really quickly, if you're notified of a violation, you have 120 days to fix it. Somebody comes at later with another notification of violation, you have 120 days to fix that.

That is during the six-year window granted after you've gotten your CASp inspection and fixed everything on the other side of the CASp inspection. So six years is a reward for proactively going into the inspection process and remediating anything that's brought up in the process.

Appreciate you.

Thank you. And I don't know if this is one of those bills that we can make into a more simplified version. I mean, there's--it's an incredibly complex area of the law.

And look, you know, for I guess the last decade or so, there's probably been at least six bills that have been introduced that have used a sledgehammer approach to this issue, which is an issue that affects all of our districts. I have had small businesses that get hit up with these lawsuits and hear it as well.

I want to thank the author for taking a scalpel approach to this, which is far more complex, but I think offers the opportunity to actually give small businesses the chance to come to compliance proactively before a lawsuit is ever filed and I think that's really the key here, is--not every business is going to take advantage of it and then they're on, you know, then they're on their own.

And they're in this, they're in the same system we currently have. I think to the point that was made like, you know, regarding private right of actions and kind of using the litigation process to fix these kinds of issues, that's the system we have.

Look, we don't have--and whether it's PAGA, whether it's PRA, we don't have enough government attorneys to represent the community and that's why we have created a litigious system to allow the, quote, 'small guy and gal' the opportunity to actually have a fighting chance.

And now what we've seen in situations like this, we've seen folks that have taken advantage of that. And what we want to make sure is that ultimately we are protecting the small businesses while at the same time protecting the ADA and protecting those in our community that actually have genuine needs to have access.

As mentioned by others--and people know my father. He has limitations in mobility, and you will not--I think you don't grasp how important ADA and how revolutionary it's been until you've visited other countries with someone that has mobility issues. We are blessed that we have the ADA.

We're blessed that we have a system of laws in place that ensure that everyone, regardless of ability, has equal access to our public spaces. And that's a beautiful thing. As mentioned by our author, small businesses also want to be able to provide those spaces.

And, you know, in the last year or so, we've taken on some--as a committee--we've taken on some really serious issues that for many years have been sidelined. The end result doesn't bring joy to everyone that's been involved and I think there's got to be some give and take to get to a place where we can at least move forward and try to resolve issues that others have failed to in the past and have ignored in the past.

So I want to thank the author for putting in a lot of effort to try to deal with this issue that hasn't been resolved for many years. And he's put a ton of work into this, chief consultant's put a ton of work into this to get us where we are with a lot of amendments that make the CASp system better than it currently is, that actually puts more public notice and more requirements so a CASp report has stronger meaning than ever before once this bill is passed, which I'm confident it can and will be.

And to the author's point, there's an opportunity because of the sunset. For all the legitimate concerns, I think that people that know me know that I have really serious concerns whenever we touch the rights of our disabled community and the ability for them to have access to justice.

I would never want to curtail that. What I do want to see is the opportunity to ensure that the places of business in our community are as friendly as possible to everyone in our community, and this does apply to small businesses, which is something I think I also recognize that we're not--we're treating small businesses differently for a reason here. It is hard for them to be able to take on this litigation and to comply with this process. They have skin in the game.

They're going to have to spend thousands of dollars to get their support, and in some cases, many thousands more to come in compliance to the complaints that are going to be listed there. So this is not a freebie to anyone involved.

And so I think we, I think with the amendments, we've gotten to a place, as we've heard from our friends from Disability Rights California who we work--the committee also works very closely with--has gone neutral for a reason because of the work of the author and the work of the committee staff to get us there.

So I know there'll be a lot more commentary and comment going forward, other committees. It's got to go through the Senate. This is still the house of origin, and we've done a ton of work to, I think, put this bill in a place that's set up for success.

And so for that, I certainly want to thank the author and committee members who also raised concerns with the author, appropriately so, as did the staff to get us where we are. This is complex. I wish it could be made simpler but it is complicated to do things that protect our community, and here we have two constituencies that we all care deeply about: small businesses and our dis--and people with disabilities.

We both--we all care deeply about those two communities. I think we have found at least a path forward to ensure that we continue to share and protect the concerns of both. Would you like to close?

What you just said is beautiful. I couldn't have encapsulated any more, and I just want the world to know that this Chair and certainly chief consultant and the staff here, the foundation for discussion on all of this was preserving the rights that are in place right now, and that is fundamental to any work that we do and try, improve from there, and from there we can move forward. And so that's the lens that this office has looked at this, and how do we find a way to get more compliance out of it?

I think, as the Chair noted, I think we found that secret sauce and I hope that we can provide better access for all Californians and a better climate for our small businesses in the process. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Thank you.

Aye. I'd like to be a co-author. I thought I was, but just to be sure.

[Roll Call].

Well, from where you started to having unanimous vote, I think, speaks a lot to your work, so appreciate it. Thank you. That bill is out.

Vote change.

All right. I see Assembly Member Wilson is here for Item Eight: AB 972. We have a motion.

Thank you.

And a second. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 972. A bill that strengthens our commitment to to equity and fairness for all California students. And given the motion in the second, I'll be brief and leave it open for questions. AB972 is simple in what it does, but powerful what it represents.

According to the Assembly Higher Education Committee's call to action report last year, campus title nine coordinators and civil rights officers report that the current language in the Education Code is difficult to interpret creating barriers for effective implementation and enforcement of non discrimination policies.

Let me be Incredibly clear that this bill doesn't change who is protected, it just simply codifies it. 972 ensures the law is both easily understood and enforceable. We owe it to our students to be precise in the protections that we provide. I'd like to now introduce my student witness. Shriya Srinivasan, student trustee for Solano.

Let me get her last name right. Shriya Srinivasan, student trustee for Solano Community College and the founder and President of the Solano Community College Reproductive Health Club.

Thank you.

Awesome.

All right. Hello Chair Kolera and Members of the community. My name is Shriya Srinivasan and I'm a dual enrolled junior in high school, part of an early college high school program at Solano Community College, a student trustee and the founder of our campus's Reproductive Health Club, RHC.

I'm here today in strong support of AB972 because every student deserves to feel safe and seen on their campus. Right now. The word sex is not explicitly named as a protected category in California's higher education code. And that matters.

True equity means making sure our protections reflect the lived realities of students and that this bill is a meaningful step towards that. As a young woman of color, I've seen firsthand how gender based discrimination, whether related to sex, gender identity or pregnancy, impact students ability to show up and succeed.

AB972 ensures that all students and staff are clearly and explicitly protected under the law. It brings clarity, reinforces our commitment to fairness and reminds us that the language we use in our laws matters because words matter and so do the people those words are meant to protect. This bill doesn't intruse introduce sweeping changes.

It simply clarifies a necessary technical fix that sex, along with gender, gender identity and pregnancy must be recognized in the law. That clarity matters because when protections are vague, they are easier to ignore and students pay the price. I respectfully urge your eye though on AB972. Thank you for your time and your commitment to equity in education.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB972? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB72?

Thank you, sir. My name is David Bollog. I'm here on behalf. I'm here to oppose this because the language already says gender, gender identity, gender expression, which are striking from the bill. Why not just leave it if that is your intention?

There is a big group of people in California that do not believe sex and gender are the same thing even though it is written into the law. We do Oppose it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB972? Bring it back to Committee. We have a motion on the table. Any further questions or comments? Well, thank you so much for your presentation. I would like to close.

Thank you. I thank you to my witness who is not at school today and here choosing Civic Engagement. And she'll be returning though for those who are worried about a full day ditch.

I wouldn't consider this. You're right. You're right.

Let's make the Education Code reflect our values and ensure that every student in California knows they are seen, supported and protected under law, including our pregnant ones. Thank you and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out. Thank you so much. Thank you. Item 9, AB 1427. Assembly Member Calderon. No, we have a motion and a second Assembly Member. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to thank the Committee for working with my staff on this Bill. And I will be accepting the commitments. Amen. I say commitments. Sorry about that. Amendments. Okay. AB 1427 will protect victims of natural disasters from any negative credit impacts if they're forced to sell their depreciated property.

Wildfires, floods, earthquakes and other types of natural disasters can force homeowners into housing insecurity within moments. Business owners can also be impacted and risk losing their entire livelihoods. For these victims, selling what is left of their property through a short sale is often the only option to begin rebuilding their lives.

While short sales typically lead to negative credit implications for the seller, these unique circumstances are not reflective of one's credit worthiness. This Bill ensures property owners have access to a fresh start by maintaining their ability to secure financing for a new home, car or business. I don't have any witnesses. This is my staff who's here to answer technical questions.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1427? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1427? All right. Bring it back to Committee. We have a motion on the table. Any questions or comments, Madam Vice Chair?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, just a quick question. Is this for people of all income groups? Those people who have no financial impairment, luckily them. In terms of wildfire disaster, is there any needs based assessment Is my question

All income groups.

Any other questions? Comments? I think that's fair. I mean, at the end of the day, whether your credit gets hit, your credit gets hit, it can impact everyone, regardless of their income level. And this is, I think, an appropriate response to the natural disaster, not to create negative outcomes that are not the fault of their own. So I appreciate that. Would you like to close?

Yes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill's out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member of Bauer Kahan, which is file item 1, AB412, Assemblymember Bauer Kahan has one Bill on today, not six like last week. Just a note, an objective, just an observation.

Well, Mr. Chair, I had two, but one was on consent.

Okay, you know what? You had more than six last week then if you include these.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Assembly Members. I want to start by thanking Committee staff for their hard work on all bills, but especially my bills, and accept Committee amendments which make it easier to comply with the Bill by adjusting various timelines and exempting models developed and used for non commercial academic or governmental research.

Today, I'm proud to present AB412, the AI Copyright Transparency Act. And as I have embarked on a journey of what I believe California's AI policy should look like, I've been driven by the question of what are long held rights that we believe Californians have and how are those changing in the face of this modern technology?

And copyright is really central to the question of AI and how it is trained and what the rights of those copyright holders are. And what we have seen, really copyright is in the federal realm. This Bill does not change copyright law. We cannot do that. And the courts have debated that.

The courts have actually been finding so far on the right on the side of the copyright holders, which is why recently we saw the President weigh in on the side of the models, saying that he believes it's fair use.

But the question really is how does someone who owns a copyright, who has put their sweat tears, work into creating a work of art that each and every one of us has benefited from, that we have long believed they have a right to be compensated for the use of that work, how do they exercise their rights?

In today's world, where there are models that are being trained, we know, on those copyrighted works. And when out comes a poem that looks exactly like yours or out comes your voice from a model because the model was trained on your works of art, what are your rights?

And we often think of Scarlett Johansson, who has, I'm sure, an army of lawyers. But this is affecting people with significantly less resources than big stars. And for them to embark on a journey of exercising their copyright rights, they need to know if the work went into the model. And so this Bill is very simple.

It gives those copyright holders the right to know if a model has been trained on their copyrighted work. And with me today in support of the Bill are Tim Friedlander, founder and President of the National Association of Voice Actors, and Travis Manfredi, attorney who specializes in intellectual property law.

Thank you, Tim.

Go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Tim Friedlander. I'm a voice actor, songwriter, children's book author, and studio owner.

Are you really a voice actor?

As a matter of fact, I'm also President and co founder of the National Association of Voice Actors. We are a co sponsor of AB412. AB412 gives copyright holders the right to know if the materials, if their materials have been used to train generative AI models.

This Bill does not address the question of whether it's moral, ethical, or even legal to train gen AI models or copyrighted materials. It simply offers rights holders the ability to inquire and know if their materials have been used.

NAVA represents the people behind the voices you hear every day for the narrators of audiobooks, characters in video games and animated shows, storytellers in podcasts, and even the teachers in your favorite HR training videos that you have to sit through every single. But my testimony is not exclusively about voice actors.

I represent the creators, the visual artists, the graphic designers, costume designers, writers, musicians, every other artist who has turned an idea into something tangible. AI is impacting all of us.

AI companies are profiting off of our life's work, and there's currently no law in place to stop them or even for us to find out if our work has been used to train their models. AB412 seeks to change that. The tech companies say their training data is their trade secret, but my voice is not their trade secret.

They're going to try to convince you that it's difficult to keep track of the materials they're using to train their systems, and it creates an unreasonable burden for them.

But if they're asking us to trust them with the most powerful technology this world has ever seen, shouldn't it be reasonable that they keep track of what materials they have used to train it? California is home to both the major AI developers and a vast creative sector that employs professionals like me and my colleagues.

As such, this state has the opportunity to lead in the adoption of fair, equitable and and balance policy. And I encourage an aye vote on AB 412. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there. Yeah. Oh yeah, please.

Good morning Members of the Committee. I'm Travis Manfredi, a seasoned intellectual property attorney. Over the past three years, I've specialized in AI-related law. I coauthored several, several class actions on behalf of creative individuals in connection with the use of their works in gen AI models.

AB412 is needed to ensure creative professionals have information needed to protect their rights and ultimately to continue in their careers without it. Their works can be used without their knowledge to create and sell Gen AI models that are often designed to replace them.

There's no question that the owner of a work cannot challenge a use of that work if they don't know or can't know it was used. That is why AB412 is needed. It serves a purpose outside the ambit of copyright regulations.

Much like existing privacy regulations, it will provide Californians with often hidden knowledge about how their works are used. It does not prevent others from using those works. It merely requires disclosure upon request. It is implicit that to challenge use of a work, a rights holder must be able to show that it was actually used.

Those in opposition to AB412 contend this information should be sought through the discovery process. However, based on my experience, if a rights holder cannot show at the outset that their work was included in the training data, their claim will be dismissed before any discovery can be taken on the question.

And litigation should not be the only way for Californians to learn whether their works have even been used. Such a requirement is burdensome to rights holders, model creators and the courts. AB412 would be an effective mechanism to ensure that Californians have the information needed to protect their hard work.

And for that reason, I urge you to vote in its favor. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB412?

My name is Karen Gilfrey. I'm the Vice President of the National Association of Voice Actors. In support. I'm also speaking on behalf of the Authors Guild, a co-sponsor of this Bill. In support. Thank you.

Aaron Mask, voice actor, part of NAVA, in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Rob Sogamonian, owner of Signier Media Studios, founding Member of Articulate Studios, proud Member of NAVA. I am in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Brigid Racine. I'm a literary author, business owner, Member of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association, and author of the Muse on Substack. Full copyright protection and transparency is critical to all creative professionals. Not just now, but for our future generations. Thank you. Which are coming up behind us. Please support AB412.

Hello, my name is Cairo and I'm a freshman in high school. I'm a visual artist, singer, songwriter and musician. But I won't be anymore if I lose my copyright productions. I want a future. In strong support of AB412. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Evan Wijaya, voice actor, Member of National Association of Voice Actors in support of AB412. Also speaking on behalf of Amy Stafford, another voice actor and Member of NAVA, in support of AB412. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Dee Cordell. I'm a voice actor from Rockland and I am also in support of this Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Gunner Ready from Orangeville, California. I'm a voice actor and audio engineer. I'm in support of AB412. Thank you.

Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Deana Igelsrud, Concept Art Association. We are here as co sponsors of AB412 and we're in strong support of the Bill. With my other hat on. I am the co chair of the Legislative Committee for the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, representing 3 million registered Democrats in Los Angeles County. We strongly urge a yes vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good day. Christopher Schenck, animation artist and educator, in strong support.

Thank you.