Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Senate Committee on Judiciary will come to order. 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 that we can establish our quorum and begin the hearing. I am actually going to begin as a Subcommitee.

All right, some announcements before we turn to the consent calendar. File number 24 AB2, by Assemblymember Lowenthal has been pulled from the agenda. Let me now announce the consent calendar. The following 11 bills are on consent today. They are as follows. File number three, AB 1327, by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. 10, AB 456 by submit Member Conley.

Filemn number 11, ABC 540, by Assemblymember Conley. File number 12 AB 584, by Assemblymember Dixon. What did I say?

You said 5584.

It's 484-484- okay. This whole discussion thing's hard. AB 484, by Assemblymember Dixon with amendments. File number 13 AB 1170, by Assemblymember Dixon. File number 15 AB 1447, by Assemblymember Gibson. Number 18, AB 979, by Assemblymember Erwin. File number 23, AB 1524, by Assemblymember. By the Assembly Judiciary Committee. File number 27 AB 1370, by Assemblymember Patterson.

File number 29 AB 1105, by Assemblymember Quirk Silva with amendments. And Finally, file number 34, AB463, by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. All right, and I see Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry here. So if you would like, the floor is yours. And then I see Assemblymember Irwin here. If no other Member shows up, it'll be Assemblymember Erwin after Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry.

I have two bills.

Yes, we'll do them both.

Thank you very much.

Whichever order you would like to proceed in.

Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I would like to thank the Committee staff for their hard work on this bill. And I commit to working with you.

Madam Majority, which one would you like to do first?

325.

325. Okay. Got item number two, AB 325.

It'll be a little bit longer. I'd like to thank the Committee and staff for their hard work on this bill. I commit to working with you on the remaining details moving forward.

I'd also like to thank my sponsors for their thorough work on this complex issue and all of our supporters from small businesses, labor, housing and the Tech Oversight Committee. Finally, thank you to the Attorney General's Office and former US DOJ staff who have continued to provide us thoughtful feedback.

Members it doesn't matter if price fixing happens as a direct agreement between people or through digital tools. It's wrong either way. Until I started working on this, I thought most of California's affordability crisis was due to market forces. But it's not just that.

For years, companies have been using illegal price fixing algorithms that have created market monopolies and have hurt innovation and small business. They've used the technology to collude on prices on rental housing, groceries like chicken and potatoes, or even employee wages. These tools benefit large corporations and drive up the prices for consumers and our small businesses.

It's time our laws catch up to the technology so our constituents don't literally pay the price. AB 325 updates California's antitrust laws to address the use of modern tools for illegal price fixing I have taken over four rounds of amendments to address opposition's concerns.

These include providing safe harbors for business, acting in good faith, explicitly exempting end users of a product who aren't part of price fixing, and striking sections related to data that caused confusion. I also removed joint and several liability from this bill to make sure small businesses weren't penalized for the actions of large businesses.

Finally, I recently took amendments offered by Cal Chamber to clarify section one of the bill. There's nothing wrong with businesses making a fair profit for their products, but but there is something wrong with coercing people to fix prices. California families need us to take immediate steps to address our affordability crisis.

So let's restore truly free market competition so nobody has the unfair advantage and consumers don't get the short end of the stick.

Today I am joined by Lee Hepner with the American Economic Liberties Project and Doha Mekhi for who was the former Acting Assistant Attorney General at the US Department of Justice and is currently a Senior Fellow at Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice.

Thank you, Majority Leader. One second because I failed to announce the ground rules here for the hearing. They are the same as other hearings, but for those of you who are not frequent fliers, they are as follows that on the support side we will take two witnesses. Each of them will have two minutes to testify.

After the support witnesses are done, those two primary witnesses will then take what we call MeToo testimony, where you can approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, whatever organization you're affiliated with, and your position on the bill. After we're done with the support MeToo witnesses, we'll then turn to the opposition.

The opposition will have the same opportunity. Two primary witnesses, two minutes each. And then we'll take MeToo testimony with the name, the affiliation, the position of those who are opposed to starting with AB325. So having said that, I understand you have witnesses in support. They approach the microphone.

Okay.

Floor is yours. Thank you. Chair Umberg and Committee Members. My name is Lee Hepner. I'm an antitrust attorney with the American Economic Liberties Project, where we have been investigating extensively the proliferation of tools that, that are used to facilitate collusion across. Across the economy, across industries.

As the Member the author indicated, from meatpacking to construction rental equipment to housing to groceries, software is proliferating not to enhance competition, but to harm it. And the purpose of this bill is to restore fairness to California's economy where it has been lost.

I'm suggesting that the foundation of a fair economy, and this is a principle with deep understanding in the law, is independent centers of decision making.

I really that phrase, independent centers of decision making, those are our small, our mid size, our even large businesses who are engaged in rigorous competition to improve product quality and drive down prices for consumers across the state.

And AB325 is fundamentally a pro business bill in the sense that it protects the independent decision making authority of those businesses. The decision of a business to decide who its suppliers are, what innovative new feature it's going to roll out, and fundamentally, the. The ability to set their own price.

And when third party software providers, often large tech platforms, what we call the hubs in a conspiracy, tell businesses, no, you can't set your own price or create barriers or technological procedures to deviating from a price that is recommended, then we lose that independent decision making authority and all the good that flows from it.

The businesses on the receiving end of those recommendations and coercive tactics don't like it either. And yet this is what we've seen across markets. We're seeing these central platforms coordinating an economy that was previously structured by independent businesses exercising their independent business judgment. AB 325 is about restoring that core feature of a fair economy.

And at the end of the day, that is what improves the lives of consumers, of workers, and all Californians who benefit from that fairness. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, Next witness, please.

Mr. Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Doha Mackey. I'm a senior fellow at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Previously I served for 10 years in the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust division where I served until earlier this year as the DOJ's top antitrust official.

Before that, I served for three years as second in command. I helped file on quarterback generational monopolization cases and collusion cases against RealPage, Visa, Ticketmaster, Google, Apple, Agristats, chicken processors and more. Against the backdrop of this hearing, we face a painful cost of living crisis.

After 40 years of consolidation, reduced markets to monopolies and oligopolies, we have seen a proliferation of algorithms that boost big corporations ability to raise prices and create artificial scarcity. Any competitor that pays the price of admission can become an all seeing, all knowing price setter.

We see these collusive schemes to align pricing and housing, health care, transportation and food and groceries. Algorithms are combining data to keep prices and inventory artificially below market levels or above market levels. In the case of prices, when Chicken processors surveyed 90% of the industry to suppress wages, I filed a lawsuit to stop them.

Later I gave the speech withdrawing safe harbors for precisely this kind of collusion at the federal level. That speech is cited in class actions against many different kinds of algorithmic collusion schemes.

You can draw a straight line from this early form of collusion, a sort of information sharing, to algorithmic collusion that challenges every conception we have ever had about the value of data and the ability of industries to coordinate and raise prices. But let's be crystal clear about the stakes.

If we cannot tackle algorithmic collusion today, understand that the next iteration of this problem is right around the corner. Surveillance pricing is the King Kong of algorithmic collusion and may well evade existing legal frameworks to tackle it. Let's start today by passing AB325. Thank you very much.

All right, others in support of AB325, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation and your position.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Terry Oley with Economic Security California Action, a co-sponsor of the bill, in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Renee with the Center for AI and Digital Policy in strong support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Ted Merman from the California Low Income Consumer Coalition and the National Consumer Law Center in strong support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Christopher Sanchez with the Consumer Federation of California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jessica Stedner on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Avneet Purier on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Honorable Chair and Members, Amy Hindsik with UDW AFSCME Local 3930 and their 200,000 members in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Megan Abel with Tech Equity Action, proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Nicole Rocha with Tech Oversight California in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Please approach. Seeing no one else, approach the microphone. Now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB325, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Eric Ensign. I'm an antitrust lawyer with the law firm of Kroll Mooring, and we represent the California Chamber of Commerce in this matter. I have to start by saying that the amendments the author has accepted in this bill certainly move it in the right direction.

We remain opposed, however, and it's still labeled a cost driver by the Cal Chamber. And it's really that for two reasons. The first is the coercion language is vague and we don't think it's necessary.

Coercion is not a core antitrust concept, and I'm unaware, at least of any case or investigation in which coercion was part of price fixing in connection with pricing algorithms. Second, the definition of common pricing algorithm is still too broad because it's not focused on competitors using identical algorithms and inputs to arrive at a recommended price.

And if that's the goal of this bill, to attack collusion, we think the definition of common pricing algorithm should be targeted towards those two factors. For the, for those reasons, we remain opposed.

We have, however, sent over additional amendments to the author and the author staff, and we think those amendments will help some of these concerns, and we certainly look forward to working with the author and her staff on that point.

All right, thank you. Thank you very much. Looks like Mr. McKayley is getting ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris McKayley here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California.

First, I have to acknowledge the number of amendments that the majority leader has accepted at the request of Ceejac, including removal, as she mentioned, of joint and several liability pleading standard, and also much earlier in the other House, the declaratory of existing law language.

As the attorney for the Cal Chamber noted, those two remaining provisions, we share those concerns, of course, with liability under the Cartwright Act. Any ambiguity is of concern to our membership. Remember, enforcement under the Cartwright act includes remedies such as treble damages, attorneys fees and costs, injunctive relief, and even more so for any criminal prosecutions.

We have enjoyed all the opportunity to work with the majority Leader and look forward to continuing those hopeful, fruitful discussions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Others opposed to AB 325 please approach the microphone. Go ahead and queue up.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Jose Torres with TechNet in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Kaylin Dean, on behalf of the California Hospital Association in respectful opposition. And we're very grateful for the conversations the authors had with Cal Chamber.

Thank you.

Bernie Simez Krieger with the California Association of Realtors. We're in opposition, but hoping to extend the MLS out so that we can drop our opposition. Thank you.

Hello. Sophia Quach, on behalf of the Chamber of Progress and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Ethan James with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Jackie Onus. We have the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, bring it back to Committee since there's no one else lined up. Questions by Committee Members. All right, Senator, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the. The whole reason for a business becoming aware, speak in General terms of what the competition is doing relative to price, is to make sure that your prices are competitive. Now, that could also lead to prices that undercut your competition for specific reasons of competition.

It seems, however, that the underlying assumption of this legislation and others like it is that it will always be to maximize prices as opposed to undercutting one's competition, which I would suggest could happen as often as. In any case. How would you respond to that?

Just. I was not quite paying attention here. It could. I'm not sure. Can I have one of my. I'm sorry.

Thank you for the excellent question, and I think. Thank you. I think the answer is available both in the facts and. And then the law.

Having had my own opportunity to examine evidence, real evidence in the real world about how these algorithms operate, as a practical matter, they are tending to subvert the competitive process and destroy free market forces to artificially raise price or constrain output.

But I think the bigger issue is that the law actually forbids the erosion of those independent centers of decision making.

And so it has long been the law for more than a century at the federal level that even a conspiracy to artificially suppress prices or artificially raise wages, things that may have some social benefits that we all like, are nonetheless illegal under the antitrust laws.

Does the opposition have any comment on that?

Thank you for the question again. Eric Ensign with Kroll and Mooring. On behalf of Cal Chamber, I think you are correct that many times pricing algorithms, and even dynamic pricing is geared towards reducing prices or driving competition to compete for customers and the like.

And the cases that we've seen that have been prosecuted as price Fixing are very different from a standard business. Just trying to figure out how can I compete heat, how can I keep my prices low, how can I gain customers? So there certainly are outliers that have been mentioned here today.

It doesn't mean that all businesses using dynamic pricing or pricing algorithms are engaging in inflating prices. In fact, many times the prices are being driven down by the technology.

Thank you. There's also an allegation that in some cases providers of third party pricing tools may pressure independent businesses to surrender pricing control by offering incentives, incentives, etc. Do you have examples of that?

Thank you Member for the question and thank you Chair. There are many examples of this in cases that abound in federal court and state courts across the country.

Without naming specific names of defendants, there are cases where we have seen allegations that it is harder for the recipient of a price recommendation to deviate from that price recommendation than it is to take it. You would have to go through an appeal process. The appeal process might result in a denial.

Maybe over 50% of the time, maybe as many as 75% of the time, your ability to deviate from that recommended price is rejected. Now that is really important when certainly.

I guess maybe I'm not familiar with the arrangements between the algorithm algorithm providers and the businesses that use them. You're implying that there's a contractual obligation that the business has no control over their prices, but the provider of the algorithm information has control over their prices.

That's precisely correct. And you can imagine a situation where in order for a business to access consumers, say through a dominant E commerce platform, they need to abide by the rules of the platform. And when the platform is say, dictating price through the use of a smart pricing tool.

And in order for a business or a third party retailer to use that platform, they need to use that smart pricing tool. Maybe it's just to appear higher in a search result that is a coercive force that deprives a third party seller of their independent price setting authority.

And that decision is being made by the centralized third party platform that might control access to market research, access to consumers, access to, you know, perfectly fairly legal data analytics.

When you control access to fundamental tools that are useful for a business to operate on the contingency that they accept your price, that you, that you have to set the price that is being dictated to you. That is what we are talking about with this bill.

Bernie, thank you. I'd like to know if the opposition has something to say about it. All right, let's turn to the opposition. Thank you.

Very, very, very briefly. Virtually every third party pricing algorithm software that I'm familiar with does give the user an ability to view recommended prices and then set deviate from those prices if the user wishes to or desires to. And that's our concern with the coercion language.

It's unclear to us what it means to coerce a licensee essentially of software to accept a price if that licensee decides that it is going to set a price at a certain level, whether it be recommended or not.

As far as we're aware that every software out there does give that opportunity, that option to users, which is where the competition is. And many times that the pricing algorithm or the recommended pricing is part of the analysis that a price setter goes through in determining where to set its price.

That's all clear as mud. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments. So Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry, let me join the chorus of those who are heaping praise upon you for your pragmatism in addressing this challenge. The bill is now more narrowly focused.

I still have concerns, as was expressed, concerning the definition of common pricing algorithm. I'm going to support the bill today and I'm hopeful that we will come to a conclusion that adequately defines the term common pricing algorithm. If we don't, then I Reserve the right not to support the bill on the floor.

Having said that, thank you very much and would you like to close?

I would and I really appreciate everybody speaking today. Opposition I appreciate your comments as well. Members. If competitors sit across the table and fix prices, that's illegal. If they're using a computer, it's the same thing. It's still illegal. AB325 will protect consumers and competitor businesses from cheating, perhaps the quickest way to help with the affordability crisis.

This bill will not stifle innovation or efficiency. It modernizes our antitrust laws. It's about creating a fair market where prices are set through competition, not coercion or collusion. Collusion is bad for consumers, first time home buyers, renters, working people and competitor businesses. In fact, it's bad for everyone except for the cheaters.

With this bill, they can use digital tools to break the rules. I never thought I'd be doing this bill, but once you find small businesses that are struggling and they are being manipulated and behaviors being used by others, it was very frustrating.

So I am honored to be able to bring this forward to my small businesses that they can't be left behind. So I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. At the appropriate time, I expect there will be a motion. All right. Would you like to take up now filem number one, AB250?

Yes. Let me get my folder. The benefit of having low file numbers. Mr. Chair and Members, AB 250 will strengthen protections for survivors of sexual assault and ensure their ability to fully access the justice system. A sexual assault occurs every 68 seconds, and it's not just women that are affected by sexual violence.

It happens to people of every gender, identity, age, sexual orientation, and social class anywhere, anytime. Sexual assaults are made worse by acts of sexual harassment and wrongful termination and too often include a culture of cover up. This bill will deliver a clear message that perpetrators and the institutions that enable their abuse will no longer be shielded.

The culture of secrecy and protecting abusers ends here and now. AB 250 will clarify that the perpetrator of a sexual assault and entities who covered up the assault are held accountable. AB 250 also allows a limited time for survivors to pursue overdue justice for a trauma they endured. Because we all know it can take years to fully realize the impacts of an assault or to gain the confidence to come forward with allegations.

Members, by exposing these predators, we can prevent them from assaulting and traumatizing more people. That means our communities, our families, and our neighbors and the general public could be safer. With me today to testify in support are Mya Alexander, a survivor and longtime television writer and producer in the entertainment industry, and Jessica Stender, policy director and deputy legal director for Equal Rights Advocates. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, a proud co-sponsor. For more than 50 years, we have advocated for the rights of people across just who experience sexual assault at work, at school, and in other contexts. We are acutely aware of the challenges that survivors face to seeking and achieving justice.

Sexual assault, as we all know, is one of the most traumatic experiences that someone can experience. And it can often take a lot of time, and this is well documented in scientific research, for survivors to be able to speak out about what happened to them and hold both the perpetrators and or other responsible entities responsible.

This delay is a result of well documented psychological, social, and institutional barriers. Many survivors experience shame, fear of retaliation, and the profound emotional toll of reliving the trauma. They are also sometimes silenced by power imbalances, workplace dynamics, or intimidation from the perpetrators themselves.

In situations where an institution or person attempts to conceal the assault, these barriers are even greater. This bill recognizes the unique challenges that survivors face, which are exacerbated by efforts to conceal the wrongdoing. It also serves the broader public interest. When survivors come forward, it can expose patterns of abuse, prevent future harm, and create accountability within institutions.

Survivors, of course, under this bill, should it be passed, would still have the same civil procedure, evidentiary requirements of proof related to both proving the underlying sexual assault claim as well as any damages that they suffered as a result. So we believe this is a very fair and measured bill that would ensure that survivors have their day in court. Thank you. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Hello. My name is Mya Alexander, and I'm a television producer that specializes in celebrity biography.

Ma' am, I think you're going to need to move the microphone up just a tiny bit. Thank you.

I'll start over. Hello, my name is Mya Alexander, and I'm a television producer that specializes in celebrity biography. I began my career at E Entertainment and has since produced for the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Ava DuVernay, Soledad O'Brien, and Sean "Diddy" Combs, which is what brings me here today.

In late 2015, I produced a documentary on a senior executive at Revolt TV. Over the course of that production, I endured relentless sexual harassment from this industry heavyweight who, despite being clear that I had no romantic interest, used his position to pressure me into business dinners and industry events, attending with him, which were, in reality, unwanted advances and coercion.

If I refused, he threatened to revoke his support of the project or my connections if I did not entertain his courtships. After I successfully completed the documentary, however, his behavior briefly improved and I got a freelance position at Revolt. However, I was never onboarded, never worked at the company office. Instead, I worked remotely out of his home, reporting only to him. I was forced to sign a broad and onerous NDA, preventing me from speaking about my experiences.

On two separate occasions, under the pretense of business trips, I was flown to work related events, only to be booked without my consent into the same hotel room as his executive. This is how he sexually assaulted me twice. At this very moment, a jury in New York deliberates the fate of the man who I should have been able to report this abuse to, his supervisor and company CEO, Sean "Diddy" Combs.

He is the reason I did not go to HR or to the police, even years after my perpetrator's death. I knew he was powerful, violent, and vengeful. So I stayed quiet, quit Revolt, and tried to move on. But I wasn't the same producer anymore. I struggled to network, and my career stalled.

I fell into a deep depression and was eventually diagnosed with PTSD. Now, with Mr. Combs finally exposed and my abuser deceased, I can speak out. But had that video never been released, I never would have felt safe enough to come forward. It took time...

Thank you so much for sharing your story. I assume you're urging an aye vote.

It is so important. If I could have turned this trauma in on a deadline, I swear I would have. It doesn't work that way. I could have had a family by now. So please, on behalf of all of the women and men who just needed a little more time, vote to give us our day in court.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing your story. Thank you. All right, others who are in support of AB 250, please approach the microphone.

Leah Barros on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Jacquie Serna on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California in support.

Darcy Totten on behalf of California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support.

Chris Kahn representing the Victim Policy Institute in support.

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn now to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 250, please approach the microphone. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Bernice Joseph, CIA. Represent Haiti, Florida, and California. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, opposition to AB 250, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee. Questions by Committee Members? Questions by Committee Members? Yes, Senator Niello.

Just one. Do I read it correctly that this does not include public sector entities?

You're absolutely right, Senator.

And why would that be?

This was... It can be covered in other portions of a bill. There's other legislation that's had that. We don't want public entities to escape liability, but that issue would be dealt with under a different bill outside of the existing legislative framework. So it's not under this bill.

What other bill deals with that? Is that a current bill that's before...

Well, it built off of Assembly Member Wicks' bill, I believe AB 2777 from 2022. And that's where it was built off of. This is closing a loophole that was not there, that was there before.

Alrighty, thank you very much. Okay. Other questions? Senator Laird.

Yeah. A couple of comments and a question. And quite likely the reference was to Assembly Bill 218 of whatever year that was, 2018 or 2019, which extended the statute of limitations on similar cases for public entities. And this Committee has dealt with a bill on that earlier this session. And it is out of that that I wanted to ask a question or two. And I was going to ask what Senator Niello asked, just for clarification.

I was also going to comment that I know how hard Ms. Alexander's testimony was, and I really appreciate it because it made the point. There were certain things that came up in relation to Assembly Bill 218, which is an extension of the statute of limitations, that I wondered how they apply out of this instance. And if the statute's extended and there's nobody around except for the victim that experienced this, and then you have to pursue it in some sort of case, what's the process? How is it dealt with given that circumstance?

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates. The concern about whether people are still around, witnesses, goes back to the point of the plaintiff in this case, even if the claim is revived, would still have the same evidentiary burden. And so she would or he or they would need to obviously have the evidence available to be able to prove their claim. This would simply give that day in court to be able to try to prove it. But if the evidence is no longer there to be able to do so, you know, she, they won't have met their evidentiary burden to prove it. That or the damages.

Okay, thank you. I would just make the comment that I'm going to support this. I think it's a good direction. I think compared to some of those other things, this is narrowed. And the point that was made by the witness that basically, given the circumstances of that situation, there was not an ability to safely get redress within the statute I think makes the case for the bill. So at the appropriate time, like when we have a quorum, I would move the bill.

All right, thank you very much. Would you like to close?

I would. As you can see by our witness, she's one of many, many, many that had to take time to realize where justice would happen. And it's heart wrenching being a member of the Women's Caucus. These are conversations we have a lot about sexual harassment and if someone's going to be safe. Whether it's in our LGBTQ group or our Latino Caucus, this topic comes up a lot. And I just think it's really important that we address this, we help our victims, and I simply ask you for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Majority Leader. At the appropriate time, Senator Laird will move the bill.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, Assembly Member Ávila Farías. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 1079. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the staff for their hard work on this bill. AB 1079 would eliminate the automatic stay in cases involving the California Voting Rights Act and the Fair Acts Map.

Nearly 25 years ago, the California Voting Rights Act was enacted to give historically underrepresented communities a real voice in our democracy. Not to be confused with the federal counter pilot, the CBUR prohibits at-large election systems from impairing the ability of protected classes to elect candidates of their choice.

In short, it looks to ensure that all minority communities enjoy the voice at a table. Yet today, even after the courts ruled and an election system violates the law, local jurisdictions can delay compliance simply by filing an appeal and prolonging injustice and silencing the voters of color. AB 1079 ends all the loopholes going forward.

This bill requires court decisions protecting Voting Rights Act and takes effect without unnecessary delay. AB 1079 will make sure that justice is not indefinitely delayed and that people of color are truly represented in our electoral process. My technical witness was unable to join us today, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

All righty. Thank you very much. If you're in support of AB 1079, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1079, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to committee. All right. Questions by committee members? Seeing no questions by committee members, at the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion. Would you like to close?

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right. Okay. The only other Assembly Member present is Assembly Member Irwin. Oh, I'm sorry. Assembly Member Ward. Okay. Okay, go ahead. Assembly Member Irwin.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 932, which would increase access and equity for girls in youth athletics. Current law prohibits gender based discrimination by counties and special districts at school and park facilities. Title IX and California law prohibit local education agencies from gender based discrimination of their own interscholastic teams.

However, no existing California law ensures that local local education agencies that rent out spaces to third party youth sports clubs must do so on an equitable basis with respect to gender. This loophole Creates a pathway for continued gender based discrimination.

Many young women participate in club sports because their preferred sport is not offered until middle school or high school, or because they're hoping to play at the collegiate or professional level. As we prepare for the 2028 LA Olympics, it's imperative that we ensure gender equity for all our Olympics.

Just so that we can queue up the TV. This is file item number 17, AB932. There we go. All right.

Did I get started too fast?

Go ahead.

Trying to rush through here.

Laws like these provide protections to clubs that face discrimination, such as the Davis Youth Softball Association, which settled with the City of Davis after allegations that the girls softball team was being charged for field use and electricity fields, while the boys baseball organization was accessing their field for a dollar and enjoying shaded dugouts, water fountains and other amenities.

AB932 would close the loophole that allows for discrimination against young women in club sports. Our primary witness today is Dave Shapira, a father and the coach of the Davis Storm Girls Basketball Club. And he can testify to some of the obstacles. Obstacles that he has seen as a coach of over 90 youth athletes.

All righty, thank you. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Great to be here. My name is David Shapira. I'm here on behalf of Davis Storm Girls Basketball from Davis, California, in support of AB932. I also have two daughters that are multi sport athletes. So this is really critically important to my family as well as to female athletes, youth athletes across the state.

Last I do want to mention, I am also the Chief of Staff of the California Department of Education. And so I do want to say on behalf of Superintendent Thurman that he is also in support of the legislation. I want to thank the author, Assemblymember Irwin, for being a champion on this important issue.

It may seem like a small issue, but this is a huge issue for athletes who are impacted. In our town of Davis, we have some great athletic facilities at the junior highs and the high schools, in addition to some great sports facilities that are run by the city and county.

Cities and counties have to rent out their facilities to third parties on an equitable basis. School districts, when they offer sports, have to ensure that they're offering athletics on an equitable basis between boys and girls.

But there's a gap in the law in California where if a school district is renting out their facility to sports teams to third party organizations, there is nothing that requires them to do it on an equitable basis between genders. And so for our program, the Davis, our Davis Storm basketball program, we have rented out facilities.

We're the only girls program in the city. There are three boys programs. And what ends up happening on this first come, first serve basis in our city is that the boys programs end up getting about 75% of the gym time and we get about 25% of the gym time that's used for basketball.

That's not fair, especially given the fact that we have as many girls in our program as all of the boys programs go combined. And so it should be equitable. This should be the case on a statewide basis.

We should close this gap between these two great laws to ensure gender equity for youth sports across the spectrum, regardless of what the facility is. And I do want to say in our hearings in the Assembly, they were during the school year, so we weren't able to get any players here.

But I am very excited to be joined by many of our players and families here today who will be speaking in meeting in just a moment and just want to say we support the Bill. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in support of AB932, please approach a microphone.

Leah Barros on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Thank you.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association in support.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Kate Kwok. I support the Bill A.B. 932.

Thank you.

My name is Camila Saki. I play for the Davis Storm team and I support the Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Brooke McNaughton. I play for the Davis Storm team and I support the Bill AB932.

Thank you.

My name is Randy McDonald. I am a Davis Storm player and I Support the Bill AB932.

My name is Sophie Farney. I play for the 7th grade Storm basketball team and I support AB932.

My name is Sydney Shapiro. I play for the Davis Storm basketball team and I support AB932.

Thank you.

My name is Carmen Diaz Khaleesi. I play for the girls Storm basketball team and I support AB932.

Thank you.

My name is Ellie Whammer. I play for the Davis Storm basketball team and I support AB932.

My name is Hadley Clark. I play for the Davis Storm girls basketball team and I support AB932.

My name is Corey Sparopoulos. I play for the Davis Storm girls basketball team and I support AB932.

Thank you.

My name is Liesel Streismann and I play for the Davis Storm basketball team and I support the Bill A.B. 932.

Thank you.

My name is Sam Diaz Munoz. I'm a parent of a player in the Davis Storm girls basketball team and I support the Bill. Thank you.

My name is Jessica Sparopoulos. I'm a parent of a Davis Storm player and I support AB932.

Thank you.

My name is Wendy McNaughton. I'm a parent of a Davis Storm player and I support AB932.

My name is Steve Streissmann. I'm a coach and a parent. I support 932.

My name is Dario Saki. I'm a coach and a parent for Davis girls basketball team, Davis storm. I support AB932. Thank you.

My name is Owen Clark. I'm a parent of three girls. I support AB932

My name is John Whitmer. I'm a parent of a player. I support AB932.

Thank you very much. The Davis Storm teams look pretty formidable. All right, if you're opposed to AB932, please approach the microphone. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Nicole Young. I am mother to both male and female club athletes and a Member of Cause Californians United for Sex Based Evidence and Policy and Law. Supporters of AB 932 repeatedly cite the Girls Davis softball lawsuit as proof we need this Bill.

The Office for Civil Rights repeatedly confirmed that Title IX obligations extend to facility rentals when schools schedule, permit or subsidize the usage. California law is also clear. ED Code 220 and Government Code 11135 prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that receives state financial assistance, including indirect support through public facility access.

Together, these laws already require schools to ensure equitable access to facilities. There is no legal gap here. At the last hearing, David Shapiro, Chief of Staff to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, testified about the girls basketball club being shut out of gym time because another coach booked all the slots at midnight.

But there wasn't evidence of a gap in the law. Under existing law including Title 9 and California's ED Code 220, such disparities in access could already be challenged, especially if a pattern of disadvantage to girls can be shown. The law already covers it. AB932 doesn't provide provide any additional protection and facility rentals.

In addition, AB932 does not offer any new enforcement tools, oversight mechanisms or remedies to help girls pursue these claims. It simply copies existing protections into new section of code where the definition of gender conveniently shifts away from Title IX. Sex based framework. AB932 doesn't protect girls.

What it does is put California on a direct collision course with the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution and more girls lose out. Please reject this Bill.

Thank you. Next witness.

My name is David Bolog on behalf of Serving Family Values Alliance, AB932 may sound like a much needed equality measure, but it's actually a legal and constitutional landmine. Schools are already required to provide equal access to facilities under title IX code 220 and government code 1130. That includes when they rent to outside sports clubs.

The Office for Civil Rights has repeatedly confirmed this. There is no loophole. But this Bill creates something far worse. A direct conflict between state and federal law. California divines gender so broadly that boys may self identify as girls. AB932 embed that definition into the legal frameworks governing school facility rentals, putting it in direct conflict with federal law.

The U.S. Department of Education has already found California school districts in violation of Title IX for allowing boys to compete in girls sports. Those cases are active. The consequences are real. Billions of federal dollars of funding are at risk. Supporters of AB932 cites the Davis girls softball lawsuit to justify this Bill.

But that case involves a municipal park, not a school facility. And it was resolved under existing law. In fact, the lawsuit proves that our current legal framework is already robust and enforceable when applied. And even if you believe stronger enforcement is needed, AB932 does nothing to help that. It adds to. It adds no new enforcement tools.

Using that case to sell this Bill is misleading at best. The Bill creates confusion, not clarity. It won't help girls get fair access to sports facilities. Rather than bringing schools into compliance, this Bill gives them a false sense of legal cover, encouraging them to rent facilities to club that allows boys to compete in gross leagues.

It tells districts, don't worry, you're following California law while setting them up to be sued and investigated for violating federal law. That's reckless. It's unfair to schools, it's unfair to administrators, and especially unfair to the girls who are losing grounds. AB932 does not close any loopholes because there are none.

It won't protect girls and it won't protect schools. I urge you to reject this Bill. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Others opposed AB932, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. Seeing no one approach the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee for questions. Yes, Senator Laird.

I was just going to ask the author if you would respond to some of the opposition testimony, because I think you did it in your open. But let's just make it clear.

Certainly. And I'll say it for the third time. First of all, this is closing a loophole that is being used to discriminate against girls and young women's club teams. So a school cannot discriminate against school teams, and the parks can't discriminate against club teams.

The loophole is that schools, and this happened in Davis, are discriminating against club teams. So this just means that we need an equitable outcome for young women. And this is like, very important to me. I was a. When I swam in high school, when I swam in college, the girls did not have equitable access to facilities.

So luckily, over the years, a number of these loopholes have been closed. Title IX has had a lot to do with it, but they. This is obviously a issue that is preventing young women on club teams from equitably being able to participate in sports at schools.

I would just say that the answer to your question, in my view, satisfactorily rebutted that testimony.

And I'm reminded of the time I was in the Assembly and the statewide championship soccer team was from my high school in Vallejo and I made the comment that we could have had the statewide championship team when I was in high school, but we'll never know because of the inequality that existed in sports at the time.

I will look forward to supporting this Bill when we get a quorum.

Alright.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. One second. You get to close, but by the way, before you close, so my kudos to parents who have children on club teams. We had three. So kudos and condolences to parents with children on club teams. So Assemblymember Irwin, would you like to close?

Yeah. It feels like condolences when you have to get up really early on Saturday mornings and it's very cold. But as myself, I also had three kids on club teams and they really are are the best years. When you look back, these are the best years. So respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes.

All right, thank you very much. All right, next I see Assemblymember Ward. I think he is next up. Good for you.

Someone just walked in.

Oh, wait a minute. I think Assemblymember, you crossed the bar. I think we're going to count that as having a having come to the podium.

Come to the podium, so...

I hope this will be straightforward, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members, I'm pleased to present today, AB 474, which will aim to expand affordable housing opportunities by simplifying and incentivizing the process of renting out unused bedrooms through nonprofit home-sharing programs.

AB 474 incentivizes these home-sharing programs by ensuring that additional income earned through home sharing does not disclose qualify a low-income homeowner from essential social welfare programs and by removing some of the bureaucratic barriers for those wishing to rent out the rooms in their homes.

While everyone can participate in these programs, they are particularly well-suited for older adults as many older adults live alone in large single-family homes but struggle to pay their mortgage, property taxes, and other basic living expenses.

For witnesses in support, I believe we have Meghan Rose, the General Counsel and Chief Government Affairs Officer with LeadingAge, and Luke Barnesmoore, the Director of Strategy at Home Match, Front Porch--Front Porch Community Services.

All right. Thank you, Assembly Member Ward. For those of you that are keeping track on your programs, this is File Item Number 39. All right, so witnesses in support, AB 474, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's now turn to opposition. If you're opposed to AB 474, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's bring it back to committee for questions. Seeing no questions or comments. Thank you, Assembly Member Ward. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Just for the record, I wanted you to know that one of the challenges we have--of course we recognize we have a housing affordability and a housing stock crisis here--but a fun fact, a not-so-fun fact, is that there are enough bedrooms in the State of California to be able to house everybody.

If we can have successful matches like these nonprofit home-sharing programs and be able to reduce some of our own bureaucratic barriers to be able to facilitate more of these bedrooms, this will disproportionately--and advantage many of our low-income seniors that are otherwise struggling to be able to find a place to rent. I respectfully request your aye vote when the time comes.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. All right. File Item Number 32. Yes. Assembly Member Ransom. Good for you too. You've figured out how to beat the line, so, right.

Yes, we did. We worked harder.

All right, you've got--I'm sorry--File Item Number 30 as well as 32. Which one would you like to do first?

I would like to start with File--935. I think that's File Item Number 30.

File Item Number 30.

File Item Number 30? File Number 30: AB 935. Welcome to Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thank you, Senator. Would you like me to begin?

Yes, please.

All right. Well, good afternoon, chair and members. I would like to begin by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I want to just state up front that I will be accepting the committee amendments that are outlined in the committee analysis.

Assembly Bill 935 builds on California's longstanding commitment to protecting civil rights by ensuring critical demographic data related to civil rights complaints are collected and publicly available and posted. Having access to this data will ensure Californians, particularly Black students and families, have a clear understanding of their rights and when those rights are being violated.

The California Reparations Task Force underscored this issue very clearly. When our laws lack clarity or when data is incomplete, systemic discrimination remains hidden in plain sight.

For two years, members of this publicly, repeatedly--of this public committee repeatedly raised concerns, including issues with responsiveness, transparency, and issues related to the treatment of complaints filed by African Americans raising civil rights concerns. In response, the task force provided the recommendations this bill will implement.

This bill is another tool in our toolkit to ensure and increase transparency in government. These changes improve access to solid evidence-based information. It's the foundation of good policy-making for the Legislature, the public, and the agencies themselves.

Lastly, AB 935 promotes accountability while also ensuring strong privacy protections of all individuals involved as the information will be anonymously provided. So with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote and I'm happy to answer any questions. And also, I'd like to let you know I have two witnesses today. I have Taneicia Herring, who is the Government Relations Specialist for the NAACP California/Hawaii State Conference and I'll let her--if that's okay.

All right, thank you very much. Two minutes each. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I do--I am glad to be here to support--show our strong support for AB 935, which does enhance California's longstanding commitment to fairness--

Go ahead and identify yourself.

My apologies. My name is Taneicia Herring. I work with the NAACP California/Hawaii State Conference. AB 935 enhances California's longstanding commitment to fairness and transparency by ensuring the Civil Rights Department and the California Department of Education collect and publish anonymous demographic data on civil rights complaints.

By requiring agencies to document and share demographic details, complaint descriptions, actions taken, and outcomes, the bill holds institutions accountable while exposing systemic patterns of discrimination, particularly in business, education, and government systems. AB 935 strikes a responsible balance between transparency and confidentiality.

While complaint data will be public, all personal information remains confidential, reinforcing public trust and encouraging people to report civil rights violations without fear. By requiring the reporting through the Department of Education and integrating with the state's uniform complaint procedures, AB 935 ensures students' complaints of discrimination, harassment, and bullying are documented and publicly reported, critical for--which are critical for achieving fairness in our schools.

Data from AB 935 will be shared through the forthcoming Bureau of--Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery, which will enable the creation of public dashboards. This supports the reparative and equity-focused policy-making, a core priority for the State Conference.

For too long, civil rights complaints, especially those impacting Black, Latino, Indigenous, AAPI, and LGBTQ plus and disabled Californians have existed in the shadows. AB 935 ensures our communities are seen and their experiences are counted and acted upon. And with that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness please.

Okay, seeing that we only have one witness, I will be happy to move forward.

All right, thank you. Those opposed to AB--I'm sorry. Oh, #MeToos? Anyone else in support of AB 935? Seeing no one approaching the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 935, please come forward. All right, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing one. All righty. Dr. Weber Pierson.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. Really want to thank and applaud the author for carrying this priority bill for the California Legislative Black Caucus. It is extremely important, a part of our Road to Repair Package, and at the appropriate time, I would like to make a motion.

All right. So noted. Okay. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close?

Yes, I would. Again, I would like to thank you for hearing this and I'd also like to thank the staff for the recommendations that we have adopted for this bill, and I'd like to point out that this is an opportunity for us to make sure that folks are treated the same here in the State of California.

We've seen that when complaints are filed based on sex-based discrimination, they're handled very differently than complaints that are filed based on race-based discrimination. AB 935 will provide clarity, justice, and move our state forward, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote when you have the votes here.

Thank you very much. All right, next bill is filum number 32 AB 1414. Would you like to take that up?

Yes, I would. Thank you very much. Again, Mr. Chairman and Members, I want to again thank your staff for working diligently with my office on this board bill. This bill is about access to reliable and affordable Internet.

As we learned during the pandemic and as we've already known, Internet service is essential for work, education, health care and daily life. While Californians are increasingly relying on goods Internet for their livelihoods, it is important that they are also able to access service at the right speed, at the right prices for them and their families.

Now more than ever. Assembly Bill 1414 ensures that renters across California are able to opt out of Internet service contracts that they had no part of. Negotiation, negotiation, negotiating, excuse me. And which do not meet their personal needs. At the federal level, the FCC has already established rules to promote competition and consumer choice in multi tenant environments.

While the FCC prohibits service providers from entering into exclusive access agreements with landlords, it does not prevent landlords from restricting tenants choices by exploiting loopholes in the federal regulation.

This exact issue has been addressed directly in a number of cities across California requiring landlords of multi unit buildings to grant reasonable access to licensed or authorized Internet service providers. AB 1414 is a simple, straightforward, tech-neutral bill to give all Californians the basic protections they should already enjoy.

This bill ensures that California's tenants, regardless of their city, county or where they live, have the right to choose their preferred Internet service provider without landlord interference. This bill also clearly provides A remedy. If a landlord violates the provision, tenants can deduct the cost of the imposed subscription from their rent.

Offering a practical enforcement mechanism, AB 1414 represents a balanced approach to enhancing tenant rights and fostering a competitive market for Internet services. My office has been committed to working with stakeholders like Cal Bradban as the bill continues to move forward through this process. You may also note that opposition that was previously registered has been removed.

This bill is about keeping people connected, ensuring that tenants rights are protected and they can choose a service provider of their choice. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1414.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. If you're in support of AB 1414, please approach the microphone.

There we go. Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support, thank you.

Benjamin Henderson on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Christopher Science with the Consumer Federation of California in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, Please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1414, please come forward.

Jim Lights, on behalf of the National Rental Home Council. The analysis notes our primary concern, which is if residents are allowed to opt out from a bundled agreement, it could affect the terms and thus the discount enjoyed by the other residents that are still a part of the agreement. So we're opposed Unless amended. Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you. Others opposed? Anyone else opposed? AB 1414. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the Committee. Committee Members, Questions? Comments? Seeing two Senator Laird, then Dr. Weber Pearson. No, Senator Laird first.

I live a block from here and I had exactly this issue where there was a blanket contract with Comcast and my payment was between 10 and $20 a month. And then they said there was no equity because some people were paying into it. And now I pay well over $100 a month because the contract went away.

And so what I don't. And yet there would have been less cost paid if the contract stayed there. And so, I mean, I get what you're trying to do.

I expect to support the bill, but it seems to me that in the interest of getting to the equity and the fairness to consumers, some people are bound to be disadvantaged in the process. And so I wondered if you would speak to that.

Sure, I'm happy to speak to what I believe that you're saying. I don't know the extent of the contract or the nature of.

No, I don't want you to own the situation, but the concept is something that probably applies across the board.

Yes. I'm not sure what kind of contract you had, if this was a bulk billing contract or what sort of contract your landlord was offering.

It was a contract between the homeowners Association and Comcast for a blanket thing for all 75 or 80 units.

Okay. So this is in regards to book building. And as it already states, the federal regulations will don't. We cannot force people to accept one particular Internet service provider over another.

What we're seeing and what we've learned from tenants across California is that they want to be able to have the right to bundle services or pick services providers and speeds and things that work for them and their families. And sometimes people have access to better rates. And.

And I totally agree with that. The issue is the reverse in some ways, which is if there was to be a blanket contract, but people had the option of. Of getting their own Internet provider, it seemed to have worked against the blanket contract. And then anybody that had that provider went dramatically up.

So I didn't know if in breaking this open, this sort of requires people to not have blanket contracts.

So currently, people can choose to go away from the Internet service providers if they want, but they get stuck paying the landlord's service provider and choosing one of their own nature. If the contract does not benefit the tenants, they need to have an option to leave to find a more affordable option for them.

But what I hear you saying is one person leaving may make it more expensive for other people. In the research that we've done, the conversations that we've had with some of the other Internet or some Internet service providers, this creates more market competition. Literally. You know, the Internet service providers are.

They need to compete for business, not just go and, you know, get a contract with a landlord. And. And we've seen that some landlords are actually upping the price maybe your landlord was providing. You know, they may be paying $20 per month for that service, but then some are charging the tenants double that.

So we want to make sure that tenants are protected through this, this particular bill.

I get that that wasn't the circumstance in my instance. So I'm just, as usual, worried about unintended consequences. And you are very lucky you weren't here whenever that was 15 or 20 years ago, when we adopted statewide franchises and ditched the local franchises for cities and counties, it was a very tumultuous thing. And it.

And if people invested in bricks and mortar and paid taxes to cities and counties, they were disadvantaged by that. And it was a very similar debate, and there were very similar unintended consequences. Having said that, I'm satisfied. I will vote for the bill. But keep your eye out for unintended consequences as this moves along.

Thank you, Dr. Weber Pearson.

Thank you, Chair. So help me understand, currently, based on federal law, someone can opt out of the service.

Yes. The difference is that the way the federal law is set up, you can block a person. The federal law is set up that the landlords can basically, they can have a bulk billing agreement, but they cannot say that you're going to have a certain service provider, meaning they can't block you from having access to the building.

As example, I want to make sure that I'm saying this right. So basically, landlords are allowed to control which Internet service providers can access their building and then include that Internet service service, which is what's happening right now.

Whereas federal regulation states that landlord and Internet service providers cannot enter into an exclusive agreement that would limit access to one's Internet service.

And so it's a really gray area, because you would think that the federal regulation, the way that I just read to you, which is 47 CFR 76.2 thousand, for anyone who wants to look it up, you would think that that was sufficient enough that people were not put into bulk billing agreements.

But accessing Internet service and accessing a property, those are two very different things. In today's environment, we see that you don't need to access a building. There's not wiring. You literally can plug up your Internet service. And so what landlords are doing is they're doing bulk billing agreements. And service provider can come and say, hey, Dr.

Weber, I want to give you this. I'll give people a discount if you give me 100 of your units. But the discount that they're able to give you may not be equal to what you can go out and get for your own family.

It may not help you if you have multiple bills that you are trying to bundle up together. There's just different options that people have been able to access on their own. And in some cases, they found that the bulk billing has been substandard to what they can get on their own. And so that's the difference.

Right? So I understand that. But right now, if I'm living in an apartment or a complex or whatever, and my landlord has this agreement with the company, and I say that's not what I want, I don't have to have that right. I still have to pay, but I don't have to have that service.

I can go out and get my own service.

You can go out and get your own service, but you still have to pay for whatever. Unless the landlord is nice and says, you don't have to pay for this service. It's part of their agreement.

So to that point, people have the option to not utilize that service. How many people currently are not utilizing that? Because from the opposition, their concern is like, zero, so many people will drop out. Then we won't be able to get this great bulk deal.

Do we have data on how many people today are saying, I don't want to be a part of this bulk deal to see if their concerns are even remotely valid at this point?

So what we have heard from people, and we don't have exact numbers because there's not been a statewide survey, but what we've heard is that tenants have not been allowed to opt out. They've not even been given that option. They've just been told, this is the contract that we have.

You know, this is the company that we have a contract with. And so the purpose of this is to give the tenants an opportunity to be able to choose the Internet service provider of their choice. Another concern that I mentioned before is there is nothing that stops the landlords. They don't all operate the same.

Some choose to charge extra for what should be a discounted service, which is not fair to the tenants. They should not be forced to, you know, pay for a service that they didn't ask for and actually pay extra. That should not be part of, you know, their rental agreement.

And so that's why we've worked with the Rental Housing Association as well as the apartment Association. You may have noticed that they removed their opposition because we were able to address their concerns, which was really more about property rights more than protecting tenants. And so this is not about violating property rights.

This is neutral for, you know, it's a win for the. It's a win for the tenant. Because ultimately, when you are renting an apartment, you're not renting Internet services. Or if you are, it should be your choice. It should not be you being forced to have services that you didn't ask for.

It's the same with any other service. If you're renting a property that comes with utilities, then you know that that's included in your rent. You're not paying extra.

Right. So maybe the opposition would have. Could answer my question?

Sure. Mr. Lights, would you like to respond?

So typically, a resident is not able to opt out under how we have our current agreements, we're offering high speed Internet service. It's not basic service at typically a 30% discount. So the scenario that Senator Laird outlined, the typical service would be about $120 a month.

If you were getting it on your own, we're offering it for about $80 a month. And again, the concern is if people pull out of that, will the service provider maintain the agreement and the discount that the other residents enjoy?

Thank you. So you're, you're telling me that there is no federal law that states that residents can opt out at this point, our agreements do not provide for that right now. So there is no federal law that I can't speak to Federal law.

I'm just really trying to answer how the companies are structuring the agreements today.

But if, if there was a federal law, then you couldn't structure your agreement to go against federal law, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

These are national companies.

Right. So if your contracts allow for that, then there is no federal law.

They wouldn't do it if federal law prevented that.

Okay. Thank you.

Alrighty. So can I, can I also ask for clarification? I think it's important to. When I believe, Mr. Lights, you represent the housing, the rental housing authority, not an Internet service provider. Is that correct?

Yeah, we represent companies that rent single family homes.

And so the concern that we have and the reason this bill was brought is we want to prioritize the tenants over the renters, the housing authorities, or the associations who get to make these contracts on behalf of people who did not ask for these contracts and get to determine, hey, maybe I, maybe I did negotiate 30%.

I'm going to pocket that 30%. Well, you know, so it's great that we hear that these deals are negotiated, but they're not always applied equally and they are give tenants the right to choose their own services. So I think it's important that we note that this is.

These are the folks who are doing the rental agreements versus the people who are providing the service.

All righty. Seeing no further comments or questions. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you again for this opportunity to prevent this bill.

This bill is a no nonsense, common sense bill that really just ceased to have a neutral effect effect on business and a positive impact on people who want to be able to ensure that they are able to select the Internet service provider of their choice at a time when we know that access to Internet service is very important.

The bill encourages fair market competition, but gives tenants the opportunity to leave contracts and seek out what works best for them it does not prevent bulk billing arrangements. As I stated, no landlord associations, property managers are still able to bundle services. And the amendments we do accept, as I previously mentioned.

So again, I want to thank you for this opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1414. And I would appreciate an aye vote on behalf of tenants across California. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you very much, Ransom. I expect there'll be a motion at the appropriate time. Thank you so much. All right, Assemblymember Bauer Cahen, which you've got three bills. Which would you like to do first? Okay. Phylum number five AB56, social media warning labels.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I want to start by acknowledging the incredible hard work of your committee staff and of our sponsors and acknowledge that we're accepting the committee amendments, which do primarily two things: they better align the definition in the bill with the existing law and allow for users who platforms know are adults to have a ten-second warning, and for the three-hour warning, if the plat--they can skip it if the platform knows they're an actual adult.

I hope I explained that properly, but I know it's in the analysis for those that didn't follow what I said. So as everybody here knows--and I'm not adding anything to the conversation--we are in the midst of a mental health crisis for our youth.

As the mom of teens, I see it every single day, and this House and this body has done incredible work to protect our youth online. Bills have passed over the years that I think really would have moved the needle in protecting children.

You know, one that I was enthusiastic supporter of was Assembly Member Wick's Age-Appropriate Design bill, which would have changed the way kids interacted with our social media platforms. That bill was litigated and is no longer in effect because of the lawsuit.

And so we continue to deal with addictive features and platforms that are causing our kids to struggle and we need to find solutions because there is no question that our kids deserve better than what they are getting right now with social media companies, and so this bill is incredibly simple.

It follows the Surgeon General's advice to provide a warning on social media platforms with a pop-up that will allow people to have education regarding the addictive nature of social media. There will be a warning when one begins usage of the platform that will be at the bottom or the top of the screen, but partial screen, and that is skippable.

And then at three hours, when the research starts to show that social media affects one's mental health, there'll be another warning, and again every hour thereafter because we know that's when the science shows the mental health impacts are real and severe. With me today in support of the bill are Victoria Hinks, a mother who's going to tell her daughter's story, Anthony Lew, a Deputy Attorney General of the California Department of Justice, and we have Bernard Eskandari from DOJ to answer any questions.

All righty. Thank you very much. First witness. Two minutes for each witness. So who would like to go first?

Good afternoon. I'm Victoria Hinks. I'm here to share my daughter Alexandra's story in the picture there because she no longer can. Alexandra, who is lovingly known to her friends and family as Owl, died by suicide 11 months ago. She was a kind, beautiful soul and full of life. She loved animals, especially our Westie dog, Elsa.

She loved sports, cross country skiing, babies and little kids, she loved Hamilton--was always singing the songs--and loved anything pink. But social media pulled her into a dark spiral. She was served content about self-harm, eating disorders, and suicide. She started believing she wasn't pretty enough and needed beauty filters.

She became hooked, doomscrolling for hours, and growing more isolated. We as parents were left with impossible choices. Do we not let her be on social media and have her feel isolated from school and her friends or do we let her be on social media so she can be connected to her peers? We tried everything to help.

Even therapy didn't help and the parental controls were useless. She bypassed everything. My husband is a software engineer and he set everything up and she still found a way around it. What worked for her at 13 didn't work for her at 16 and she became someone we did not recognize.

Taking social media away from her was like taking drugs away from an addict. And finally, she used social media to find out the best way to kill herself, a question which was answered in great detail and with encouragement.

There's not a bone in my body that doubts that social media played a significant role in leading her to this horrible decision. These social media companies are knowingly and intentionally preying upon the fragile psyche of young teenage girls and boys.

So instead of preparing for her senior year of high school, I'm here fighting for change for Owl and for California's kids. This could be your child. This could be your grandchild. This could be your niece or nephew. Social media does not discriminate, and we can demand better, like real warnings like AB 56.

And these social media companies have an incredible amount of resources and vast intellectual horsepower. They could change these algorithms if they wanted to. They could do it. This is a fact if they wanted to. I can't bring back my Owl baby, but I won't let her short life be in vain.

Maybe her story can save someone else's child. I'm here as a mom appealing to other moms and dads. Please vote like a mom or a dad. Please support AB 56. You have the power to end this social experiment.

We are raising kids in this unregulated social experiment that is going on and our kids are the first generation of guinea pigs, but we don't have to keep doing these tests subjects. Please, you have the power to end this. Please, you have the power to be on the right side of history. Please vote for AB 56.

I humbly ask for your support and thank you so much to the committee for having me, and if anyone would like to see, they did a tribute page to her in the yearbook which I brought with all of her pictures and a little poem. So thank you very much.

Thank you for sharing your story. Alrighty.

Hi. Good afternoon, committee members. I'm Anthony Lew with the Attorney General Rob Bonta's Office, and we are sponsoring AB 56 to ensure that parents, adolescents, and the public are armed with clear information about the risks of social media for kids and teens. We want to thank Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan for authoring this bill and Common Sense Media for co-sponsoring it, and Victoria for sharing her story today.

In May 2023, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory warning supported by recent evidence identifying reasons for concern about social media usage by children and adolescents, and this evidence includes a study concluding that the risk of poor mental health outcomes doubles for children and adolescents who use social media at least three hours a day.

And as described in pages five through seven of the committee analysis, there's a lot of evidence cited in lawsuits against social media companies for the harms caused against children and that this supports the use of warning labels to advise users of potential harms of these features.

In September of last year, the AG joined a bipartisan coalition of 42 attorney generals in sending a letter to Congress supporting the Surgeon General's advocacy for warning labels, and we argue that mandating a surgeon general's warning on social media platforms, Congress can address the growing crisis and protect future generations of Americans.

Social media companies have demonstrated an unwillingness to tackle the mental health crisis, instead digging in deeper to harnessing addictive features and harmful content for the sake of profits. It's our responsibility to make sure consumers have access to information that may affect their health and so they can make the best choices for themselves and their families. So for these reasons, we urge your aye vote on AB 56 today.

Thank you, Mr. Lew. All right, others in support of AB 56, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Ellie Fenton-Sutliff, intern at Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute of the University of San Diego Law School, in support.

Thank you.

Steve Wimmer, on behalf of the Transparency Coalition, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Nicole Roach, on behalf of Tech Oversight California, in support.

Thank you.

Malik Bynum, on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, in support.

Thank you.

Amy Heinsheik, on behalf of my two kids, Rozak, nine years old, and Falzia, four years old, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mikey Hothi, on behalf of Common Sense Media, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Paul Hinks. I'm a dad. I strongly support.

Thank you.

David Bolog, Serving Family Values, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach the microphone, AB 56. If you're opposed to AB 56, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet in respectful opposition to AB 56. And first, I want to say very clearly that our member companies don't dispute that there is a serious ongoing youth mental health crisis which warrants serious discussion and action.

Our companies recognize that we need to be a part of that conversation and have been at the forefront for designing our platforms better and our policies to to provide as safe and enjoyable an experience online as possible. We've rolled out new tools for parents and minors alike to better protect themselves online and see more of the content that they enjoy, rather than harmful content. What we question is whether a bill like AB 56 is an effective solution to this problem.

The warning as proposed flattens an incredibly complex, nuanced, subjective, and evolving issue to the point of overgeneralization. The warning is inapplicable to adults, but it also tells minors nothing about what kinds of content, online behaviors, or features could be risky to them, how they impact their mental health, or steps they can take to protect themselves.

At best, these labels will be ignored. At worst, they'll create an annoyance and burden to users of all ages trying to access lawful speech, which leads me to some of the constitutional issues with this bill. We believe this bill is highly likely to be challenged in court and likely to be unconstitutional.

First, it's not clear that this warning would be considered commercial speech. Recently, the Ninth Circuit held that another state law requiring social media disclosures was compelled non-commercial speech and subject to strict scrutiny. Even if the bill was subject to the lower review under Zauderer, there's still a significant chance the bill wouldn't meet that standard.

With all that in mind, we're willing to work on this bill to avoid constitutional challenge and also ensure it provides useful, pertinent information to users who need it most. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with the author and her staff, but respectfully opposed to this bill as it is written today before us. Thank you.

All righty, thank you very much. Others opposed AB 56, please approach a microphone. Seeing no one else approaching mic... Oh, okay. There we go.

Sorry. Ronak Daylami on behalf of CalChamber, respectfully align our comments with those of TechNet. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. And also my colleague asked me to convey opposition on behalf of CalBroadband. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Austin Heyworth on behalf of Internet Works. We want to thank the author for the amendments being taken today. It goes a long way to address the scope issue in we think an elegant and durable way. There's still some minor issues we'd like to see cleaned up, but we're appreciative. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sophia Quach on behalf of the Chamber of Progress in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else approached the microphone, let's bring it back to Committee for questions by Committee Members. Questions by... Yes, Senator Niello.

I completely support the effort to protect kids from the challenges that the Internet has posed. I'm fortunate that I raised my kids in a social media free world. My concern, a lot of people may laugh at this, but a kid left to his or her own devices by themselves when they're told not to do something, will do exactly that. It's just the nature of growing up, of being immature, not truly capable of making their own responsible decisions. How would you answer that?

I think it's exactly I said as I started, Senator. I'm the mother of teenagers, so I know what you're talking about as much as the next person. It's what we deal with as parents. And it's why I think this is so important. Because it ensures that it isn't just a fight between a parent and a child, which is currently what is happening. Parents are left to their own devices to try to figure out how to navigate world that, to your point, I wasn't raised in. There was no social media.

I didn't have to deal with people, people weren't allowed to give me addictive drugs, addictive alcohol as a child. They were prevented by law from doing so. And yet we're allowing these companies to hand an addictive product to our children day in and day out. And parents are the ones who have to fight with them. I do.

I'm a tougher parent, perhaps. But I also think that what this does is it educates everybody. That is why the adults also have to see it in a different fashion, to be fair. But they also have to see it so that everyone is educated about this. So the kids see it. They are being educated about the harms.

And I will tell you what is beautiful about watching kids grow up in this era, and I have now a niece who is off to college next year, is that as they mature, they do start to realize how addictive this is. I had a conversation with my niece when she was old enough and her parents decided to take off the controls, right?

Because there are some controls that Apple devices allow you to have. And she asked for them back after just a few weeks because she was Old enough at that point to realize how unhealthy the addictive nature of these tools were.

But giving this warning and allowing for the information like we do on cigarettes, it changed the dynamic of smoking in America, and I think it can change the dynamic of usage of social media. And it's an incredibly light touch, but it is education and I think it will allow kids to interact with differently with these social media platforms as they age.

Thank you. Other comments? Yes, Dr. Weber Pierson.

I really want to thank the author for bringing this very important bill forward. You know, even though I didn't have all of this technology as I was growing up, unfortunately my kids do. And I have an 11 and 13, and the 13 year old is rapidly becoming addicted to these, to the phone, to the social media, all of which that I wish that he actually had no access to.

Thank you so much for coming up here and sharing your story. It was not easy to do, but I know that your daughter is watching and that she's very proud of you for doing all that you can do to ensure that other families don't have to endure the pain, other children don't have to become addicted.

I wish that I could say that you were the first parent I heard that from, but you're not. And that is why it is really incumbent upon us to do everything that we can to educate our constituents and the children about this harm. And yes, this is a soft touch, but a much needed touch. And you know, yes, as parents, you know, you can tell your kids, don't do this, don't do that.

And when they're left alone, they will sometimes, sometimes, not all the time, do the opposite. But that should never stop us from doing what's right. That should never stop us from telling our children what they should or should not do. We tell them, you know, don't do drugs and we let them go to parties and, you know, and hope that they listen. Right. But that doesn't stop us from saying don't do this. We say, don't cut yourself.

We still have knives in the kitchen. So just because you may think that someone is going to go off and do something in the opposite direction does not negate our responsibility as parents nor as a state to do what is right. I think this is an amazing bill. I think that you will continue to work with opposition to figure out some of the kinks, and I would love to be a co-author on this.

Thank you, Senator.

Alrighty, thank you. Other... Senator Durazo.

Thank you, thank you. And thank you to the author and thank you to the witness for being here. You know, a few things were going through my mind as you both were speaking. One is that we want our kids, because we live in a technological world.

Their future, their careers in all spaces depend in large part on them learning the Internet, them learning from the Internet, having access to the Internet. And so on the one hand, we're scared to death about what impact this will have on their health and their well being.

On the other hand, they need to learn from the access to the Internet. It's part of their world. It's part of the world. We cannot stop them. So the only thing that we can fight for is to have a healthy Internet. You know, having access to things that will make them smarter, help them in their future, help them have access, help them have fun, but not the dangerous parts.

And it seems to me this industry should and must have the ability to do that, to control that. And so it certainly isn't up to me. I don't know enough about what to do or what not to do. But we're stuck with the results of what is wrong. And our families are suffering, our kids are suffering.

So that's just one. I have a one year old grandbaby, and at one year old she is trying desperately to get a hold of the iPad and the phone, and she sees there's something there. Can you imagine at one year old just anxious, and so their parents are hiding it from her.

But you know, then they get on the phone. I mean, but at one year old she's already, I'm already seeing the impact on her. So, you know, I hope that this helps as we move along thinking about what is, what we need in our world is our kids to have access to technology, but it can't be where they risk their health and their well being. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Alrighty, thank you very much. A few comments. Thank you, Dr. Weber Pierson, for expressing your sentiments. And I think every parent and grandparent feels the same way. I don't think I could have actually said that without choking up. So thank you for expressing that. Thank you for sharing your pain and turning it into a positive force.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, for bringing this forward. A couple other things though. I differentiate, I appreciate you taking the amendments. I differentiate between young people and adults. I think we have a higher duty to protect young people than we do adults. And your amendments, our amendments reflect some of that. So thank you very much.

Next point is that we're going to keep sending what we think is good policy in 9th Circuit. If they don't agree for whatever reason, that's their business. Our business is to create good policy, and so we're going to send that forward. And then lastly, that will apply to lots of other bills that are coming through this Committee.

I take the opposition's point that there are some tensions between the First Amendment. There's some tensions between, you know, other freedoms. But I think our first duty is to protect young people. So having said that, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I just really want to close by thanking Victoria and reiterating what all of you have said, as I've had the privilege of getting to know her over the last six months, and Alexandra through her.

It truly is a gift to have her memory leading our work in a way that I know will change the lives for other youth and ensure that they get to grow up to the beautiful, wonderful people they deserve, just as she should have. And so I want to reiterate my thanks and the strength it takes to do what Victoria did today. But I know the power in it, so I just want to express that gratitude. And on behalf of Alexandra, I ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. Let's now turn to file item number six, AB 578, food delivery platforms.

Just hand this back. Sorry. I want to make sure she got her picture back before she left. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And I want to thank again, Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I swear, your staff does the work of three Assembly staff members. So really immense gratitude.

I want to accept the Committee's proposed amendment, which is, I think, a great amendment. It ensures that the platforms can address legitimate fraud concerns by removing people from the platform as needed, which is obviously a right they should have. And I want to thank the Committee for that Amendment.

And I also want to say that, as you know, we've had a conversation. I'm committing to work with stakeholders to continue to address legitimate concerns in that and other areas. I'm happy at this point.

One of the food delivery platforms has actually come on in support, which hopefully shows the amount of work that has gone into this Bill and ensuring it's a workable Bill for the food delivery platforms. As you'll see, Uber has submitted a support letter in the portfolio.

So AB 578 comes from my own experience. My daughters had very few requests for her Bat Mitzvah, but one of them was that we get late night pizza. Late night was only 8:30, but she wanted pizza delivered.

So I am not a frequent user of these apps. But, you know, it was an occasion, I was willing to spend the fees, so I ordered on DoorDash. I ordered a dozen pizzas and one arrived. So I'm at a party and I have one pizza.

Now that was a problem for a lot of reasons. A room full of teenagers. Luckily, my daughter's many requests were all food. So we had plenty of food to feed people. But the Dasher, to their credit, was incredibly apologetic, could see that I had ordered a dozen pizza, could see that only one had arrived.

They were able to call Dasher support. I could call nobody. There was nobody for me to call to get this addressed. I then didn't deal with it. That night I was in the middle of celebrating my daughter's big day. But the next day I went online to try to get my money back and I could not.

There was no way for me to get a refund. I learned later that that was because I was not a frequent user of a platform, as you can imagine. 12 pizzas from my daughter's favorite pizza place. This was hundreds of dollars worth of food that I didn't get.

And they were willing to give me a credit, but not my money in the form of payment, which I was shocked to buy because they didn't deliver what was promised. And Californians right now, in many cases, hundreds of dollars is something they may need.

So to say that you can keep that money on your platform despite not delivering the goods was shocking to me. And so this Bill is born out of that. It's incredibly simple. It says that if you don't get what was, you can get your money back in the form you were promised.

I will also note that I got money back for the pizzas. So the restaurant didn't get paid, but DoorDash kept every single dollar of the fees. And as anyone who in this room who uses the platforms knows the fees are prorated against the cost of your order. So these were.

There was a lot of doordash fees that they kept on my one pizza. And so the Bill also says that if you don't give the order, you don't get to keep the fees. And if you give partial order, you have to prorate the fees to what was actually received by the consum.

I think the reason that we've gotten one of the platforms on in support is because this is just good business. And I now will use other platforms because I've learned they are better at providing customer service.

In addition, during the course of this Bill, we had the opportunity to deal with an issue that arose in New York regarding the platforms not appropriately paying their workers and using tips to compensate wage wages. And so that is also addressed in the Bill.

So that is the Bill and with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Witnesses in support of AB 578.

Matt Clavenstein on behalf of Uber in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. We're in support and we just want to thank the author for her work to protect drivers and ensure that they get their tips and their payment for deliveries.

All right, thank you. Others in support?

Ted Mermin, California Low Income Consumer Coalition in strong support of this very workable Bill. Thank you.

Nicole Young, mom of a lot of really hungry teenagers, in strong support.

All right, anyone else in support? AB578. Seeing no one else coming forward, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB578, please come forward. All right, floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jose Torres with TechNet. On behalf of our Members, we appreciate the engagement from Committee and the author's office on continuing to address our various concerns. While we do support efforts to increase transparency in food delivery, we remain opposed to this Bill as currently written.

It imposes significant liability on how private businesses operate without allowing flexibility for the complexity and variability of their services. The Bill will have the effect of greatly impacting existing business relationships and contracts between platforms and restaurants because of the significant liabilities placed on platforms.

For example, the refund provisions lack a reasonableness standard and fail to consider any external factors such as customer or restaurant errors. There is no room for nuance or shared responsibility. All liability is placed on the on the platform, regardless if the issue is from the customer, restaurant, or someone else.

Our member companies have internal refund processes tailored to specific circumstances. This Bill would override that flexibility and hinder their ability to address fraud or investigate each case appropriately, especially when the Bill has vague or unclear language on what would trigger a full or partial refund.

We are also concerned about the customer service requirements. While our members are committed to providing high quality support, the bill's vague language, especially about requiring to prompt connect with the natural person, creates ambiguity and potential enforcement issues. Many platforms use automated systems to triage issues efficiently.

If a customer refuses to engage with the system and demands a live agent, any delay could be seen as non compliance under this Bill. As such, businesses must retain flexibility to design customer service models that are effective, reasonable and scalable. This flexibility is not possible with such vague language or ambiguous standards are used.

We support the goal of transparency, but ask for flexibility in how platforms implement that goal. For these reasons, we remain opposed, but continue. But look forward to continuing to engage on this Bill.

Alrighty. Thank you very much, Mr. Levine.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Shane Levine on behalf of DoorDash. Regrettably, all of our concerns still remain and we also remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Others opposed please approach.

Keith Dunn here on behalf of the Mayor Brown Law Firm today. On behalf of GrubHub, working with the author and have some amendments in and look forward to continuing to work with you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Alicia Priego, on behalf of the Chamber of Progress in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Others opposed? Please queue up.

Yes. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce, also opposed with the fraud concerns. Thank you. Right.

Thank you. All right, anyone else opposed? Seeing no one else. Questions by Committee Members? Seeing no questions. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator.

Yes, it's actually just ask the author. I have several businesses in the district represented by the Latino Restaurant Association and the Latino Food Industry Association. Shall I would appreciate the author meeting with them about their issues and their concerns having to do with partial refund, I think, provisions. So if you would do that, I greatly appreciate that.

Happy to. Thank you, Senator.

All right, thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments. A couple comments. One is I know we've had some amendments to the Bill. Thank you very much. Still working on fraud. Several examples are brought to my attention during the course of this Bill. Somebody orders $20 worth of pizzas and provides a $200 tip and wants everything back.

It does smell of fraud. So we need to do a job in terms of making sure that the platforms can make an adequate adjudication of when they suspect fraud and what the standard is. And so I look forward to that so that I can vote aye on the floor as well as in Committee.

Secondly, I suppose we all view legislation through the prism of our personal experience. And so just a warning to folks, if they're going to deal with the Chair of Assembly privacy, they better be on their toes. So having said that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, and I am happy to continue to work on the fraud aspects. Like I said, I think the amendment coming out of here is fabulous and happy to continue working on that. I will say the reason I have not accepted the amendments to date is that I was considered fraud.

Because I wasn't, I learned, a frequent user. And so in order to not be a fraud risk, you have to be using these platforms regularly and I was told by one of the platforms that over 25% of users are deemed fraud risks and don't get their money back.

So I am happy to have that conversation, but I want to make sure we're dealing with the real examples of when you think it's fraud, rather than just somebody like me who doesn't want to pay these fees often and makes that choice, but does on occasion. But with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Appropriate time I expect there'll be a motion. Let's now turn to your last Bill, at least for today. Number seven, AB 1405.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm glad we're getting some of the bills out of the way today so you're not as grumpy with me. So Proud to present AB 1405 which requires auditors to enroll with GovOps before assessing an AI system or model pursuant to state law.

I want to be really clear, this bill does not actually require the auditing anything. The bill merely sets up a first step of requiring what a auditors would have to do to be professionals in this state.

We could see a situation where other bills do require AI auditors or where companies voluntarily choose to use AI auditors and this would allow them a list of people that have a basic set of requirements for the way they operate, which the bill does include.

So you know, I think it's we did receive an opposition letter prior to this hearing. We had not had opposition in the First House. And I think it's really important to note that this bill is, I believe, good government.

When we allow people to operate in the state and to be claiming they are doing something like auditing an AI model, I think it is incumbent upon the government to have a system for ensuring that we know who they are, they are following basic Auditor standards, and that those that use their services can rely on their services.

With me today is Patrick Sullivan, Vice President of Innovation and Strategy at Align and a Member of the International Association of Algorithmic Auditors.

Thank you very much. The floor is yours. Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As you heard, my name is Patrick Sullivan. I serve as DP of Strategy and Innovation at Align, a cybersecurity assurance and compliance firm that audits a organizations against most third party and regulatory standards.

I also contribute as a subject matter expert to insights, the US national body supporting ISO, where we create standards associated with cyber security, artificial intelligence and data privacy. In addition, I've led the Development of the body of knowledge for the International Association of Algorithmic Auditors not for Profit Industry Assistance Association at ieee.