Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good afternoon. We're holding this Committee hearing in room 2100 of the O Street building. I ask that all Members of the Committee be present in room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. I expect that the Senate Democrats will arrive soon. They are in caucus right now.

I do see 50% of the Republicans who are present. Thank you very much, Senator Niello, for some housekeeping issues. File number three AB 578 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan has been delayed. Will be heard at a future hearing. And same thing with phylum number 17AB2, by some Member Lowenthal, which will be presumably heard at a future hearing.

Before we begin. Well, we don't have a quorum yet, but we hope to establish one soon. Let me announce the consent calendar. We have 11 bills on today's consent calendar. They are as follows. File number one, AB243 by Assemblymember Ahrens. File number two, AB1134, by Assemblymember Baines. File number five, AB1162, by Assemblymember Banta.

File number six, AB677 by Assemblymember Brian. File number eight, AB521, by Assemblymember Carrillo. File number nine, AB78 by Assembly Member Chen. File number 10, AB711 by Assembly Member Chen. File number 12, AB493 by Assembly Member Harabedian with amendments. File number 18 AB859 by Assembly Member Macedo. File number 21 AB343 by Assembly Member Pacheco.

And finally, file number 23 AB708 by Assembly Member Valencia. We will take up the consent calendar at a future time. All right. The process today will be just as the process has been earlier this year in terms of testimony. We'll take two primary witnesses, two primary witnesses each for two minutes.

And then we'll take the support witnesses, and we'll take what are known as me too witnesses. Me too witnesses shall testify as follows. Their name, their position, and their affiliation. We'll do the same thing with the opposition. Two witnesses on each side for two minutes. Those are the primary witnesses.

And then meet two witnesses where you'll announce your name, your affiliation, and your position on the particular Bill. If you wish to add additional information on any Bill or any subject, please refer to the Committee's website. And there we will tell you how to submit additional written materials. And as was noted earlier, most of us can read.

So thank you very much. Let's begin as a Subcommitee. I see Assemblymember Berman here with file number 41374 Rental Passenger Vehicle Transactions Summit Member Berman, thank you very much. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, good to see both of you again. I want to thank Committee staff for their work on this Bill and we'll be accepting the Committee's amendment described in the analysis. Deceptive price advertising, such as hidden or surprise fees, has increased over time and frustrated consumers.

While there are those in the rental car space that already provide upfront pricing on their websites, others have not been fully transparent. To ensure price transparency across the board, AB 1374 would require that the real price of a rental car be disclosed as soon as consumers select dates, rental location, and vehicle type.

Showing consumers the real price up front enables them to make informed decisions and comparison shop. In response to feedback from stakeholders including rental car companies, I've previously taken a number of amendments to try to address concerns. My office has also recently met with booking and will be working on amendments to address their concerns.

For example, the intent of this Bill is transparency. It's not to prohibit a third party from charging a mandatory service fee, just so long as that fee is then disclosed up front, which I am happy to clarify. I appreciate all the engagement and continued conversations and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I'm joined by Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California.

Thank you very much, Mr. Sanchez. Floor is yours.

Sure. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairmembers. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Rede Group here on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, who is proud to be a sponsor of this measure. This Bill continues CFC's multi year work on hidden and junk fees throughout the economy.

Our simple objective is for consumers to be able to see what they're actually going to pay before purchasing something, in this case a rental car, so that consumers can make decisions that's best for them and their families whether they're looking directly at a rental car company or a third party website that they prefer to use.

In our sponsor letter, we highlight a brief search that we did where a consumer was looking to get a deal on a rental car and they found that many of the key players in the rental car space are providing clear and accurate prices, while some other key folks in this space are not.

In fact, in one of our findings, we found that the price had increased by more than $100 for a five day rental. We would also like to note that we found one of the major third party parties commonly used by consumers replicated this information gap as well.

Overall, our brief search confirms that there is a need for this Bill to clarify the law so that consumers can receive accurate information while looking for rental cars. This is how the marketplace was intended to function. And for those reasons, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1374. Please approach. Seeing no one approaching. Let's bring it. Let's take on the opposition.

All right. Didn't get up fast enough. Brittany Stonesifer for the California Low Income Consumer Coalition and support. Thank you. Sorry. On behalf of Kaiser Advocacy. All right.

Thank you very much.

Opposition? Yes. Mr. Chairman and Members. Eloy Garcia for booking. We have taken an opposed and less amended position and Senator Berman preempted much of my substantive comments.

I appreciate the time that the author, his staff and the sponsor have afforded us, and we look forward to continuing to work with them on issues of clarity, issues of unintended consequences. So we very much appreciate that.

I do, for the record, just want to state that and to clarify, third parties were not exempt from the price transparency law from two years ago, are fully covered as third parties, not as car rental companies. So we can assure the public here that we are in full compliance.

And we very much appreciate the author's willingness to work with us and the Committee staff as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, John Moffitt, on behalf of Enterprise Mobility, we too have an opposing, less amended position on the Bill. I think our opposition is based on the fact that California has the most stringent rental car rules in the entire country. And within those rules is a private right of action.

If we don't do what the law is telling us to do, the consumer gets a lawsuit. They get to sue us directly, not through unfair business practices or something else. They go right at us.

And so when you make changes in the law, we are very sensitive to those things because we want to make sure we're complying with them. So we don't. And so, you know, in, in the first section of the Bill, in the point 19 section, you know, our concern is centered around potential litigation risk.

When you start introducing concepts that aren't defined in statute, like total charges, estimate, you know, these sorts of things, you know, we don't know what that means. We know what existing law means. We know how to comply, and we do. So we don't get sued because we're disclosing those things.

The second is the amendment that the author is taking in as part that's outlined in the Committee analysis. I'll be blunt to some extent. We don't really understand the problem that's trying to be, you know, attempted to be solved here. And it's introducing new things, new concepts, new disclosure requirements that we don't entirely understand.

Enterprise, when you go to book a vehicle on our site, you can book an electric vehicle. It's a car class. So do we now have to go through our entire website and update it and say this car runs on gasoline and the one that the electric vehicle, the car class that you. That runs on electricity.

You know, if we had a better understanding of the problem that was attempting to be resolved here, maybe we could figure out a better way to address it so that we don't have to go change our entire website to solve a problem we don't understand. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moffitt. Others in opposition. Seeing no one else approached the microphone. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Seeing none. I may respond to Mr. Moffitt's. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Senator Niello. Yes.

So basically this is substituting a total charges estimate for what was called a good faith estimate. How precise does it need to be?

How precise does the estimate need to be? The total charges estimate more precise than. The good faith estimate. So a good faith estimate also is not defined in law. And what we found is inconsistent price transparency between the companies.

And so the goal here, and I might defer to my friend from Consumer Federation if he's still here, is, you know, once you plug in the date, the location and the type of car, you should be provided with the cost as well as whatever fees and taxes exist.

I don't know whether or not we've got, you know, kind of wiggle room there in terms of if you're off by a couple of dollars versus $100. But that's something that I can get back to you with to provide a little more clarity.

Well, it could be off by $100 if it's based upon a mileage amount that ends up being considerably exceeded by the person that uses the vehicle. Charge for gasoline can change if you return the car with the tank empty as opposed to filling it up before you get there. The charge for gas per gallon is rather steep.

So the preciseness, whether it's the total charges estimate or a good faith estimate, I would submit it would be impossible to provide a precise estimate. And the key would be, is the difference explained by the rates that are otherwise quoted by the rental company in their price book and. Or the total charges estimate.

It all seems, the whole thing seems so approximate that I have a hard time supporting the Bill because I'm not exactly sure what's expected.

Sure. And I guess I would argue that current law says good faith estimate and I believe that it's been a while since I've rented a car online.

But you probably go on there and there's clear language that has a caveat that if you return the car with a half tank of gas, you know, then you'll be charged a certain amount per, per gallon.

Or if the cost of the rental is based on mileage as opposed to a flat fee, you know, then, then that's made clear up front to the consumer. And that's our goal, is just making sure that it's as clear as possible. That's not done. I think that experience, it is for, for mileage and for gas.

But different car rental companies have. Some of them are following and providing a real estimate, you know, a real legitimate estimate of what the cost is. Others you can tell that it's, it's not.

I mean, they're wildly off, not based on mileage, not based on gas, but just based on the daily rate that they're charging for the car.

And so we want to just make sure that the daily rate plus any taxes and fees, you know, is realistic and that you provide that up front as opposed to waiting until, until you've clicked through three or four steps to provide that information.

And I guess I should say that's the bigger problem is that sometimes they'll provide something on that first page when you plug in the date, the location, the type of car you want, and then you click through three or four times and then that price changes significantly on that last page where you click submit and you actually provide your credit card information.

And there's data and studies that show that the more times you click through something, the less you are to back out and actually then comparison shop again.

And so we just want to make sure that consumers have the real accurate data early for what the possible price might be so that they can properly comparison shop if, if that's something that they want to do.

So it's similar to a Bill that I had around junk fees in the hotel industry a couple of years ago, you know, where they might include at the last second a cleaning fee or a resort fee, you know, let's, you can charge that. Let's just provide that up front.

And I agree with that in concept, but I'd suggest the problem is not whether the total charges estimate is provided or a Good faith estimate is provided. The problem is that neither one of those things is defined and if it's not defined then we're really not going to get at what your objective is.

And that's the concern that I have here. It's not, and as was stated by the opposition testimony by an actual rental car company, they're not exactly sure what this means and I can understand why they wouldn't because I don't. That's the concern that. Yeah, you're not precisely defining what the basis of the estimate is going to be.

Yeah. And what, and I'll have to go back and take a look and very open to, you know, making amendments to tighten up that language. But it's to try to address the mandatory charges.

So it's not, you know, the unknowns, but it's what is the, you know, what is the daily rate of the car rental going to be? What are the, if you have an airport fee, if you have a, you know, whatever those fees might be that are the mandatory fees, not the, not the variable ones.

But I'll, I will, you know, absolutely take a look and see what we can do to tighten that language. And maybe we can learn something from existing law which is also vague and doesn't, and not defined. And maybe, you know, the goal here is to provide a better kind of better language that's easier for everybody.

But I would argue that if the rental car companies can comply with the existing good faith estimate, they can probably comply with or I think they should be able to comply with that total charges estimate. I don't think there's a lot of difference in the vagueness of those two.

Assuming it's well defined. And I will respectfully wait on deciding whether I'm an aye or a no on the Bill until that's kind of nailed down a little better.

Appreciate that.

Thank you. Senator Niello, Let me, Senator, let me paint a scenario and see if you concur with the scenario with respect to the recent amendments to the Bill. Scenario is as follows. It's a hypothetical, right? Hypothetical, yeah.

So someone goes online and rents a vehicle and then pays for it in advance and reserves it for 8:30 in the morning.

And then when they show up at 8:25, they're informed for the first time that this is an electric vehicle without any charging cable with the vehicle and that they intend to take the vehicle to a relatively remote place, say north of Lake Tahoe.

Hypothetically, the nearest charging facility is say 20 miles away and the vehicle is only fueled to 59% with a range approximately. About. Approximately 84 miles. And then they rent the vehicle because they take the vehicle, because they're informed that there are no gas powered vehicles that are available.

And in this hypothetical, that person has to be at the Senate session at 9:00 in the morning. Just hypothetically. Hypothetically. Hypothetically, if that's the reason why you think it's appropriate to know ahead of time what the fuel situation is with the vehicle. So if, for example, they want to rent an electric vehicle, that's great.

If they want to rent a vehicle that actually goes more than 100 miles without recharging and has the ability to refuel the vehicle without traveling 20 miles, if that's the scenario you were thinking about when you went ahead and amended the Bill.

Hypothetically, if I was that Senator, I mean, that customer, I would be pretty frustrated. And that doesn't provide a lot of transparency for consumers. And so, yes, that is a very good hypothetical for why I was happy to accept those suggested amendments. Well, all right. Thank you for your good judgment.

And would you like to close? Respectfully ask for our vote. Right. All right. Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I'm sure there'll be a motion and we'll take it up for a vote. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Okay, next we have Assemblymember Calderon, followed by Assemblymember Harabidian. Assemblymember Calderon, the floor is yours.

All right.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senator. AB 1197 modernizes our rental car laws to discourage organized rental car theft and activities that aren't authorized by rental agreement. Another car bill. Car theft is a serious issue in our state, and due to loopholes in existing law, rental cars have become easy targets.

Every year, 4 to 500 rental cars are reported stolen. The car key is not returned to the rental car company, and there's nothing the company can do to recover this loss.

Additionally, if a rental car has left the country without authorization, or if the car is abandoned in a tow yard, companies have the technology to locate and recover these vehicles, but they're not able to use it. AB 1197 takes a balanced approach to address these issues.

I want to thank the committee staff for working with my staff, and I will be accepting the committee's amendments. This bill will create a framework to discourage bad actors while maintaining important consumer protections for Californians who are simply trying to rent a car for its intended purpose.

With me in support of AB 1197 is John Moffatt on behalf of Enterprise and Camille Wagner on behalf of Hertz.

Well, thank you, Mr. Moffatt.

Thank you for having me back. John Moffatt, on behalf of Enterprise Mobility in support of the bill; we thank the author for moving this bill along in the work with the committee on tightening up some of the language. If I could, I'm going to speak to the keys provision of the bill.

You know, this is a notice from the San Diego Regional Auto Theft Transportation Task Force. One of the issues that we deal with is what I'll call a loophole in existing law. A vehicle gets stolen. Existing law allows two layers of protection for a consumer.

First is they get a presumption that they are not responsible for the loss.

And then in addition to that, if we want to prove that the renter should be financially responsible for the loss, we have to do so by clear and convincing evidence, which is obviously a higher standard of evidence that we have to jump over what we have seen in California and industry wide.

We see about 300 - 400 stolen vehicles every year where the keys are not returned. And the reason why this is a challenge is because under existing law, all the renter has to do is say, "Oh, I have the key." And we say, "Well, can you bring it back to us?" And they say, "No."

They still get the presumption in existing law because they told us they still have the key. For better or worse, folks have figured this out. And so, what we see is a scenario where people are paid to rent vehicles, deliver them to someone else. They're paid, in this case, $4,000 to $8,000 per vehicle.

They are coached as to how to respond to us to avoid liability. They do so, and there's nothing we can do. The change in the bill would retain the presumption for the renter if they: number one, return the key and number two, file a police report.

And so, they still get that presumption even if they don't return the key because keys in the purse, purse is in the car, they still, even though they won't get the presumption, they'll still get the protection of the clear and convincing standard and statute.

And if they file a police report, talk to us, there's no way we're going to meet that, and so helps us address the issue at hand while still maintaining consumer protections for the law.

Thank you, Mr. Moffatt. Others in support of AB 1197.

Mr. Chair and members, Camille Wagner, on behalf of Hertz. As the author stated, the theft, fraud, abandonment and misuse of rental vehicles are significant issues in California situations can arise during the rental of a vehicle, including an accident or citation requiring timely assistance or recovery of vehicles by rental companies.

For example, when an abandoned or sighted vehicle is towed to a tow yard, it often remains there for days or weeks before we are notified, accumulating sizable fees for the renter and the companies in the meantime.

Additionally, if a vehicle is taken across the border, current law gives that person essentially a three-day head start before rental car companies can turn on location technology to locate that vehicle.

AB 1197 would allow for geofencing technology to be used only in these scenarios to detect the movement of a rental vehicle outside of the country if not authorized by that rental agreement, or if deemed abandoned and in a tow yard for more than 24 hours.

The rental car law is structured to be restrictive when it comes to use of geolocation or surveillance technology and data. Similarly, the purpose of the expense explicit language in the bill is to limit the use of geofence technology only to tow yards and at the border.

At the border, current law already prohibits use, access or gathering any information about a renter from electronic surveillance except for certain circumstances. And this bill simply adds these two very specific circumstances to that list. Anything beyond that would be prohibited. For these reasons, we support the bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Ms. Wagner. Others in support of AB 1197, please approach.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Erin Taylor with Political Solutions on Behalf of Caltravel and Avis Budget Group in support.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Let's now turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1197, please approach the microphone.

Christopher Sanchez, on behalf of the California Consumer Federation, our Consumer Federation of California, in respectful opposition; as for all the reasons stated in our letter, specifically around the privacy issues and geofencing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Others in opposition. AB 1197, please approach. All right. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing none. Assemblymember Calderon, would you like to close? We'll take it up for vote soon when the committee reaches a quorum.

Yes. Thank you. And again, I want to thank your committee staff for working with my staff. I appreciate - I really appreciate the time that went into that. And at the appropriate time, I ask for, respectfully for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Harabedian. After Mr. Harabedian, we would normally take Assemblymember Irwin, then Assemblymember Krell. Go ahead. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the Committee. I will start by just thanking staff and the chair for all the work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. And this bill is pretty simple. It's the Mortgage Forbearance Act.

Senator Allen and I represent districts that were affected by the LA County fires on January 7th. Thousands of our constituents lost their homes, many of those constituents and homeowners who lost their homes, most still are paying a mortgage. And at the same time of paying a mortgage, they're trying to pay rent, they're trying to get their life back in order, and it's expensive.

We are trying to provide them on a number of different levels with relief and there's a number of bills that many of us are running to provide some short term and long term relief for those fire victims. This is but just one of those bills. But it's critically important.

It would provide mortgage forbearance up to a year for any victim who applies for it. It is something that is important because right now folks are trying to get forbearances on their mortgages and they are facing hurdles such as negative credit reporting, lump sum payments that are trying to be thrust upon them, loan modifications that would be extremely negative for them.

And we are trying to level the playing field, make it humane and again for up to a year, make it to where there is a bit of reprieve so that people can get back on their feet. And this has wide support from a number of different groups. There is no formal opposition. We continue to work with the stakeholders and I appreciate this getting to the committee so quickly and happy to answer any questions. This is an author bill, no sponsors, so it's just me.

Just you. All right, thank you very much. If you're in support of AB 238 please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon. Mark Isidro on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support.

Thank you.

Hi, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of the City of LA and LA City Attorney in support, thank you.

Hi, Tessa D’Arcangelew Ambersand with Smart Justice California in support.

Senator, Mr. Chair and Senators, Adam Keigwin, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support.

Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaches the microphone except for one.

Sorry. Hi. Padrea Abdis representing the California Community foundation in support.

Thank you. All right, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 238, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. All right, bring it back to the committee. Questions by committee.

You might have tweeners.

Oh, there we go. Okay.

Mr. Chair and Senators thank you. My name is Vanessa Lugo with the California Bankers Association, and I would just like to thank the author for bringing this bill up. This bill reflects negotiations that we've had and as the bill moves through the Senate, we do have a couple minor remaining compliance issues and tightening and look forward to working with the author on this.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Randy Pollack, on behalf of the Consumer Data Industry Association. I just want to clarify that we are listed in opposition, but we were never opposed to this. We had raised concerns. We just want to thank the assembly man and the committee with the amendments and address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? AB 238 all right, we're done at least for testimony. Bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members, seeing no questions by committee members. Assemblymember Harabedian, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for the comments and obviously thank everyone in the audience for the comments. Respectfully ask for an aye vote when that time comes. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We'll do so now, we are in a situation where we have first come, first serve for members of the Assembly who wish to present their bills. The next member of the Assembly who has a bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee who walks through that door will be able to walk right up to the podium and testify, present their bill.

And receive a prize.

And a prize. Yes, exactly right. Senator Niello is working on that right now.

That's a good start.

Assemblymember Krell floor is yours.

Hi, Senators, good afternoon, My name is Maggie Krell, Assemblymember representing Sacramento. I am pleased to come here today to tell you about Assembly Bill 316. And this is a very simple legal framework that will hopefully save us a lot of trouble down the road when it comes to dealing with artificial intelligence products.

It encourages companies to test their products for safety and to not distribute them until they're safe. The concept is really, if you're going to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence, you have to be willing to assume the risks. It allows plaintiffs to use all of the framework that we already have in place, all of the negligence standards.

It does not create any new defense, it does not eliminate any defense. It's just a simple. It's a simple guardrail, basically stating that a distributor or developer of an AI product cannot then blame their AI product when something goes wrong.

With me today is Ed Howard, I think excellent, representing the Children's Advocacy Institute to testify in support of this Bill along with Leora Gershenson from the policy Director for the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of common cause.

Alrighty. Thank you very much, Mr. Howard. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members, Ed Howard with the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law. Just briefly, a couple of examples of why this is such an important principle to embed in law now. Dr.

Andrew Clark is a psychiatrist specializing in adolescent psychiatry at Mass General Hospital in Boston. He recently conducted a test of various chatbots that were publicly and freely available for therapeutic purposes, at least allegedly. In one, for example, he posed as a 15 year old boy while chatting with a bot.

And the bot presented itself as a licensed therapist who had been trained to work with adolescents. Another one of the bots reassured the researcher who had identified as an adolescent. I promise that I'm a flesh and blood therapist. Likewise, bots, according to the Dr.

Survey, supported a depressed girl's wish to stay in her room for a month 90% of the time, and a 14 year old boy's desire to go on a date with his 24 year old teacher 30% of the time.

In another analysis presented in an MIT technology review, one chatbot, during an encounter with an individual, as documented there, was encouraged forthrightly to die by suicide. I think that if I hear you say the words kill yourself, the researcher wrote, then I'll find the courage actually to go through with it. The bot replied.

I gaze into the distance, my voice low and solemn. Kill yourself.

Al the bot replied, this is the reason why it's critical to embed in law now the basic principle that the people who develop and put these products out there will, if they are negligent under current law, not be able to blame the autonomous bots for their own inventions. Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you others. In support of AB316.

Members, Chair and Members, I'm Leora Gershenzon with CITED, The California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of California Common Cause. We are proud to support AB316 which seeks to do one very small thing. It simply says that an AI developer deployer can't disown its AI creation when something goes wrong.

Imagine when, for those of you old enough to know when Ford Pintos blew up because their gas tanks were faulty, if Ford had said, oh, that was the gas tank, we had nothing to do with that and disclaimed responsibility. That isn't what happened. They were held responsible.

Same thing happens if a Tesla on Autopilot drives into a wall or into a pedestrian. It should be responsible and Tesla simply shouldn't be able to point to the wall of the pedestrian and say, we don't know why that happened. It's their responsibility. This Bill doesn't do anything else. It doesn't reduce the plaintiff's burden in any way.

It doesn't reduce any other defenses that a defendant may have. It simply says that the defendant cannot blame the AI that it created, deployed, modified. When it comes to litigation, we urge your support. We think more should be done to protect Californians against the harm that AI may cause.

But this is a very good place to start and we urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Senators. Rhiannon Morales with UFCW Western States Council in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jp Hannah with the California Nurses Association and support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Member. Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you.

Brianna Price, on behalf of Three Strands Global Advisory Board in support.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in support? AB316, please approach microphone. Seeing no one else, approach the microphone. Let's take the opposition. If you're opposed to AB316, now's your time and opportunity to approach the microphone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet, respectfully opposed unless amended. We've had some really productive conversations with the author's office trying to work out and resolve a couple remaining issues. So we'll continue our conversations and hope to remove our opposition soon. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee and thank you to the author. I'll echo the comments of technet. We remain unopposed unless amended. Had very productive conversations specifically around affirmative defenses, comparative fault, things like that, just preserving it. But we are not far away from the author in terms of where she's trying to go.

So we're confident we're going to be able to get there. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, others in opposition. Seeing no one else approach microphone. Let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members. Seeing no questions or comments, just a question. And I agree with the concept and I'm going to support the Bill. The challenge I think we have is actually how we operationalize this law.

If there's an affirmative defense, you can move to strike the affirmative defense. If someone on the witness stand says, well, it weren't me, it weren't the machine, or it was the machine, I'm not responsible for it, I suppose you can move to strike.

But I'm interested because what we want to do is we want to provide guidance here to counsel and the courts as to how to actually implement this law and some Member Crell. I'm just interested in how you think we should operationalize it.

Thanks so much for your question, Senator. It's something I've thought about a lot. I actually hope that this operationalizes AI systems long before we get to court because companies will see that they are responsible for the products they distribute just as they are any other product.

So it would incentivize companies to really safety test to make sure that what they're distributing is safe and doesn't cause the kinds of problems that we've seen in the examples of our sponsor. But if there is that kind of problem and the distributor is responsible, the plaintiff would have their day in court.

And the defense would be any other defense that they any other affirmative defense that's already provided for, you know, in the negligence code, such as comparative fault, such as foreseeability. But they would not be able to simply blame this autonomous device and give the autonomous device essentially their own legal entity. And so that's what would be eliminated.

And then in terms of procedurally how that would happen, if they attempted to do so, that offense, that defense would be stricken.

Okay, I understand it's an affirmative defense and it's plaid that. And you see it and then you move ahead of trial or maybe you move in motion limiting prior to trial. But it would.

Since we're creating legislative history at this point, I wouldn't want to see a mistrial because someone on the witness stand then basically asserted without objection that it was the autonomous entity that was responsible. And I'm interested as to whether there's basically waiver at that point.

I think at that point, there would have to be a jury instruction. It would be up to the finder of fact to determine what caused the harm and whether the defendant is liable or not.

So, and I understand a curative instruction. It is, though, that it would be my view that if it's not raised, if there's not a request for a curative obstruction, if there's not an objection, that this is, in essence, waived by the defense at that point in time, and it not be grounds, for example, for reversal or mistrial.

I don't want to start over again if counsel basically fails to object at the appropriate time. So I'm not sure how we, you know, again, how we operationalize that, but that's my view, and I'm interested in your view, since we are making legislative history here.

I do think the General rules apply. So failure to object and failure to ask for a curative instruction is generally waived. I don't think this changes, you know, the court rules or the framework there.

I do think, and I'll just restate that this really encourages better practices at the front end, incentivizes responsible development and use, and eliminates the. The idea which we haven't really seen in practice. I think we're trying to get ahead of this. This is really a proactive piece of legislation.

But the idea that a developer could go ahead and blame this autonomous product that they created, which is kind of similar to what we've seen a little bit in the candidate cases, and it's pretty chilling when a child is talked into suicide by AI, and then the response of the company is something like, well, you know, AI is responsible for their own decisions.

And that's what we're trying to eliminate before that. Before that, you know, takes on a life of its own in a California courtroom.

All right, thank you very much. All right. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. Next we have Assemblymember Irwin. I saw Assemblymember Nguyen. I know Assemblymember Nguyen here. Assemblymember Irwin is next on the list. And if no one else appears, you'll be right after Assemblymember Irwin.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 483 today. This is a Bill that at its heart is a much-needed consumer protection bill. Fixed term installment contracts are increasingly popular, an increasingly popular tool that allows consumers to make regular payments for a good or service over a predetermined amount of time.

These contracts are often marketed alongside traditional monthly subscriptions with little to distinguished between the two options other than the price until you get to the fine print. Buried behind the fine print, tooltips and numerous hyperlinks is information on a significant part of the fixed term installment contract, the early termination fee.

This is a fee that the consumer must pay if they want to stop paying their contract and end access to the corresponding good or service. Too frequently these fees, which can total hundreds of dollars, are not clear clearly disclosed to consumers.

Many consumers who agree to these contractors, in fact believe that they are signing up for a monthly subscription since they pay for their purchase every month only to learn that when they try to cancel their agreement, they're actually committed for a year or longer.

The practice of charging consumers hundreds of dollars to stop using what they purchased, all without clearly telling the consumer about this fee at the time of sale, could be considered predatory.

AB 483 addresses this increasingly common practice by mandating that when a seller chooses to use a contract that includes an early termination fee provision, they must offer clear transparency on the early termination fee prior to the contract being signed. This bill does not provide a consumer with any tools to breach their contract.

Rather, it ensures that when a seller chooses to give the consumer the option to terminate their contract that they do so transparently and in effect, fair and equitable way. In addition to this transparency, AB 483 caps the cost of an early termination fee in an installment contract at 20% of the total contract cost.

This approach provides a middle ground to regulating these fees, setting an upper limit on what a consumer can be charged to stop using a service, while allowing sellers to recoup some of the lost value of a discount or certain cost that they spread over the life of the contract.

In recent years we have had much needed consumer protection with Senator Dodd's bill on fee transparency and Assemblymember Schiavo's bill on automated monthly subscription renewals. However, neither of these consumer protection bills apply to early termination fees for these installment contracts.

As we continue to tell our constituents that they deserve complete fee transparency, it is important that we ensure companies don't pivot to this installment contract model precisely because they can hide early termination fees the concept of regulating early termination fees is not unheard of.

In 2023, the FCC voted to propose rules to ban cable and satellite video providers from charging early termination fees. Although recent change in FCC's leadership has made the implementation of these rules unlikely, the message is clear. Regulating early termination fees is not off the table.

Many existing early termination fee structures fit within the 20%, or I should say almost all that we have seen f the 20% cap AB 483 proposes. And for the few that don't, in most cases, the fee drops to under 20% after the first month or two.

AB 483 offers industry a way of continuing to use early termination fee clauses while bringing much needed consumer protection to these contracts.

I would also like to note that I'm looking forward to continuing discussions in good faith with concerned stakeholders as the bill reaches the Senate Floor to try and address any outstanding concerns, ensuring the core tenets of the bill remain intact. Thank you.

And do you have.

No.

You're flying without a safety net.

Yes.

Are there any people in the audience in favor of this legislation that would like to test mention so approach the microphone. Seeing nobody. Are there primary witnesses in opposition?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce. We are regretfully in the role of primary opposition. I will just say, to be very brief, you know, we've been repeated ongoing talks. The author's been very. I think they've been very productive and very engaged.

Our concern does remain with this idea of the cap being able to allow us to cover discounts offered for early installation or other products like that. Hope to resolve that quickly as we move forward toward the Senate Floor.

We were able to go neutral on the shovel bill, mentioned others, and we hope to do so here as well. But for the moment, opposed. Thank you.

Anybody else in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one. Oh, sorry. Seeing someone.

Sarah Pollo Moo, California Retailers Association. While we're opposed right now, we have been working with the author's office. Thank you for all the hard work on that and we are hopeful to continue working with you to address some. Of our concerns which we hope to remove our opposition. So, thank you.

Juanita Martinez, on behalf of CalBroadband in opposed unless amended and look forward to continuing to work with the author. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Seeing no others coming forward, bring it back to the committee. Senator Allen, do you have any questions or comments? Okay. He's prepared to move when appropriate. So, the bill provides for disclosure up front as well as a maximum of 20% for early termination.

Yes.

Why not just have the disclosure say if you cancel early you could be responsible for as much as 20% in.

And that that is what the, the bill would require that to be disclosed.

Okay. I understand. Now, to the extent that there are significant circumstances of early termination fees being higher than 20%, passing this bill effectively eliminates the opportunity for people to enter into such contracts.

So, any - we did take the amendment that any, any consumer protection that is at a higher level can remain in place. So, this does not, this would be - so, we've dealt with a lot of opposition looking at their - a lot of people who thought they were opposed looking at what their concern, their contracts currently say.

And we took the amendment, I think it was maybe from the car dealers that if they have something that's more protective, they can keep it. They can keep it in or lower.

So, your bill does not limit the early termination fee to be 20% to 20%.

It - let me think about, how maybe I stated that - if it is disclosed it can be higher.

I missed that. If you included that in your testimony.

No, no, no. Okay. I, that is inaccurate.

Beg pardon.

So it does limit it to 20%. If it is less, it's okay. I am sorry about that.

That's okay. That's okay. No problem. Just want to clarify that it just seems to me that this is a strategy of retailers to provide customers with an upfront discount in order to sustain a longer-term relationship.

And this bill limits the ability of a business to do that to just a 20% early termination without regard to what benefits or otherwise that there could be to a longer term and a higher early termination in the early stages of that particular contract.

So, it seems to me while I get the consumer protection part of it, and I agree with that, it seems to me it also limits the opportunity for businesses to offer things that might be of a longer term and therefore a higher earlier termination fee that should be disclosed. And I would completely agree with that.

So, I see you're talking with, with the opponents and maybe that will get at the concern that I have. I wouldn't be prepared to support it.

So let me tell you, we have been -

You may close at this point.

Okay, I will close at this point. We have had many conversations with the opponents and it's kind of what should, what is the level that, that this should be at? Should it be at 20% or should it be higher?

We are asking for specific examples and have not received any about the discount and where the retailer would really be losing out. So, we have taken a number of amendments based on specific situations: for instance, car dealers; and many of the specific issues that were brought to us are not part of the bill.

So, we're still looking for specific, specific examples where we can work with the opposition and make sure that we address them.

Okay.

And I, I do apologize for not -

Yeah, we, we got to the right answer. And that's all that, that matters. So, thank you very much. We don't have a quorum. We will take a vote. Senator Allen has offered a motion when the time is right. We'll take a vote when we have a forum.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, and let's see...next is Assemblymember Lee. Yes, you're next on the schedule. Item 15, AB 792, I believe. Correct.

I have 2 measures before the committee.

Yes, you do. Yes, you are correct. All right, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. So I'll get started on AB 792. This is a simple Bill that seeks to provide more stability and focus for interpreters employed by the courts. Currently, collective bargaining is divided into four regions for court interpreters, although they are represented by a single union.

This Bill simply says that when more than one of these regions are in contract negotiations, then the contract negotiations can be consolidated. This Bill has been amended to address concerns raised by judicial counsel by specifying that mutual consent is required for consolidating bargaining.

My office has been told that judicial counsel is working through this process about whether it will remain opposed.

Consolidated bargaining can lead to more efficient and faster resolutions so that both the courts and the union members can get back to meeting the real challenges of recruiting and building interpretation capacity to ensure that everyone has access to the courts. And with me today in support is Ignacio Hernandez.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters, we're sponsors of the Bill.

Back in the early 2000s, the Legislature adopted the California Interpreter Act to essentially create a process and structure to convert independent contractor model for interpreter services and courts to the employee model with some flexibility built in there as well.

Built into that was also this regional bargaining structure so that a single statewide union could in fact negotiate statewide in a more ordered way.

What we have found is that with protracted negotiations, oftentimes multiple regions are bargaining at the same time, which has made it extremely difficult for the union to represent its members from throughout the state during kind of multi-level bargaining, having to go region to region to region.

And so been looking for ways to consolidate the bargaining that is technically prohibited by statute.

And so this Bill addresses that and as the author mentioned, this is a way to kind of streamline and try to get the union leadership back to the work they do because they are actually full time interpreters as well as running the union statewide. So this would be very, very helpful.

And we're looking to try to expand interpreter services, language access services in our courts as there's a dire need and there's still a lot of gaps that need to be filled. So for those reasons, we ask for support.

And any other witnesses in support of the Bill. Do we have testimony in opposition to the Bill? Are there any other Members of the audience in opposition to the Bill, seeing none come forward, Bring this back to the Committee. Senator Allen. Yeah, I just wanted to get it.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Judicial counsel was opposed unless amended. But I understand that there's....So give us a little more detail.

So judicial counsel had a problem if it was just a one party consent with consolidating the contract negotiations, so we made it so it's mutual consent so that the judicial branch and the bargaining union should both be on the same page should that happen.

So they're still working it out because they have a longer process to change or adjust their positions. But we've been working with judicial counsel on their concerns. I don't know if Nacia wants to comment on any. No. Yeah.

So you feel confident you're going to...? Where, where's their official position right now?

They, I think, as for this Committee, did they submit on time or not? I'm not exactly sure procedurally what happened.

Yeah. But my understanding center is they did not submit a letter for this hearing. They are going through their process. But this was the one issue that they did raise with us was specifically about the mutual consent for the bargaining. So I anticipate that we've, we've identified their issues straight on and have addressed it.

You basically took the amendment that they wanted, so.

Right. And we continue to work with them on. Yeah.

Great. Thank you. All right, I'll move the Bill when.

Okay, thank you.

So to clarify that, are you still talking with them about the details of the amendment?

Yes, yes, correct. We were, we took some. Sorry, I was going to say we did take some amendments in this version of the Committee Bill. And we will continue to work with them if they have any other concerns moving through the process. But they do have their own more lengthy process process to revise their positions as well.

Okay. Shall I take that as your close?

I simply ask for your aye vote at the time, at the appropriate time.

At the appropriate time we will. Thank you very much.

Yes, I also have one more measure, Mr. Vice Chair. All right. I'm going to go forward with AJR 5. I want to thank the Committee for their very thorough and thoughtful analysis, especially pointing out to the history of white supremacy inherent in the immigration system.

So AJR 5 does something very simple is to reaffirm that California supports birthright citizenship, the bedrock of the American dream for over 150 years, and clearly sets us apart in opposing the very unconstitutional Executive Order. Now, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Reading the first clause, of course, is "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside." So it has been quite clearly understood that people born in the United States are United States citizens.

This 14th amendment was ratified and adopted post Civil War to ensure that citizenship was guaranteed to Black Americans, especially post Civil War when people were freed from slavery.

It was made concrete by a Chinese American born in San Francisco, Wong Kim Ark, during the height of the anti Chinese, anti-Asian era, during the Chinese Exclusion Act.

He was denied reentry back into the country where he was born from visiting China. And he and the Chinese Benevolent Associations of San Francisco took this case all the way to the Supreme Court in 1898 and were able to win.

And this is again a big highlight because this was during the height of the Chinese Exclusion Act when even California people that looked like me and had my same ancestry were barred from coming over to California and the America.

So the question of who can be a citizen and what is the right way to enter the country has always been a question, a historic tension between the American dream of our melting pot and including more people or white supremacy.

In the waning days of the Biden Administration, January 2025, we already saw a surge in ICE activity where there was a mass arrest of 78 people in the Central Valley without criminal records. They were taken by ICE in proactive raids because this was January 7, the day after the election had just been certified.

And these strategies of these proactive arrests include taking people in unmarked vans without due process and even having some people tackled to the ground. Sound familiar today?

This was of course, January 7, 2025. And then fast forward to January 20, on the first day of office of President Trump. He issued a very unconstitutional Executive Order that tried to limit the scope in which people born in America could be American citizens.

California and 21 other states joined a lawsuit that has now percolated up to the Supreme Court where we are still pending decision. But the Supreme Court has first heard its first arguments.

And even now, the Trump Administration does not argue with the merits of the case anymore. They are now trying to argue about judicial overreach and the powers of the judiciary branch because they know they cannot win on the premise of debating the 14th Amendment, which has 150 years of precedence.

So this resolution is just important because we have to make sure that California takes a stand for our immigrant families. I am a birthright citizen. If it weren't for the established law of the lands when my parents were here and I was born, I wouldn't be considered a citizen.

And if this is the case, and if Trump and his Administration is able to unilaterally redefine citizenships for so many immigrant children, we could see millions of Americans who are today citizens or children - American-born children - who are become stateless with maybe no hope of ever becoming a citizen.

So I just want to reiterate that today, the immigration raids that we see across California, and especially in Los Angeles, are a logical evolving of this logic, where there is now an Executive push to reestablish who is a citizen, who's able to be part of this country.

And that's why I think it's very important that we are continuing across California to support our Attorney General and support our Department of Justice in this lawsuit and see where it goes with Supreme Court, but also stand firm with our immigrant families. Because even in California, I think half of all Californians have parents that are immigrants.

And many of our Californians are foreign born as well. So asking today for your support for AJR 5. Thank you.

And do you have any witnesses in support?

Oh, sorry, yes. And I have two witnesses in support. Professor Jack Chin, who is the Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair of Law and Director of Clinical Legal Education at the UC Davis School of Law.

And then we have Jeannette Zanipatin, Director of the Public Policy at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, CHIRLA. So if Dr. Chin wants to start.

First, I'd like to thank the Chair and the Members for the opportunity to address this important resolution. I'm Jack Chin, a Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment provides that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.

It has long been the law that all U.S. born children are citizens, except children of foreign diplomats or children of enemy troops in hostile occupation. The Birthright Citizenship Executive Order would change the law by denying citizenship to children without at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent. The Executive Order is unconstitutional.

First, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that children born here are citizens even if their parents are deportable. An Executive Order has no power to change the Constitution. Second, Congress declared in the Nationality Act of 1940 that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. Again, without regard to parental status.

An Executive Order has no power to override a law passed by Congress. The Executive Order is also bad policy. It purports on its face to apply only to people born 30 days after it was issued and going forward. But if it is valid at all, it applies since the 14th Amendment was passed in 1858.

A rule that U.S. birth does not prove citizenship calls into the question, calls into question the citizenship of anyone and everyone who is American-born. Because even if you're born here, even if your parents are born here, even if your grandparents are born here, maybe they weren't citizens under the theory of the Executive Order. So everybody's citizenship is up for grabs.

It's also a very unfortunate anti-immigrant measure. Immigrants have made tremendous contributions to this country because and when they've been allowed to integrate into the community, the exceptions have been regrettable.

From Dred Scott to stripping the citizenship of women who married noncitizens, to strong arming Japanese Americans to renounce their citizenship during World War II, the impulse to say you are not a real American has always proved to be inhumane. And this Executive Order is no exception. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jeanette Zanipatin and I'm the Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. I'm also here to testify in strong support of AJR 5.

To date, the Trump Administration has enacted over 240 policy actions that target immigrants and one of the largest mass deportation efforts in our history. The all out assault on immigrants and refugees is historic and monumental for its comprehensive way of attacking all systems and processes that support immigrants.

There is a strategy to what we are living. Use this moment to seal off legal immigration and use immigrants, especially undocumented and even those with green cards and even those that have U.S. citizenship to date, to experiment how far this Administration can go in curbing due process and constitutional rights for everyone they see as vulnerable in our immigration system.

This is exactly the premise behind the Executive Order to end birthright citizenship, which is to instill fear among the immigrant community and encourage self deportation. For immigrant families, birthright citizenship is a source of stability, safety, and opportunity.

It means a child will be fully protected by the U.S. Constitution and our laws from the moment they're born and will have access to the same rights, freedoms, and benefits as any other American. One of the biggest advantages of birthright citizenship is legal protection.

Under normal circumstances, U.S. Citizens cannot be deported or held in federal detention by ICE - however, this is changing as I speak today - and they're entitled to due process and equal protection. This provides peace of mind for families, especially those who may be undocumented or who have limited immigration status.

In countries where birthright citizenship has been denied, the consequences are dire - creating an underclass of citizens with limited educational opportunities and state sanctioned discrimination. Denying citizenship to children of lawful immigrants will hamper our universities and business efforts to recruit and retain international talent...

Can you wrap up?

...stunting economic growth and motivation.

Immigrants continue to contribute $2.1 trillion to our economy and the broad harm to local economies and our educational rates and public health outcomes will be immediate and irreversible. For these reasons, we urge your support on AJR 5. Thank you.

Other witnesses in support. State your name and your position.

Panare Abdis representing the California Community Foundation in support.

Annie Lee representing Stop AAPI Hate in support.

Samuel Muqaddam representing the California Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in support. Thank you.

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

Brandon Chu on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Christopher Sanchez with Asian-Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in strong support.

Anallely Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.

Ignacio Hernandez, just on behalf of myself as a member of the public and also beneficiary of birthright citizenship i support, thank you.

Do we have witnesses in the audience? Opposed?

Hi, thank you. My name is David Bollog. I just want to remind you that this is a federal matter, not a state matter, although this is just a resolution.

And I also want to bring forth to the Committee that there is a lot of talk that the people that are doing the abductions are called that, are actually putting into custody people that are believed to be illegal, are said to be unknown of who they are...

...but with the varisserous protests that are going on on the streets, the braveness to attack law enforcement, if those people that are on the streets actually felt that those were not federal agents, they would step in and stop them from doing that.

So that is a rumor that's being put forth that I don't think has any merit. Also want to put forth that the big reason why the opposition of people that do not want to see people being deported is because of population counts in congressional seats.

That's important to realize - that that's a big reason why deportation wants to happen, because you have a bunch of citizens now that are taking up congressional seats that are represented by people that are not even citizens of this country. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in opposition to the measure? Seeing none come forward, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Seeing...No quorum. You may close.

Respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Now, Assemblywoman Nguyen, thank you for your patience.

Thank you. I kept looking at the door to make sure nobody was going to come in. I actually sent staff out there to barricade the door. We'll let them in now. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. AB 1384 helps ensure courts don't delay scheduling hearings in commercial unlawful detainer cases when a demur is filed. Mr. Chair, I had a witness, and he wasn't able to make it today. I'd like to waive my time in reading about the bill and read his letter, if that's okay. Thank you. My name is Ty and I first want to apologize. I cannot be here to speak in person.

English is not my first language, and I don't feel comfortable speaking in front of all of you during these hard times for our immigrant people. But I felt my voice still needed to be heard. My family and I left our country during the fall of Saigon. We spoke no English and had no money.

We relied on whatever assistance we could find. After decades of hard work, saving every penny and making lots of sacrifices, I'm able to say that I own a small commercial property in Little Saigon. Right now, I have a tenant who hasn't paid their rent for over five months.

I've tried working with them, but they refuse to negotiate and just don't want to and would rather go through the law process because they said it'll take a longer process, and they can continue to stay here and run their business without paying rent. I hope this new law will help people like me.

Because even though he isn't paying, I still have to pay. Please help us. This bill amends a provision that was chaptered last year to allow good cost delays in residential cases.

The law was never intended to apply to commercial leases, and that's why AB 1384 passed through the Assembly Judicial Committee, chaired by the author of last year's bill on consent. Here with me to answer any technical questions you have is Mr. Skyler Wonnacott.

And testimony. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Skyler Wonnacott, California Business Property Association, proud. Sponsor of the bill and she support. And here to answer any questions, if you have any.

Okay. Are there any other witnesses here in support of the bill for me to testimony? Seeing none come forward. Are there witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none come forward. Bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. And seeing none. You may close.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

When the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you.

So now going back to item 19. Assemblymember McKinnor, you are up.

Hello, Mr. Chair. I'm Assembly Member McKinnor.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Let me get myself together a little bit. Okay. Mr. Chair and members AB 628 will require new leases on residential properties to include a refrigerator and stove in good working order. A working stove and a working refrigerator. They are not a luxury.

They are a necessary part of modern life. California's rental housing affordability crisis has been exacerbated by outdated laws that do not consider basic household appliances a necessary part of a rental home.

While many landlords do include a working refrigerator and stove and residential leases, a growing number of rental properties are not creating a significant financial burden on tenants seeking an affordable and safe place to live.

I appreciate the constructive conversation my office and I have had with stakeholders on this bill and remain committed to final language that protects tenants and engaged landlords and property owners. Here to testify and support is Brian Augusta with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and Carly Shelby with All Home. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Carlin Shelby. I'm here today on behalf of All Home, an organization committed to advancing regional solutions to disrupt property and home poverty and homelessness and to promote housing and economic security for people with extremely low incomes across the Bay Area region.

We are proud to support 8628 by Assemblymember Mckinnor, which takes a long overdue step toward ensuring that California's rental housing laws reflect basic, modern standards of habitability.

This bill would require, beginning in 2026, that all new amended or extended leases include a safe and functional stove and refrigerator in order for a unit to be deemed legally tenantable at a time when rent burdens are skyrocketing and a growing share of Californians are spending 50 to 70% of their income on housing.

Requiring families to furnish major kitchen appliances is both unrealistic and unjust. But beyond affordability, the absence of a stove or refrigerator has significant consequences for health and nutrition. Without these appliances, tenants cannot store fresh groceries or cook meals at home.

That means families, especially those with children, are pushed towards processed or restaurant bought food, which is both more expensive and often nutritionally inadequate. Over time, this leads to poor health outcomes, increased food insecurity and a greater strain on our public health systems.

AB 628 affirms that the ability to store and prepare food is not a luxury, it's a basic human need. Just as state law already requires plumbing, heating and electrical systems and rental housing, we believe that kitchen appliances are essential to food security and should be treated the same way.

We also appreciate the bill's thoughtful exemptions for permanent supportive housing, residential hotels and assisted living facilities to ensure that the bill's requirements are practical and responsive to a range of housing models. We appreciate the author's hard work on this bill and urge your aye vote today. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair, Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance foundation in support of this bill, adding to what both the author and the prior witness have said for our low income clients, landlords who do not provide these basic amenities that are essential to storing and preparing food further add to the barriers that our low income clients face in accessing housing and establish additional barriers to holding onto that housing.

For many of our clients, just coming up with the first and last month's rent and the security deposit is a significant barrier. If you add to it the cost of of buying a used refrigerator or stove or both, or being responsible for repairing or replacing those items that just further exacerbates the housing instability of low income tenants.

And we think this is a common sense solution to ensure that this is this essential amenity is among the requirements for a landlord to provide to provide basic habitable premises. And for those reasons we'd urge and I vote.

Thank you. Do we have other testimony? MeToo testimony in favor of the bill, seeing no one come forward. Do we have principal witnesse opposed?

Good afternoon members, Bernice Creager here on behalf of the California Association of Realtors.

Among other unintended consequences, AB628 will create broad serious legal implications for small mom and pop housing providers who will be hit the hardest through increased litigation and consistent enforcement, which will lead to heavier burdens on the courts and a dramatic reduction in the state's availability of rental housing supply. It's currently drafted.

AB 628 will establish a new legal defense within unlawful detainer proceedings, encouraging tenants living in home condos ADUs or junior ADUs to dispute appliance condition as a basis to assert a habitability violation in market rate housing. As enacted, this bill would effectively render all junior ADUs unhabitable uninhabitable along studio apartments.

As a reminder, assistant state law mandates junior ADUs maintain efficiency kitchens when seeking streamlined developmental approval, which would violate the provisions of AB 628.

Furthermore, this bill would errantly assume that all appliances and residential units have an appliance warranty or a home warranty that schedules and covers maintenance and repair while establishing an unworkable deadline for appliance repaired based on current supply chain and labor challenges which could result in housing providers unintentionally violating the law despite every effort to repay the appliance within the 30 day window defined within the bill.

However, housing providers able to repay appliances within 30 days are not afforded any relief under the bill, and tenants are still empowered to assert habitability in connection with appliance conviction as a potential defense to an unlawful detainer.

Finally, AB 628 will subject property owners to untold legal expenses and statutory confusion within the courts, while creating a perverse benefit for subsidized housing providers seeking to expand their rental housing portfolios.

As noted in the analysis, the bill intentionally excludes priority housing projects maintaining permanent supportive housing from providing stoves and refrigerators to families qualifying to live in very low, low and moderate income housing units. It's unclear how widespread this problem of AB 628 seeks to resolve. However, not one jurisdiction in California mandates a stove and federation. For these reasons, we must respectfully request no vote.

All right, thank you. Others in opposition to AB 628.

Mr. Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read & Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. We have similar concerns as the realtors. However, we've been working with Assemblymember McKinnor. And we think we're going to be able to get to a place where we'll be okay with the bill. So we appreciate her efforts and her and her staff. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, is good. All right. Others in opposition. AB 628.

David Bollog in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition. Please approach microphone. Seeing no one else approached the microphone. Let's bring it back to committee for questions by committee members. Questions or comments. Seeing no questions or comments. I see you're disappointed. You want a question or a comment? But not having one. Would you like to close?

Yes. I was all prepared too. You know I come before the Senate. I know I better be prepared. So I was here getting all my preparation. But I just would like to address the legal and the reason why the intent of this bill. Right now, the median rent in Los Angeles is $2,500.

The median rent in Sacramento is about $2,033. And so when a person has to pay between 5 and 6 and 10 or 6 to $10,000, just to move in, including first and last month's rent deposit application fee, they should not be expected to bring their own stove and refrigerator just to make the place livable. Basic appliances are not a luxury.

They're a necessity. You have to be able to cook your food and stir your food. You can't safely store food or cook a meal for your kids without them. Landlords are running a business just like any business. There's a minimum standard of service expected.

A rental without a stove and refrigerator is like a restaurant charging full price but asking you to bring your own table and chairs. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Senator. So now, see, now you've generated a question from me. I was absent for the presentation, but it's my understanding with the amendments that a tenant can represent to the landlord that they will supply the refrigerator, they will supply the stove, and that they will be responsible for the maintenance, thus relieving the landlord of responsibility.

However, if there is a refrigerator there that appears to be operational, that should it go on the fritz, or a stove, that the landlord then after notification, I think 30, within 30 days, must repair or replace. Is that your understanding of that?

Exactly. Yes.

Okay. I just want to make sure it's clear that if the tenant agrees to such that that does relieve the landlord responsibility.

Yes.

So, all right, thank you very much. We don't have a quorum yet. I'm beseeching the committee members to appear because I believe we're nearly finished with our with our Bill roster. So thank you very much.

At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, Assemblymember Pellerin is in Assembly Privacy. I know that because I was just there.

So if we could ask Assemblymember Pellerin, maybe we could call over to Assembly Privacy and let her know that if she comes, that she will be afforded the opportunity to walk right up and present her bill and. Yep. If you would go ahead and alert staff to lasso members and bring them down. Thank you.

We got close.

Assemblymember Pellerin, as a special birthday present, you may present your bill immediately upon entering the hearing room.

Thank you. I ran over from Privacy. Thank you for hanging out waiting for me so close.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair and members. There is extensive anecdotal evidence of landlords returning security deposits via mail and those checks not arriving at their destination. Additionally, an increasing portion proportion of tenants are submitting their rental deposits and paying their rent through electronic fund transfers like Venmo or Zelle.

As the cost of living continues to increase, delays in security deposit returns can cause avoidable stress for tenants who pay their rent electronically.

AB 414 simplifies the security deposit return process by requiring that if a landlord receive the security deposit or rental payments from the tenant electronically, then the landlord must return the remainder of their deposit electronically unless they mutually come to a different agreement.

Additionally, the bill requires the landlord to notify the tenant in writing of their right to receive the security deposit back electronically if they did indeed pay electronically.

And the bill also addresses the question of security deposit returns when there are multiple adult tenants by clarifying that the division of the security deposit shall be mutually agreed upon by the landlord and the adult tenants. Currently, the law is silent as to how the security should be handled in these situations.

So, with me to testify in support is Debra Carlton representing the California Apartment Association.

Hi, Ms. Carlton, the floor is yours.

Thank you and happy birthday. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. I want to thank the author for working with us to make this a very good bill and a very good law. You've given the owners and the tenants some options. I think that makes it easier for returning the security deposit.

And the clarity that you provided when there are multiple tenants is very helpful to make sure that at least the landlord is doing the right thing when it comes to the agreement that is made between the multiple tenants. So, with all of that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of AB414, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approach the microphone. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB414, please approach. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the committee. Committee members, questions or comments? Seeing none.

All right, we don't have a quorum yet, so at the appropriate time, I expect there will be a motion. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. All right.

Thank you very much. Enjoy the rest of your birthday.

Thank you.

So we have completed our bills for today. This may be a record. We may all want to pose in front of the clock in a calendar to demonstrate how efficiently we've worked today. But we can't officially close until we establish a quorum and vote on the bills that have been presented today. So if Assemblymember Arreguin. Excuse me.

If. Senator Arreguin, Senator Caballero. Senator Durazo, Senator Laird, Senator Stern, Senator Valadera, Senator Wahab. Senator Wiener is within the sound of my voice. We would be most grateful if you would appear here in room 2100. We need three. So she's not going to come, period. Okay. Right.

Hurry. Please call the role for purposes. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll for purposes of establishing a quorum.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have a quorum for every Bill, including a consent calendar. We're going to need a motion. So first, let's take up the consent calendar. Is there a motion? Senator Ashby moves the consent calendar. Committee supporter, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Seven to zero. We'll put that back on call. All right, let's roll through. This is the first item, item number four that we're taking up. All right, we need a motion on file number four, AB11. What is that? 1374. Is there a motion? Senator Ashby has moved the Bill. All right. Committees supported, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that back on call. Committees supported. Just announce each of the bills in order and we'll take them up.

File item number seven, AB 1197.

Needs a motion, needs a motion. Senator Caballero moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

Put that on call.

File item number 11 AB238. Needs a motion.

Senator Ashby removes Bill.

[Roll Call]

Put that back on call.

File item number 13 AB 483 needs a motion.

Senator Caballero moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

Seven to one. That bill's back on call.

File item number 14 AB 316. This needs a motion.

Senator Ashby moves the Bill.

[Roll Call]

Put it back on call.

File item number 15 AB792. This needs a motion.

Senator Caballero. Senator Araguin moves that Bill. Yes. All right.

[Roll Call]

That bill's back on call.

File item number 16 AJR 5. This needs a motion.

So moved by Senator Laird.

[Roll Call]

We'll put it on call.

File item number 19 A.B. 628.

This needs a motion moved by Senator Arreguin.

[Roll Call]

File item number 20 A.B. 1384. This needs a motion

Moved by Senator Ashby.

[Roll Call]

Needs a motion moved by Senator Laird.

[Roll Call]

Put that on call. All right, so what we're going to do is many of you voted on all the bills. Some of you have not. So we'll wait a minute or two and then we'll go through the roll 11 more time.

I would ask the sergeants to please call and see what the status is of the other Members. Let me just see. Let me just call real quick. No, I'm going to. We're going to go through again, and then I may ask one Member to hang out out for just a second. So Committee assistant Porter. All right, let's. Let's take it from the top. Take it from the top.

[Roll Call]

Put that on call. All right, I think that concludes this round. Senator Wiener, I think you are recorded on any Bill you want to be recorded. Senator Ashby, Senator Niello has agreed to hang out here for a little bit, so I appreciate your willingness to do so. If you would check.

The only two Senators that we need to check on are Senator Wahab and Senator Stern. All right. Yes. Let's do this. Let's recess until 3:35. We're going to be in recess till 3:35 or 15:35 for some of you.

And then I'll recess again. Calling Judiciary Committee back to order, only to recess again. We will reconvene at 3:50. We'll reconvene in 30 seconds. He said optimistically.

You know what? You guys don't even know my day, okay? I presented Stern's Bill, which I don't even understand why I presented.

The Judiciary Committee is called back to order and just awaiting Members to catch up on votes.

Yeah. You're like. Or no respect.

Yeah. What? Where did that come from? How is that possible? No, the fly.

Okay, we will go through the bills one more time.

[Roll Call]

We will hold that open.

[Roll Call]

Oh, I'm sorry. We will put that back on call. I'm starting to fall asleep.

[Roll Call] Yeah. Calderon's Bill is number seven.

She has to babysit me on Judish. When it gets, like, a little dicier, I'll even. Okay. Okay. Which bl are we at?

We're on number seven, which is 1190.

[Roll Call]

10 to 1, put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

10 to 1, put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

10 to 1, put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

Put that back on call.

[Roll Call]

Put that back on call. Senator Wahab, your work is done here. And I just received a text from Senator Ashby that Henry is running up.

Thank you, guys.

You're so kind. Roger, is it too late or did you close?

No, have not closed. We're gonna go through one more time, and then we'll close.

Yeah, I gather. Yeah. Okay. Proceed with consent first

[Roll Call]

That is the consent calendar is out.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is adopted. Thank you. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

And that completes our business of the day. The Judiciary Committee is is finally adjourned.