Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

The Judiciary Committee will come to order. You might be wondering, I don't look like Tom Umberg because I am not Tom Umberg. He is presenting. But as Vice Chair, I am beginning the meeting. We're holding this, the Judiciary Committee meeting in room 112.

So I ask all other Members to please report as soon as you can to room 112. And when we get enough Members, we'll establish a quorum and do other business. But we do have a rather large agenda today. I think 75 bills, or 10 or 11 on consent, but who's counting?

We'll hear bills in file order this morning until we break for lunch. We'll come back and at 1:30. We'll start with file item one after. We'll start this morning with file item two, but then file item one, AB7, Assemblymember Brian, then hear his other bill and then go back to file item order.

Following bills have been pulled and will not be heard today. AB2 and AB 649, both by Assemblymember Lowenthal. AB 395 by Assemblymember Gabriel, and file item 25, AB 882 by Assemblymember Papan. So, rules of the road. Each bill, when, after, produced, after presented, there'll be primary witnesses in favor.

Two each can speak for two minutes, and then the rest of the Me Too ceremony in support, and then two primary witnesses in opposition, two minutes each, and then metoo testimony, and then we'll have discussion by the colleagues on this side of the daisy. So if I'm not forgetting anything, beg your pardon.

Well, the consent calendar, which we cannot act on yet. We have 12 bills on consent. File item 13, AB 1180, by Assemblymember Valencia. File item 14, AB 482 by Assembly Member Solace. File item 18, AB 498 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. File item 19, AB 1129, by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez with amendments.

File item 28, AB 515 by Assemblymember Pacheco. File item 31, AB 866 by Assemblymember Ortega. File item 34, AB 1172 by Assemblymember Nguyen with amendments. File item 39, AB 890 by Assemblymember Lee. File item 47, AB 1375 by Assemblymember Hoover with amendments. File item number 56, AB 1098, by Assemblymember Fong.

File item number 57, AB 586 by Assemblymember Flora and file. Item number 65, AB 487 by the Assembly Insurance Committee. We will take that up when we have a quorum. So we will begin as a Subcommitee of Senator Laird and myself, the two most important Members of the Committee.

Anyway, and I see that we have an author in the audience.

So this will be which Bill number three? AB 394.

Number three? Oh, yeah. AB 394. Assemblymember Wilson, you may proceed.

Good morning to the two most important Members of this Committee. I want to start by thanking Chair Umberg and the Committee staff for working with us on a pathway forward. We will be accepting the proposed Committee amendments that provide clearer guidance, guidance to the courts on the appropriate scope of workplace violence. Restraining orders.

As you are aware, California's transit workers are essential personnel who help millions of people reach their destination safely every single day. Unfortunately, they and our system riders are increasingly targeted by assault and harassment while simply doing their jobs or riding the systems.

Violent behavior on public transit not only endangers the safety of our transit workforce and our riders, but also undermines public confidence, disrupt services, and increases operating costs for transit agencies statewide. Now, AB 394 takes several key steps to address this. It clarifies that existing enhanced penalties for battery covers all transit employees, not just the operators.

Think about this as the transit ambassadors, ticket agents, mechanics and more. It also clarifies that public transit employers and their unions may petition for workplace violence. Restraining orders.

Finally, it affirms that judges retain full discretion to tailor temporary restraining orders, also known as tros, system wide, based on the facts of each case, including any hardship to the respondent. Public transit is a shared and functional space. If someone endangers others, they should not have access to the system.

With that, I would like to now introduce my two witnesses. Witnesses? Matt Broad from the California Conference of the ATU and the California Teamsters. And Bill Churchill, General manager at county connection.

Mr. Vice, is this on? Can you hear me? Okay. oh, there we go. Now you can hear me really well. Mr. Vice Chair and Member Matt Brod here on behalf of the California Conference Board of the ATU and the California Teamsters, who are co sponsors of AB394, which is a super important bill for transit workers.

I'll just give you an example that I think is helpful. We had a driver here at SACRT a couple months ago that was assaulted by a passenger with a modified umbrella. And the very next day, the same passenger was back on the bus.

And that's what we're trying to address with this bill is sort of saying what would be unacceptable in any other workplace will also be unacceptable in the transit context. The bill is very modest. It largely takes declaratory or existing law and clarifies that it applies to transit operators in the transit context.

We've seen that sometimes across the state, certain jurisdictions are loathe to grant TROs with respect to transit because they're not sure if the statute applies. This Bill remedies that. With that, I would ask for your aye vote and happy to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Bill Churchill. I'm the General manager of County Connection. We are a medium sized transit operator serving 10 cities in Central Contra Costa County. You know, as a General rule, our operators and our supervisors do a fantastic job mitigating disruptions and violence between our riding public and with operators.

However, there is a very small subset of individuals that are extremely violent that really require more significant intervention. So under current state law, Civil Code 527.8, employers may seek temporary restraining orders, or TROs on behalf of their employees. This Bill would clarify our status as an employer under existing state law.

Over the past five years, County Connection has sought and received TROs against seven individuals for repeated violent behavior while riding on our system.

It's important to understand this equates to less than 1/100th of a percent of our riding public, but represents over 80% of the significant disruptions to our service and 99% of those two disruptions that were resulting in violent behavior. Obtaining a temporary restraining order against a few individuals has had a profound impact in protecting our employees and passengers.

It's also important to recognize TROs are temporary and the length and time they are in place is commensurate with the danger an individual poses as determined by a court.

A transit agency's ability to seek a TRO against individuals engaging in violent behavior is an absolutely imperative tool for protecting our employees, the writing public, and really the foundational reliability of transit systems across our state. So as such, we are pleased to join our partners in labor in supporting AB394 and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I can see that others in support are already queued up.

Proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Trying to be efficient this morning, Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Transit Association, we are one of the co sponsors of this legislation. Really want to thank your Committee staff. For all the work that they put Into this bill to get us here. Today and respectfully ask your Aye vote.

Mr. Chair. Brennan Orpicky on behalf of the San Mateo County Transit District, Caltrain, Sunline Transit Agency and SF Bay Ferry in support thank you.

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

Katherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Katie Jennings on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good morning Mr. Chair. Chris McKayley on behalf of the Los Angeles County Trans Metropolitan Transportation Authority thank you and support.

Good morning. Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division proud co sponsor and support.

Good morning. Mckinley Thompson Morley on behalf of VTA and SPCTA in support. Thank you Mr.

Chair. Members Michael Pimtel here on behalf of the Solano County Transit, Santa Cruz Metro and San Joaquin RTD all on September. Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Wallace on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, Calact and support.

Good morning. ATU Local 256 Crystal Mcgee Lee, President Business Agent we respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation in support.

Good morning. Cassie Manzini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Good morning. Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority in support.

Any other witnesses in support? One more.

Are you in support? Yes. And apologies Mr. Chair. One additional transit agent agency Monterey Salinas Transit in support. Thank you.

And so now primary witnesses in opposition to the bill seeing no come forward. Other witnesses #MeToo. Testimony and support in opposition to the bill.

Good morning. My name is Marshall Arnouan and on behalf of the ACA of California Action and respectful opposition. Thank you.

So bring it back to the Member a Member. Let me just ask one question of the author because is the path of this that this bill is basically a clarification of what exists and the Committee was concerned that in some places it was overly broad and the amendments you've taken clarify that.

So this is a Committee process clarification of something that should be done that mostly exists.

Right. The original Bill was a clarification and then the Committee further clarified to ensure that it wasn't overly broad in particular in what the judge could do in terms of application to the the system wide.

Thank you. Well, if we get a quorum before our scheduled adjourn time of 1am I will move the the Bill. So thank you for being here today.

Thank you.

You may close.

I would just like to say that this bill I believe is very timely and necessary in response to what we're seeing on our transit systems and we want to encourage people to use our transit system and one of the things that they cite among others is safety and so not only will this provide safety for our workers, but it will, in essence, provide safety for those who use our transit system.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote sure.

At the appropriate time, we'll have a motion and somebody who looks remarkably like our Chair Umberg just showed up. So we are moving on to file item four, Assemblymember Wilson's second bill. All righty.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson. Floor once again is yours.

Thank you, Chair. Want to make sure my witnesses were able to come forward, so thank you. I'm pleased to present to you AB 410. This is a critical update that is needed to California's bot disclosure laws. Today, bots account for nearly half of all global Internet traffic, and that number is expected to surpass human activity soon.

But there's a problem. People don't always know when they're talking to a bot. From impersonating real people to fostering unhealthy emotional attachments, unregulated chatbots pose serious risk to public trust, mental health, and consumer protection. Without clear disclosure, Californians are vulnerable to AI-driven deception in everyday Internet use.

AB 410 strengthens transparency in online interactions by requiring chatbots to clearly disclose their artificial nature, respond truthfully about their artificial identity when asked, and avoid misleading users, expanding existing protections against deceptive bot use in California. Now, to be clear, this Bill does not ban the use of chatbots.

It simply ensures that when Californians interact with bots, that information is clearly disclosed. I would like to now introduce my two witnesses. Javier Saini, Founder and President of the National AI Youth Council, also a sponsor. And then Ken Wang, Senior Policy Advocate at the California Initiative on Technology and Democracy, also known as CITD.

Thank you. Floor is yours.

Good morning. My name is Javier Saini and I'm a rising senior at Dublin High School, as well as the Founder and President of the National AI Youth Council, one of the nation's largest youth-led organizations fostering digital equity and promoting safe AI regulation, as well as a proud sponsor of AB 410.

I'm here to express my strong support for AB 410 because I firmly believe that requiring the disclosure of bot usage in online interactions is a critical step towards creating a more trustworthy digital environment, especially for young people like myself.

Studies show that nearly half of global Internet traffic today is driven by bots, meaning students like me and my peers interact with AI daily, often without even realizing it. I've seen the risks of this firsthand. A close friend of mine who is struggling with her mental health turned to the Internet for support.

She began chatting with what she believed was a trained counselor on a mental health website. The responses were immediate, polished, and seemed empathetic. Over time, she grew to trust them, but slowly the responses began, subtly encouraging her to alienate herself and question whether anyone could truly understand her.

She later told me that these interactions made her feel more alone than before she reached out. Eventually, she discovered that she had been speaking with an AI-powered bot the entire time.

She felt confused and betrayed and told me that if she had known from the start that it wasn't a real person, she would have made many different choices. This is the reality for students today. We are growing up in a world where chatbots can sound indistinguishable from real people.

We deserve to know when we're talking to a bot before we place our trust in them. My friend was fortunate to realize the truth in time, but there are countless young people out there that have been misled and suffered because of this very issue.

AB 410 ensures that all students and Californians can make informed choices, which is why I strongly urge you to vote yes on AB 410.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Next witness please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Ken Wang, representing the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of California Common Cause. We're proud to support AB 410 as a productive first step towards combating AI generated myths and disinformation.

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

Today's AI chatbots are designed to optimize user engagement with the end product being an immersive conversation that becomes difficult to distinguish with a human-to-human interaction. This immersion makes it difficult to accurately and objectively judge the information provided by these tools, exacerbating an already dangerous misinformation problem that is inherent in the design.

One recent study published by MIT and OpenAI found that heavy use of ChatGPT was correlated with increased loneliness, emotional dependence, and reduced socialization.

California had previously passed SB 1001 in 2018 which made it unlawful for a person to use a bot with the intent to mislead another person online for commercial or election-related purposes, unless that person disclosed that it was using a bot.

This law, while well intentioned, impose an impossibly high standard for any person to bring a claim and explicitly exempted providers of online platforms from any duty of care. To address the growing impact of AI chatbots, AB 410 would update the Bot Act to require a basic disclosure requirement that aims to interrupt the immersion of user interactions.

It does so by requiring all bots, including those relying on generative AI technology, to disclose that it is a bot before any user interaction and prevent the bot from misleading users about its artificial nature. This disclosure requirement is a simple first step to help ensure that users are not misled when interacting with chatbots.

This Bill also eliminates the provisions that exempt online platforms from any duties under this law. While section 230 may shield platform from civil liability, courts are still deciding whether online platforms have a duty of care under theories of property.

Thank you very much, sir.

All righty, thanks. All right, others in support, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Alright, seeing no one approaches the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 410, please approach microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee questions by committee members. Seeing no questions or comments. Alright, Assemblymember Wilson, you may close.

Alright. This bill brings our laws up to date with the reality of AI today and ensures that California's always know who or what they are interacting with online. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. The appropriate time, there'll be a motion, I expect, and a vote. Alright, thank you.

Thank you.

I do not see the person that would normally be next in order though, but I do see Assemblymember Carrillo. So you have. You win the lottery.

Thank you. Lucky day today. Thank you, sir.

We're going now to file item number 62 before we begin. And you are going to go. So I know my very capable colleague Senator Niello provided the ground rules for today.

I want to emphasize to the authors that they let their witnesses know that because of the number of items that we're hearing today, we're going to have to be rigorous in enforcing the two minute per witness rule unless there's been specific, basically authorization to deviate. Also, if there is no opposition, just for authors to focus.

If there's no opposition to their bill, they may want to tailor their remarks to the fact that there is no opposition. To the extent that authors go on when there's no opposition, that will often generate questions and then sometimes even opposition. So anyway, thank you, Assemblymember Carrillo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm here to present AB 735, which is a follow up to AB 98 from last year. Our state and our world's economy is increasingly relying on the movement, storage, and delivery of goods from all over the world.

The logistics industry has boomed over the past 15 years as the rise of e-commerce in our constituents' expectations of rapid shipping has grown. For nearly a decade, the Legislature has grappled with how to protect impacted communities from the risks that come from living among heavy duty diesel trucks. The fight predates my time here in the Legislature.

But last year, at the request of the speaker, I dedicated much of my time to helping find a just compromise to address this issue. My staff and I toured logistic facilities in the surrounding communities across the state.

We met with stakeholders and consulted experts in public health, labor, and the logistics industry to find a delicate balance that I believe will both keep the industry and the thousands of jobs it creates here in California and improve the quality of life and community members in our constituents.

The delicate balance we struck in AB 98 creates the following: increase sustainability and air quality standards for warehouses built within an existing community, it requires developers to design new warehouses with community members in mind, and it also requires local governments to develop and enforce meaningful truck routes to minimize the impact of trucks coming to and from these facilities.

As with all legislation in this magnitude, there is more work to be done. Our joint author on AB 98, Senator Reyes and I have introduced identical bills to clarify a number of outstanding issues.

We have held dozens of meetings with stakeholders on all sites to get to this point.

The Bill in print addresses a number of issues, including: it ensures that existing affordable housing requirements are not replaced by the affordable housing language in AB 98, makes clear that AB 98 provisions do not apply to certain poor properties or agricultural uses, provides more time for small cities and counties to update their circulation element, and it gives the Attorney General discretion to work with legal governments that are working in good faith to comply with AB 98.

Senators, this is a very challenging issue with passionate stakeholders on all sides. We have elected not to have witness in support, but instead, I would like to take a moment to thank all of the stakeholders that have come forward with their concerns and their ideas to help us ensure we get this right.

Finally, I would like to be transparent that we are not done yet. There is still more work to be done. We will continue to work through the summer recess to address some of the outstanding issues, such as rehabilitation of all facilities and tract enforcement.

My sincere hope is that there are at least a few more issues we reach consensus on before the end of this year. And if we are successful, I look forward to bring this Bill back to your Committee in August for final review. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.

Thank you very much. Witnesses in support of AB 735? Seeing no one approaching. If you are in support and you wish to provide me too testimony, please approach the microphone. Well, one second.

Support?

Support if amended. Is that all right?

Support if amended. All right. We'll now turn to tweeners and then we'll go to opposition. All right, the tweeners will get—go ahead.

Mr. Chair, sorry if I jumped the gun there. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. We have been in conversations with both authors to try to clarify some of the definitional issues around the port properties and look forward to continuing working on that and hopefully we'll get some resolution before session is over.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association. I'm here actually representing a very large coalition of about 50 entities that have been working very closely with Mr. Carillo and the Senator on this Bill. There's just a few remaining issues that we're hoping we can bring to a close.

Mr. Carrillo's been very good working with us, and we look forward to coming back with a fully cooked Bill that will address some of the issues that we're seeing on the ground right now. Thank you.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, also in a tweener position. We've expressed some concerns about the cleanup legislation and have been working with the authors.

I'd just say a priority for local governments for Cities, is that the cleanup needs to address that if a city does not have a warehouse of this size or scale, it's prescriptive in the Bill. They shouldn't have to do the circulation element update until that changes.

That was a priority ask of the Senate last year as the Bill moved across the floor. And so, we're continuing to have those conversations about that needing to be in the Bill. Additionally, we have concerns about the Attorney General language that has been revised and shifting the cost.

Thank you very much. What we're going to do is the tweeners now, the remaining tweeners, will have 10 seconds and then we'll turn to the opposition, which will have two minutes for each witness, so alrighty.

We are asking that the Attorney General language be revised back to the good faith.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Taking that note, Lauren De Valencia, representing the American Planning Association. Our members are responsible for updating the general plan requirements in the Bill. I would echo all the comments raised by my colleague at Cal Cities and look forward to continuing to work with Assemblymember Carrillo. Thank you.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California. Appreciate the changes made for rural areas but have deep concerns about the AG provisions. Hope we can strike a balance based on existing law and your legislation. Thank you very much.

Jeff Neal, representing the City of Isalia. Reflect the comments of my colleagues at League of Cities and others. Thank you.

Good morning. Ronak Daylami for Cal Chamber. On behalf of my colleagues, just want to say we want to express our appreciation for the continued efforts for AB 98 cleanup. We don't have a position on the Bill.

Respectfully, just want to emphasize the need for the Legislature to clear a pathway for modernizing, modernizing facilities critical to California's goods movement sector. And we thank you and thank the author. Thank you.

All right, thank you. If you're opposed to AB 735, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. Seeing no one in opposition. All right, bring it back to Committee. Yes, Senator Laird. Then, Senator Niello.

I saw this Bill in local government. I know the only reason it's here is the fine part of it. It's clear that you're working on it and that there's still a lot to do.

And so, at the appropriate time, I'm going to support this Bill to give you a chance to continue to work on it, even though it's clear that there are problems that still exist.

And I know the chair of local government has said that she reserved the right to pull it back if there's changes that fall into that valley wick that require that. So, thank you for your efforts on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All due respect, Assemblyman Carillo, the problem with this isn't this. The problem was AB 98. I think this is a perfect example, along with the Bill that dealt with the Lemon Law changes, the problems we run into when we entertain a gut and amend in the last month of a session.

I personally believe after going through two of those now and then subsequent fixes, which in the Lemon Law Bill was less than satisfying, and I will echo Senator Laird's remarks, but I can't support the Bill because I think it's fundamentally flawed in the first place.

I think when we have a drastic gut and amend in the last month of session, we ought to require a supermajority to pass it. We would be much better off if AB 98 had never passed and you and Senator, now Senator Reyes, presented AB 98, and we can fully consider it with much more time.

So, I think it's been a flawed process. But with regard to Senator Laird's issue as to why the Bill is here, what can you tell us in terms of what you think your additional work on the fine issue is going to produce?

I think that we've really been able to address most of the concerns, if not all, from both sides. I believe that we're still trying to find that point where we can continue to move on with the industry. I believe that we've been able to do that. Based on the comments that you heard from those tweeners, the speakers, we continue to work with them.

We've been meeting with them from day one after the Bill got signed. And you have my commitment that I'll continue to do that until we're able to find that point where it can be—at least remove the opposition that we still have.

Although I can venture to say that there is really no opposition at this time, we're still working on it. We're trying to get everybody's concerns to be part of the continued conversations, like I've committed in local government and committed to you as well, continue to work with them until we are able to find that meeting where we can keep the industry in California.

That's really important for me. Being able to keep the industry because the growing demand of e-commerce, again, it's a new way of shopping now and keeping those jobs and that industry in California is one of my primary goals, sir.

I would endorse that goal. I think it's going to be difficult just the same. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments. Thank you very much, Assemblymember Carrillo. I know you're working hard on this. I think there are still some very serious issues that need to be resolved. I'm going to support the Bill today and recommend an aye vote. However, I reserve the right not to support the Bill on the floor.

Should these concerns not be resolved, then I will likely not be supportive on the floor. With that, would you like to close?

I should respectfully ask for an aye vote, and you have my commitment that we'll continue to work. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members.

Thank you. At the appropriate time, Senator Laird will move the Bill. All right, next, I see Assemblymember Wicks. There are four bills. Assemblymember Wicks has four bills. Where would you like to start? How about file item number five, AB 593? All right. All right, the floor is yours. So, normally we would have—Assemblymember Wicks is here.

She has four bills. Then. Then Assemblymember Ward would normally go next with three bills. So Assemblymember Wicks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. AB 593 clarifies exemptions from data sharing restrictions permitted under state law for the narrow purpose of improving CalFresh Administration. Last year, I authored AB 518, requiring the Department of Social Services develop a methodology to determine the state's CalFresh participation rate and identify characteristics of residents who are eligible but not receiving benefits.

The law established by that bill set in motion an ongoing process designed to enhance access to healthy food among California's most vulnerable communities. IB518's intent was to utilize existing state data in a tailored manner to improve strategies that will maximize enrollment in CalFresh while safeguarding the confidentiality, privacy and security of California's personally identifiable information.

In a letter written to the assembly journal I committed to collaborating with the Newsom Administration this year on further legislation to clarify the scope of this bill. The legislation before you today reflects this commitment to ensure the extent of intergovernmental state data sharing does not extend beyond the boundaries of what is necessary.

It remains a work in progress as the final bill has to balance personal privacy implementation or technical concerns from the administration and take into consideration the unique moment of history we face where our Federal Government is attempting to weaponize state data, actively prosecute a subset of Californians.

I ask for your consent in moving this legislation forward today so conversations between all parties may continue over summer recess and the final weeks of the session. We have no witnesses here today. Just myself and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Anyone in support of AB 593? Anyone wishes to express support, please approach. Seeing no one approach. Let's talk to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 5593 please approach the microphone.

Do you want me to do it from here or from there?

Two minutes. Wherever you'd like.

Okay, I can do it from here. So. Good morning, chair and members. Tracy Rosenberg, Advocacy Director for Oakland Privacy. I'll just do this once. Today we are a statewide coalition that focuses on guardrails and safeguards in the interest of privacy protection, civil rights and community consent.

We greatly appreciate this cleanup bill of last year's gut and amend AB 518 and also want to thank the author for taking many changes to improve the bill. We have one last concern, that is with the inclusion of CDCR in the list of entities for data sharing. Two reasons.

Firstly, SB 1254 was already passed by this legislature in 2024 to precisely do this with a mandate to pre enroll people in reentry out of state prisons in Calfresh. Secondly, we are in the times that we are in California has already found its Medicaid data sent to Homeland Security.

Jail exit lists are an ICE priority and we risk upsetting the delicate balance imposed by the California Values Act by putting the lists of people out where they could potentially be captured, regardless of whether they are SB 54 protected or not. We think it's kind of a risky maneuver at this time.

Local CalFresh data has been requested by the feds already. It's tied up in court and we hope that we are able to take CDCR out of this bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else opposed to AB 593, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it to the committee. Questions by committee members. Senator Niello.

First of all, late breaking news. Senate Member Wicks is named best Legislature by Legislator by Capitol weekly. You might not have seen that yet. Thank you for congratulations.

Then I expect your aye vote right? No, I'm just kidding.

Well, I will support it because it does improve things. But I'll repeat, I don't know if you were here when I made my comments about the previous bill which was a late session gut and amend and we we keep on tripping up on those because it happens too quickly and we really can't fully consider it.

And I personally think that measures of that sort in the last month of a session a gut and amend should require a super majority vote to pass and then we probably wouldn't and then we can start over. You could start over with a fresh Bill now as opposed to fixing what happened last time.

You- You can run a bill on that. I appreciate that and I too get frustrated by gut and amends because it makes the process so much more difficult. This was clean up to a last year's gut and amend and so we've been continuing to have those conversations.

But this is also why we are where we are because we had a gut amendment last year. So appreciate your sentiments and also your aye vote.

Alright. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Thank you very much, Assemblymember Wicks, Senator Laird pointed out that you addressed me as speaker early on. Common mistake. We look so much alike that folks often make that mistake. So would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. It's appropriate time. There'll be a motion and a vote. Thank you. All right, let's now turn to file number six. AB 712.

Great housing. Okay, let's see. Well, thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB712. The purpose of AB712 is to help ensure public agencies comply with state housing law. It would do so by increasing penalties against public agencies that violate state housing law.

As this Committee knows, in recent years the state has passed numerous statues to make housing permitting easier and more predictable in an effort to address our ongoing housing crisis. That effort continues this year with a fast track housing package which includes this Bill.

But for these laws to be effective, they have to be easy to enforce and have real consequences when they are broken. Unfortunately, most state housing law, with the notable exception of the Housing Accountability act, are very difficult to actually enforce. Right now.

These laws largely rely on housing developers to sue public agencies that break the law, something that developers are highly hesitant to do because they need to maintain long term relationships with these agencies, and even when developers win their case, they do not collect attorney's fees, which means that most violations go unpunished.

Some public agencies have gone so far as requiring developers to indemnify them from the very lawsuits that developers bring against them when those agencies break housing law, and even requiring developers to pay for the legal fees incurred by the public agency to defend the laws that they have in fact broken.

Because these factors defer developers from suing repeated violations of housing law occurring, which further impedes the ability for housing production in California that we so desperately need. AB 712 would address this problem by increasing penalties against public agencies that break housing laws by applying the same requirement that exists in the Housing Accountability act to other housing laws.

The HAA imposes a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit until, sorry, $10,000 per housing unit in the housing development project. AB 712 would impose the same fine unless the project consists of four units or fewer, in which case a minimum fine of $50,000 per violation would be imposed.

In line with HHA, AB 712 would provide the project applicant with attorney's fees and costs when they prevail in court. It would also subject the public agency to fines in a court case where they had been previously warned by the Attorney General or Department of Housing and Community Development that their action was in violation of the law.

These fines could be increased in an instance where the court has previously found that the public agency has broken the same law. Importantly, this bill requires project applicants to provide local agencies with 60 days notice before filing a lawsuit associated with a violation that was identified in a letter by the AG or HCD.

AB712 would also end the practice of public agencies asking housing development applicants to indemnify the local government against lawsuits when that agency violates the applicant's rights. We have worked with the special districts throughout this process and my door is always open for further conversation.

I agree that special districts are essential partners in facilitating the development of new housing, and as such they should be included in our effort to enforce housing laws that this body has passed. But I also want to be clear that this bill is not just about local agencies.

State agencies also need to be on the hook to comply with the law because only if everyone is abiding by the law will we be able to build the housing we need to bring down rents and sales prices and make housing affordable to everyone.

We have two folks here to testify from the cbia, the California Building Industry Association, as well as council, and I Will let them self introduce.

Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Mr. Vice Chair and Members. Karim Driesy, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, proud sponsor of AB712. This Committee has done excellent work in recent years to advance proposals that would help alleviate the state's housing crisis.

Unfortunately, enforcement of these housing reform laws continues to be an issue with local non compliance negatively impacting the construction of new housing and in turn harming California's working families in need of shelter. By strengthening the enforcement of these laws, AB 712 encourages compliance and will ultimately lead to more housing being built for California's working families.

Together with the author's office, we've worked constructively with the California League of Cities who is now neutral on the measure. The Bill has received bipartisan support in both houses and we're extremely grateful for your consideration here today. And we respectfully request an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.

Next witness, please.

Nick Camarada, General Counsel for CBIA. Just here to answer questions if needed.

All righty. Thank you very much. Others in support, please Approach Micro and give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Bob. Bob Naylor for Field Stud and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Jr. An Orange County philanthropist. Thank you.

Katherine Charles, on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing and support.

Thank you very much. All right, seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB712, please approach the microphone.

A few more support here. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium in support.

Thank you. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership and on behalf of Housing California in support. Thank you.

Hi, Martin Radosevich speaking in support for SPUR, Abundant Housing LA, Circulate San Diego, and the 200. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I think we finished with support. Now if you're opposed to SB 712, please approach the microphone or the witness table. All right, thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association and remain in respectful opposition. I do appreciate the author's comments and the open door policy. Our Members still remain opposed. There's several concerns. I'll list a few of them.

The evidentiary standards apply to all range of what may be proven or shown to be a housing reform law which is undefined and it may foster more litigation and cooperation. It conflates some statutes that are reserved for land use authorities more so than non land use authorities. Such as special districts.

And it offers these punitive measures or remedies on top of any existing remedies that may also exist in the existing statutes as the measure we find to be quite broad. And I appreciate your time.

Thank you very much. All right. Others opposed to AB 712, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, bring it back to Committee. Senator Laird.

I was just going to ask the author before the testimony about that. Because the definition is so broad to include special districts, they don't have land use authority. I don't think people are probably going to go after them anyway. And as a result, they the Committee didn't ask for amendments.

But is that something you feel a need to do just to clarify this and be done with it?

Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, they're included within the definition of public agencies that are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. They're included with the definition of local agencies that are subject to SB330. So a lot of other housing law, they're included as well. And so we sort of view them similarly as other entities.

But I'm always happy to continue the conversation and see if there's a place we can land where that makes sense for them and makes sense for what we're trying to do with the Bill.

Great. Thank you very much.

Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Appropriate time. Expect to be a motion and a vote. So now turning to file item number seven, AB853.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking the Committee for their Hard work and I will be accepting the Committee amendments today. As AI and new technology continues to develop rapidly, it's becoming increasingly easier to manipulate and edit video, image and audio content.

Bad actors can use these technologies to create scams and fraudulent impersonations, disseminate harmful content of women and children, and spread disinformation and deep fakes which impacts public trust and information. AB 853 would build upon the work of previous legislation by requiring more transparency of content on large online platforms and capture devices.

Specifically, this bill would require large online platforms to provide labels to display provenance information for content that is posted on the platform. Require capture devices to offer the option to include a latent disclosure in content captured by the device and require capture devices to embed those disclosures.

Prohibit generative AI hosting platforms from making available gen AI systems that do not display that do not place disclosure in the content. There have been concerns raised by stakeholders on the scope and feasibility of the bill and I continue to work with opposition and other stakeholders as I always do should the bill move forward. Today.

We have two folks here who are going to self identify from TRUPIC and CITED and would respectfully ask for the aye vote when the time is right.

Thank you very much. First witness, please.

Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee. My name is David Evan Harris, Senior Policy Advisor for the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy or CITED. I'm also a Chancellor's Public Scholar at UC Berkeley and I have advised the United nations, the White House, NATO Union, EU on AI policy.

I also worked at meta Facebook from 2018 to 2023 as a research manager on civic integrity and responsible AI. I'm here to support AB 853 to provide a critical tool for Californians to distinguish real content from fake content.

AI threats are not abstract Last year the National Center for Missing and Exploited children reported a 1,325% increase in AI generated child sexual abuse material, much created from innocent photos scraped from social media. This is the crisis of unregulated AI.

It's why last year's SB 942, supported by this Committee, was a vital first step in identifying content from major AI companies. But 942 only went part of the way. It required invisible markings to be put into the junk food of AI generated fakes, but it left everyday people with no way to see labels of what is fake.

It also left us with no tools to know what is actually real and authentic. AB 853 provides these crucial additional ingredients allowing us to know what is real and to see clear labels about this content. This technology is not theoretical.

The industry has already built the solution led by companies like Trupic, represented by my colleague Munir Ibrahim here at my side. Trupic is an industry leader having co founded the influential Coalition for Content provenance and authenticity.

C2PA and sister organizations have thousands of companies that are Members and this bill would allow California to embrace this standard that has been put forth by industry. This bill is not about stifling technology innovation. It creates a new market for tech companies like Trupik to innovate. It's also about restoring trust and protecting our children.

We encourage the Committee to vote aye on this measure.

Thank you very much. Next witness please.

Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Munir Ibrahim and I'm with Trupic. We are a California based company that's focused on image and data authenticity. Prior to TRUPIC I was a US diplomat serving in conflict zones around the world.

It was there I saw how important image authenticity is. Today I'm here in support of AB 853. Given the time, I want to highlight one critical aspect of the bill. Giving users of capture devices the opportunity to embed authenticity and provenance into what they create. This will empower Californians. This isn't theory.

Trupik specializes in this very same approach with some of the countries top businesses, many of them based here in California. As David mentioned, we're also proud co founders of the C2PA. I believe this bill will help drive beneficial outcomes for California's economy, business and government. It will prepare you for the AI age.

Imagine Californians can now file insurance, auto claims, report an issue to a lender or a landlord with one simple tap of their phone. Imagine how this can help law enforcement and emergency responders triage the amount of images and video they get by identifying what is authentic and what is synthetic.

And victims of natural disasters, wildfires or floods can document the damage and submit state, local, federal or private assistance claims. This is the foundation you will build with this bill. This effort should not be conceptualized with stopping deception. Rather this is empowering California citizens, businesses and government. This is preparing the state for digital transformation.

And I believe this is innovation. Thank you again for your time and leadership on this issue.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 853. Please approach microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position, position.

Mr. Chair, esteemed Committee, my name is Erik Passoja. I'm co-chair of the SAG-AFTRA LA New Technology Committee, a Member of the C2PA Creator Assertions Working Group. Testifying as a private citizen and digital identity protection expert. Speaking strongly in support of AB 853. Thank you. Thank you.

Becca Kramer Mater with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Reports in support.

Thank you.

Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity in support. Thank you.

Hi. Jai Jaisimha, contributor member of C2PA and also from the Transparency Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Cheryl Westmont, speaking on for myself as a private citizen, but co-founder of Agenda for Democracy.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, anyone else in support? Anyone else in support of AB 853? Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. Good for you. You've already queued up. If you're opposed to AB 853 and you wish to testify either from the microphone or from the table, go ahead. Floor is yours. Whichever you prefer.

Okay, cool. Yeah, why don't we. Yeah, yeah.

Hi, how are you?

Floor is yours.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet, here today in respectful opposition to AB 853. While we support the goal of improving transparency around synthetic media, we remain opposed to 853 in its current form.

Manufacturers and platforms are actively working through industry-led coalitions, such as Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, to develop provenance standards. These technologies are still evolving and meeting the bill's requirements, especially for capture devices not yet technically or commercially feasible. A phased approach could be--could better balance consumer choice implementation realities.

That's why we greatly appreciate the delayed implementation. However, we still feel other changes may be necessary. With that said, we appreciate the open conversations with the author's office and look forward to working with them as the bill moves forward today.

Thank you. Next witness.

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. On behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, I must respectfully voice our opposition to AB 853. While we share the bill's underlying goal of improving--

Go ahead, go ahead and give us your name.

Oh, Aodhan Downey, sorry; spelled A-O-D-H-A-N D-O-W-N-E-Y. While we share the bill's underlying goal of improving transparency around synthetic media, we are concerned that AB 853 imposes premature and overly rigid requirements on emerging technologies, particularly watermarking and provenance tools that are still under development.

This Legislature took a major step forward last year with the passage of Senate Bill 942, which is still in the early stages of implementation. AB 853 attempts to go much further before we've had a chance to evaluate--further evaluate--the effectiveness of that prior effort.

While we appreciate the delayed implementation, a better approach would be to evaluate the effectiveness of 942 before creating legislation that unnecessarily expands compliance requirements. 853 also imposes mandates on both capture devices and manufacturers and large online platforms at a time when standards are still evolving globally through collaborative industry-led processes.

Platforms are actively engaging in initiatives like like C2PA to develop scalable, interoperable standards. By imposing rigid compliance frameworks now, the bill risks disrupting that work and unintentionally penalizing compliant actors while doing little to address bad actors operating outside the law's reach.

While we appreciate the bill's intent, we believe the ongoing collaborative industry approach will be more effective and far more accommodating for consumers using online platforms. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no on AB 853. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Others who are opposed to AB 853, please approach. Name, affiliation, your position.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Jack Yanos, on behalf of the Consumer Technology Association. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

All right, anyone else opposed? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing no questions by committee members, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. By the way, thank you. I realize it doesn't resolve the concerns of the opposition, but delayed implementation, I have a great deal of confidence in the tech industry in California that they'll be able to meet that challenge, so thank you very much. All right.

Thank you.

Next, AB 1043. Full disclosure, I'm the principal coauthor of AB 1043. But Assemblymember Wicks, please kick it off.

A principal co-author and an important thought partner on this Bill, so really appreciate your intellectual prowess and legal minds as we navigated this Bill and continue to navigate this Bill. I want to thank the Chair and the Committee Staff for their work on this Bill. I accept the Committee's amendments.

California's children are growing up with access to an online world that was not built with them in mind, and I know this because I have a 4 and 8 year old and I see it every single day.

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

I don't believe, however, that we should keep technology away from our children. It's the world they're living in, it's how they're growing up. But we have to do what we can to make it safer. And you know, this issue in particular has always been a bipartisan one.

And I sit on the Privacy Committee where it's just moms and dads trying to figure out how to keep our kids safe online. And it's actually kind of a refreshing place for our political discourse when we're coming together just trying to solve problems to keep our kids safer online.

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

This Bill requires manufacturers of a computing device or operating system, so an iPhone or an Android phone, to have a mechanism for device owners to indicate the device user's birth date, age, or both, at the time of setup, and send that digital signal to an application developer, indicating the device user's age range when the developer's trying to—if someone's trying to download an app at the app store, the age will be sent from the operating system to the developer, say Facebook or Snapchat or whomever, so that they know they have a knowledge standard of the age of that user.

After many discussions with the Chair and the Committee staff, and incorporating feedback from a number of stakeholders, the Committee amendments will one, remove the parental consent requirement, two, change the requirement regarding the signal to require a developer to request the signal from a covered manufacturer when an app is downloaded, and the covered manufacturer would be required to send the signal to the developer when requested and remove websites from being included in the Bill.

While removing websites from the Bill narrows its scope, I've accepted the Committee Amendments due to the technical and privacy concerns that we really just couldn't address this year, and we felt like it's going to take more time to get it right.

We'd rather get it right than get it quick, so we're going to confront that issue in a later date. This still is a very strong bill and I think it's going to set a national standard for how we establish the knowledge standard.

And having done many bills in this space, whether it's CSAM, tackling CSAM, or age appropriate design code or many other things, one of the biggest challenges when we're trying to create a safer space for our kids is the platforms say, well, we don't know the age of the person, so how can we be held accountable to that?

We also know when we set up our tablets for our children, and I set up my 8-year-old's tablet in the family account, I put her age. That is then locked in the operating system that is, in my opinion, the truest representation of that person's age because the parent is setting it most of the time.

And so, now, if we have that age in the operating system requiring it to go to, say, Facebook or Snapchat or whoever at the download, then there's a knowledge that has been established.

The companies that know the age of the person and once we establish the knowledge standard, we can then create more safety around those types of programs for those children. This has been one of the most vexing issues.

You and I have talked about this for years trying to establish this and I think this is the most effective upstream way of establishing that age and sending the age signal so that things like age appropriate design code, should it get out of the courts.

Thank you, Attorney General Rob Bonta, for fighting that fight, or the other CSAM stuff we've done, or anything else we do in this space can be effective because then we are targeting those safety protocols to the right people, our children. Our number one job as lawmakers is to keep our community safe, specifically our children.

So, that is what this Bill is about. It has bipartisan coauthors, bipartisan support. It got off the floor of the Assembly, 76 to 0, and I look forward to having the conversation today, hopefully getting out of Committee and sending to the Governor's desk. With that, I will let Nicole here testify.

Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Excuse me.

My name is Nicole Rocha and I'm here on behalf of Children Now, proud sponsor of AB 1043. Children Now takes a whole child approach to improving the lives of California kids and works across health, education, early childhood, and foster care to ensure all kids have the supports they need to thrive.

For years, young people have been sharing how their mental health is being negatively impacted by their online interactions and legislators have listened. They have actively passed legislation at the state and federal level to help families protect their youngest constituents.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of laws enacted to benefit children online only apply if the platforms know the age of their users. Despite evidence showing that users ages are known for the purposes of advertising, platforms continue to claim they have no way of determining how old their users are.

AB 1043 will close this loophole by requiring that devices and app stores share privacy protective age bracket information with app developers. This seemingly technical requirement will dramatically improve the digital world for California's kids as platforms will be forced to follow the laws they have long evaded.

The opposition will argue today that platforms are working diligently to create safe online spaces for kids and empower parents with responsive tools to manage their kids' online experiences. However, parental tools created by platforms address what industry identifies as parental concerns—content, screen time, contacts—and gives parents some ability to manage those aspects, on a voluntary basis.

If the platforms think that it's appropriate, the parents do that. Industry-designed parental tools are largely smoke and mirrors. They do not and will not, unless forced to by the Legislature, affect the data driven economy of the Internet. Children's wellbeing will not outweigh profit until online platforms are forced to acknowledge the age of their users.

Only then will we begin to see online experiences that support youth rather than exploiting them. AB 1043 is sensible, technical, and desperately needed and will ensure that the Internet is a better, more supportive place for California's youth. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you very—perfect timing. All right, thank you very much. All right. Others in support of AB 1043, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. All right. If you're opposed to AB 1043, please approach the microphone. If you're in support, please approach the microphone.

Cheryl Westmont, talking in a personal capacity, but with co-founder of Agenda for Democracy. Thank you.

In support. Yes. All right.

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

Not exactly support, but anyway, Tracy, with Open Privacy. We just wanted to clarify that we had opposed the Bill in previous committees, although not here, and as a result of the commitments that are being taken, we are dropping the opposition.

Thank you. All right, anyone else in support? Now let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1043, please approach. If you'd like to have a seat at the table, please do so. Others who may be in opposition, please queue up. All right, thank you. Floor is yours.

Mr. Chair and Members, Samantha Corbin, on behalf of the Chamber of Progress, here today in respectful opposition to AB 1043, as currently drafted, while also acknowledging and appreciating the sincere and ongoing efforts by the author and her team to engage in what has been a meaningful dialogue throughout this process.

From the outset, we've raised concerns, both practical and principled, about how the Bill might impact young users, developers, and the broader tech ecosystem.

And while we haven't seen finalized language on all the proposed amendments, we recognize the direction and intent reflected both in the author's statements as well as the staff analysis, which suggests many of those concerns have been heard and thoughtfully considered.

Notably, we appreciate the removal of language that would have allowed parental consent to override access to important content. That change means that youth in unsupportive or restricted households, especially those seeking information about gender identity or reproductive health, will not be further limited online. That's a meaningful shift, and we're very grateful to see it.

We also appreciate the refinement around how age signals are treated, especially in limiting the scope to app developers who choose to receive them, rather than broadcasting those signals across the open web.

Our remaining concerns deal primarily with the actual knowledge standard described in the Bill, specifically, how the receiving age of a signal by a covered application is considered actual knowledge, even if the application has other age information to the contrary, such as a built out digital profile implying a different age, or if a credit card has been used to purchase the subscription service.

Ultimately, the knowledge standard described in the Bill is still a form of self-attestation—excuse me—which is problematic because it's, it's neither comprehensive nor verifiable without collecting even more information from the user or account holder.

Additionally, we continue to question the granularity of the age brackets, for example 5 to 8, 9 to 12, which differ from the more widely used and standardized age ranges in federal and state law that already exist. To be clear, the Bill is in a significantly better place than it was when we started.

And for that, we very much appreciate the authority and the Committee's work. We recognize that work is still ongoing and while we remain opposed in principle today, we're encouraged by the progress that's been made. Thank you, sir.

Others in opposition, please approach.

Robert Boykin, with TechNet, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Felipe Fuentes, here on behalf of the Motion Picture Association, opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Others opposed to AB 1043, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one else approaching, let's bring it back to Committee for questions and comments. Questions and comments? Seeing—Senator Valladares.

This is an old phone there. Well, first of all, I just want to say thank you to the author. I know we have kids that are about the same age and we're living in the world that they're living in. Right? And it is a scary place for kids and technology right now.

So, I want to thank you for, for your work on this issue. I do also, however, have some concerns that maybe you can help address. And I had no idea that—one of my first jobs I was a receptionist for an IT company.

So, I had no idea how valuable that experience was and is for kind of understanding the back end of things. So, I know that there is opposition specifically from Lenovo, who, they make the devices, and they put together, you know, the laptop, whatever it is, sell it, and their hands are washed of that.

So, my understanding of their letter that they sent in opposition is that you're now, you would—they would now be required to create a process in which they're sending a continuous signal to any apps requesting age verification.

Yeah, sorry, do you want to finish?

Go right ahead. Yeah.

Would like my witness, if it's okay with the Chair, to answer the technical question. Thank you.

Thank you for the question. Lenovo came in, I actually, my laptop is a Lenovo. So, when their opposition came in, I was looking at my laptop trying to figure out how this would actually work. And they do produce the equipment, but not necessarily the operating systems that are running on the equipment.

So, when that letter of opposition came in, you know, we talked with the author and with her staff, and we're trying to figure out how to address that. For the vast majority of personal devices, the device manufacturer is the same as the operating system, and Lenovo is distinct.

And so, we just have to figure out how to address that issue.

Okay, so then you are working with the opposition to try and figure that component out.

Okay, and then my last question, and it's kind of just, I guess we're between a rock and a hard place because we're trying to do the right things for our kids, but we're also essentially creating and giving more companies more data about the age of our kids.

So, are there measures in the Bill to kind of protect that privacy right?

This is why we didn't want to give out the birth date. That was really important and just a bucket of time, so this person is of this certain age in this age bracket, so that then the developer or the apps could, either by law, if we do that, or because they want to, and we'll get to that, I think, in subsequent bills in subsequent years, would then have to make their product safer. Right?

So, we're trying to do that balancing act of giving enough information so that there's a knowledge standard, so that the company knows the age of the person, can be held accountable to that, should something go awry, and can tailor their product in that way without giving out too much information.

So, this is trying to, I think, land that plane. I think you raised an important question, but I think it strikes the right balance of being able to do that.

And I think that's also why some of the privacy organizations have removed opposition, because we've, I think, tailored it and made amendments to make it, I think, a little bit more effective in that way.

Thank you. I will be supporting the Bill and I know this is an ever evolving, you know, really policy conundrum that's going to be ever changing and evolving. So, I appreciate your work on it. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Just a few questions. First of all, in comments. Thank you, Assemblymember Wicks. This has been a passion project of yours for a number of years and you've done great work in this space.

I think 1043, we want to make sure that the perfect is not the enemy of the good here. And this accomplishes lots of good but there's still a way to go.

There's even a way to go between now and August. We're going to continue to meet with folks to make sure that we create something that's technologically feasible here in the relatively near term. But I remain interested in making sure that in terms of websites and accessibility websites and parental control. These are not mutually exclusive.

And I recognize that some of this may be dealt with in subsequent years, but some of it needs to be dealt with, I think, in 1043. And I know that you and I have worked on this, and we're going to arrive at a product that is—that does promote the good.

It won't be perfect, but we're going to continue to meet with the stakeholders here for the next month to see how far we can advance this concept, because I think we all agree that this is one of the great issues of our age.

And I think that there's unanimity among parents, particularly in California, and concern for their young people and what's happening in terms of the impact on them psychologically, physically, emotionally. So, with that, would you like to close?

Just one—appreciate your partnership. You know, we've had a lot of conversations with all kinds of stakeholders. This is—it's not just sort of a complicated policy, but it's also very highly technical. And so, that requires a lot of conversation.

Everyone from the operating system, Apple and Google, to the developers, you know, Snapchat and Facebook and others, and then the children's rights advocates. The, you know, Equality California, we've had numerous conversations with them, and we really want to be mindful that we're creating something that doesn't have potentially unintended consequences for LGBTQ community.

So, there's been a lot to this Bill. I do believe this is going to be the most thoughtful Bill in the country in this space. There's a number of other bills in this there, and hopefully we can land that.

I think this is an important bill to determine an important infrastructure piece, which is the knowledge standard on age, so that we can then have accompanying regulations and such to keep our kids safe online. So, with that, want to keep working on the Bill. Still have a lot to do, a lot more conversations.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion and a vote.

Thank you. Next, I see Assemblymember Ward, and I'm going to ask for your indulgence. Come on forward, Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you.

If you wouldn't mind taking your bills in reverse order. In other words, starting with file item number 10, then going to file number 9, then going to, I'm sorry, 11. I'm sorry. Starting with file number 11, then 10, then 9. I have to absent myself to go vote in Elections Committee.

Meantime, I'm going to hand over the gavel to my even more capable Vice Chair to become Chair. Thank you very much.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will indulge that.

Would you, would you mind indulging that?

Happy to. As you have also set the agenda in reverse alphabetical order and so I will definitely accommodate the Chair's wishes. You're welcome. All right. Of the bills, we'll begin with file item 11. This is AB 1337. I want to wish you a good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to present. AB 1337 is the IPA Reform act of 2025. And I really appreciate the Committee Members and their staff's thoughtful engagement with the Bill. We do have a number of Committee amendments that we are accepting.

AB 1337 will update California's foundational governmental privacy law, the Information Privacy act of 1977. That's going to help to meet some of today's challenges in our today's digital environment. Now, in 1972, California voters enshrined a constitutional right to privacy and the Legislature followed up with the IPA in 1977 to protect Californians control over their personal data.

It was the first law of its kind in the country. But the law has not kept up with the pace of explosion of digital technologies and data collection. Now, of course, the world today looks nothing like it did in 1977. Yet our state privacy rules for public agencies have remained largely frozen in that time.

Meanwhile, California is now generated and interact with data constantly, whether through Apps, smart devices, public services, or even just moving through public spaces. So AB 1337 before you brings the IPA into the 21st century by aligning the definition of personal information with modern standards under the California Privacy Rights Act.

That includes geolocation, genetic data, IP addresses and citizenship status, among others. The Bill also closes a key loophole by applying those protections to local governments, not just state agencies, so that all Californians receive the same level of privacy, regardless of where they live.

Under the current law, a resident in one county may have fewer privacy protections than someone in another county. And so that inconsistency, of course, puts our constituents at risk, especially as local agencies adopt increasingly data driven technologies. AB 1337 prohibits agencies from using personal information for secondary or unintended purposes without legal authorization or consent.

It improves the transparency and accountability by requiring agencies to keep records information disclosures for at least three years. And it also strengthens enforcement by making negligent release of personal data that causes harm a misdemeanor, helping ensure that government takes privacy protection seriously in a time when our data can be weaponized.

These reforms are especially critical for vulnerable communities, and we believe that by modernizing the Ipad, AB 1337 ensures that our laws reflect both technological reality and California's values. With me to testify and support today are Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy and Becca Kramer Mauter with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Good morning. Becca Kramer Mauter with Electronic Frontier Foundation Proud co sponsors of AB 1337, California has made great strides to strengthen commercial privacy protections for Californians. And now it's time to update the IPA to address its holes that do not serve us and to ensure strong privacy protections for information held by government entities.

For example, why should one piece of information about me be protected from additional uses and disclosures if it's held by a state agency, but not if the exact same information is held by the equivalent local entity?

Or why should I have the right to know what information the state has about me and be able to correct or delete inaccurate information but not have those same rights when it comes to my local government? These are not just odd, less than ideal quirks in the law, they have real world impacts that harm Californians.

Cities and counties run a number of programs that collect information on everyone, including vulnerable populations. Several cities offer needed financial assistance to undocumented immigrants through adult assistance programs. County health departments have support programs for pregnancy, fetal and infant mortality review and mental health resources.

This sensitive information could reveal critical information about people's health or immigration status, but there's no privacy guardrail around that information. In fact, cities and counties are increasingly being pushed to share some of it through programs such as the Data Exchange Framework for Health Information.

Californians are left vulnerable as long as the IPA continues to nonsensically provide protections only for information held by these state entities and does not protect the exact same information held by local governments.

I also want to take just a second to address a question that has come up repeatedly, which is what about programs like Calaim where they might be trying to sign people up for multiple benefits? This Bill will not impact that in two ways.

The first is if the people if the local entity signing someone up for benefits asks for consent, hey, can we also use your information to look for other benefits? They're good.

Or if they simply say, we're not just signing you up for Calaim, but we're getting this information so that we can can sign you up for as many benefits as apply. They're also fine to share that information.

You're in support of the bill and I'm in?

Yes.

Next witness.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members or Vice Chair Members. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy one more time. California State government has worked under the umbrella of the Information Practices act for almost half a century. The time has come to update it.

Not just because a whole bunch of time has passed, but we are in a historical moment when privacy from governmental intrusion is being deeply challenged.

If California is to protect the people who live here, as the Governor and AG Banta have said that they want to do, then we must update the state's data regulations, including both what is shared with the feds and make sure that all the data collected by California governmental agencies has the same baseline of protections, no matter which branch of government collected it.

The intent of the proposal is not to weigh local agencies down. It is to provide a baseline for data practices that will keep Californians safe in what are certainly perilous times.

We believe that we can expect federal demands, requests, incursions into local government agencies and all levels of California government should be working together to protect a consistent set of standards. Privacy is a human right. Please support AB 1337 with regard to two quick items. The Bill does not remove search warrants from the list of acceptable disclosures.

It simply wraps it up into a sentence that refers to subpoenas, court orders and other compulsory legal processes. Still includes search warrant.

And we are working on amendments with the opposition to address public databases like assessors, recorders, property type stuff, and also wraparound services to make sure that the Bill is functional and those conversations are underway and are continuing. Thank you.

Thank you. Now to other witnesses in support of the Bill, name, organization and position.

Erica Yoshihara on behalf of the California Initiative for Technology and democracy, LGBT Tech, Black Women for Wellness Action Project and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in support.

Good morning. Marshall Arnois on behalf of the ACLU California Action and Support. Thank you.

Good morning. Mr. Vice Chair Members. Robert Horrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California in support. Thank you.

Nicole Rocha on behalf of Tech Oversight California, Ultraviolet Action, PFLAG Sacramento, all in support. Thank you.

Samantha Gordon on behalf of Tech Equity, Kapor Center, Encourage California. All in support. Thank you.

Other witnesses in support. Seeing none come forward. We'll move to the principal witnesses and oh, another supporter.

Are you in support? Yeah. Quickly, your name, organization.

Hi. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, principal--another witness in support.

Sorry, long line. Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, come forward. Primary witnesses in opposition, two minutes each.

Good morning. I'm Eric Lawyer, speaking on behalf of the California State Association and a broad coalition, including local governments, schools, health providers, and welfare directors in strong opposition. AB 1337 would represent a major step backwards for the social safety net and would undermine years of progress made in integrating essential service delivery.

We understand the current concerns regarding efforts by the federal government to access and use data held by government agencies against those we serve. From the very beginning of our conversations with the author and sponsor, we have asked them to identify any gaps in the existing framework of privacy and confidentiality laws in our state, from SB 54 to the vast array of laws that we have been complying with for decades.

Instead of a targeted law, this bill would impose sweeping changes across state and local governments, ignoring the concerns of professionals who have dedicated their careers to serving those most in need. We are working together to link families in our Child Welfare system with CalWORKS to help with additional resources families need to reunify.

Adult Protective Services has housing referrals for seniors who need additional assistance to stay in their home. CalFresh data are shared with schools to automatically enroll students in Free and Reduced Price Meals. Consider any program that relies on data sharing: CalAIM, Medi-Cal for Justice-Involved, or LIHEAP.

These are just a few examples of the no wrong door philosophy that would be upended by AB 1337. Congress just passed a law designed to kick millions off Medi-Cal and CalFresh through the burdens of paperwork. Why are we doing that here in California? Our concerns are not limited to administrative burden and cost, although both are significant. This bill will make it harder to keep our communities housed, healthy, and safe. I urge you to vote no.

Thank you. Next witness. You may proceed.

Thank you, chair and members. Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, here respectfully opposed to 1337. ACHD represents the 77 healthcare districts throughout the State of California. These districts operate hospitals, clinics, ambulances, skilled nursing facilities.

They serve millions of Californians and provide critical services to populations--of vulnerable populations--including those that are underinsured and uninsured. I want to start by noting that healthcare providers are among the most regulated local governments when it comes to data privacy.

We are governed by and comply with what the sponsors have claimed to be the gold standard of privacy laws, including HIPAA, CMIA, and portions of the CPPA. The Information Privacy Act was designed for state agencies and cannot simply overlay with these existing privacy protections.

It instead will require a costly overhaul of all data systems and will create significant delays in patient care, reimbursement, and even put our workers at risk of personal liability, something that our commercial and nonprofit healthcare providers will not be subject to. Our healthcare providers, particularly the public's, are facing unprecedented cuts in funding.

As drafted, we are not certain that this would allow our facilities to bill for services they provide, let alone draw down local, state, and federal funding to help offset these heavily subsidized care. Let me be clear: healthcare providers and our public healthcare--or public healthcare districts and public healthcare providers are not sharing information with immigration authorities. We are not sharing protected data with anyone outside of what is explicitly required to deliver patient care and comply with existing privacy statutes. I will give you one example, though the repercussions of this bill are vast.

Imagine you are an individual going to the emergency department to receive emergency care. You give your information over to receive care and clinical diagnosis. This information is then used for such things as prior authorization of treatment, billing, or even to provide charity care to those who need it.

Under the IPA, clinical information could not be utilized for this. It would instead need to be collected separately for this express purpose. Applying the IPA with a complete disregard for privacy protections already in place would require this body to rewrite hundreds of statutes and regulations to allow for basic medical functions to continue. There are real problems with this bill that have gone unaddressed. For those reasons, we're respectfully opposed. Would urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other witnesses in opposition, state your name, organization, and position.

Katie Jennings, on behalf of San Bernardino County, in opposition. Thank you.

Morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, in respectful opposition.

Larisa Mercado, on behalf of the County Recorders Association of California and the County Assessors Association. As mentioned by the primary, we're working with the author and the sponsors on language, so appreciate that. Thank you.

Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, and the County Welfare Directors Association, all in opposition.

Betsy Armstrong with the County Health Executives Association, representing local health departments, in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Connie Delgado, on behalf of the District Hospital Leadership Forum, the 33 district hospitals in California, in opposition. Thank you.

Leah Barrows, on behalf of California Hospital Association, in opposition.

Margaret Gladstein, on behalf of the association--with the Alliance of California Taxpayer Advocates. Oppose unless amended.

Jeff Neal, representing the County of Contra Costa and the City of Hanford, both opposed.

Jen Chase, on behalf of the University of California. We have oppose unless amended position.

Lee Kamerick with the Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition.

Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the California Municipal Clerks Association, the cities of Belmont, Carlsbad, Foster City, Merced, and Vernon, and the Town of Hillsborough, all in respectful opposition.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, as well as the counties of Mendocino, Butte, and Fresno, all in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Others in opposition, step forward. Seeing none, step forward. Bring it back to the committee. Questions or comments? Senator Allen.

Well, I want to thank the author for all of his work in this difficult area. Clearly, there continues to be a lot of challenges, including--we just heard from folks from the public sector. Do you want to, first of all, speak to the work you may be doing with some of our public sector partners to make sure that their important work isn't getting jammed up through your bill?

Yeah. Thank you for the question, Senator. So we have been working closely in partnership with a lot of opposition interests. I think you see, just today, the summary of today's committee amendments do include an implementation delay to really respect and reflect the need to be able to allow more time for local government implementation as well as respecting any collective bargaining clauses or other agreements.

So there have been those issues raised, and I know they continue to want to be able to look a little bit more into further implementation delays and other adjustments, but the fact is is that--I think a fundamental question right now, they're not subject to the IPA.

And the question before us right now is whether or not--as we do for state agencies--whether or not we want to take this moment to make sure that all public information housed within public agencies, regardless if it's a state or local agency, is something that we want to elevate into a standard to protect California's privacy. I'll ask my supportive witness to be able to elaborate.

Yeah, so there's several things that we are doing. In addition to looking at amendments, we are also helping to remind folks of what the language of the bill actually says, that information collected can be used in furtherance of the purpose.

So, for example, with the hospital's example around, you know, clinical information can't be used for billing purposes, that does not make sense when you look at the actual text of the bill, the information--so clarify--helping to clarify what the bill does and does not do is part of what we're doing. We're also looking at further amendments.

We are working on amendments around providing additional ways for--on top of the two that I already listed in my testimony for sharing information between entities in California to provide additional coordination of care and benefits if the--on top of the two that already are allowed under the bill, which I think you weren't here, are just asking someone for consent in order to, for example, if you collect their information for CalFresh, connect them to another benefits program, or changing the intake from just an intake on CalFresh to taking an intake on all of the benefits programs that someone might qualify for. Tracy, did you have more you wanted to add?

Yeah, and I guess I'd just underline two things. One is that the entire State of California has been operating under this framework in terms of state government and all of the agencies you all interact with for 48 years, not for a short period of time.

So if in fact it crippled governmental operations, we probably would have noticed by now. So that's one thing, and then the second thing that I would mention is that at least in the healthcare context, the IPA is actually a gentler law than both HIPAA and CMIA, and any local entity that is in full compliance with those two laws is likely already in full compliance with the IPA. It is not a stricter law. It is, in fact, a less strict law.

I think it's important to underscore it doesn't supersede CMIA or HIPAA.

Okay. Well, I--presumably they all know that, but you're going to be--it sounds like you're going to be engaging in further conversations with a lot of those other folks. Let me just ask about a couple other issues that have popped up, and it seems like the amendments that were taken, I think, sought to address some issues that may have actually not fixed some of the things that were out there as a concern.

Through the course of this bill, I've learned about all sorts of fascinating business models that are out there, and it's interesting, particularly I became particularly intrigued with this one business model having to do with discounts. I think you and I have spoke about this a little bit. You know, it's, it--the discount approach in this area of, of--

I think that'll be the subject of a next bill: 446.

That's on 446. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was so excited about the--

I'm excited too.

Yeah, yeah. Oh my God.

Any minute now.

Yeah, yeah. This is 33-332. Okay.

No, this is 1337. We're going in reverse order. I'm sorry.

Okay. All right. I'm going to go to Elections and vote, clear my head, and I'll come back. Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Other questions? Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So really appreciate the intent of this bill and the fact that there is a recognition that what we've had, we've had in place for over 40 years and there does need to be some modifications, especially given the environment that we are currently in.

However, I am very, very concerned about the potential far-reaching nature of this bill, and it's interesting because when you look at the opposition, it is a vast coalition--very, very diverse, kind of like in all different areas--that have concerns about this bill.

And before I ask some of my other questions specific to HIPAA and the way public hospitals are funded, I know that you, in your statement, you were getting ready to kind of discuss how this would not affect programs like CalAIM, so you were able to say number one, which is asking for consent, but I didn't--you didn't get a chance to say number two.

Yeah. The other is just changing the way the intake is done. So again, if, for example, someone is going in to apply specifically for CalAIM but might benefit from other benefit services, instead of having it be an intake just for CalAIM, have it be an intake to see what benefits a person is eligible for, and that opens up the door to already under the law or under the bill to sharing this information with the various providers of those benefits to see if a person would qualify for those benefits and get them connected to those benefits.

So already under the text of this bill, those two pieces exist and are ways that people can receive benefits from one application but benefits from multiple providers of benefits. We are, as my colleague mentioned, also looking at a third amendment option that would help clarify that even further.

Okay. And I see some people from the opposition that clearly disagree with what statement that you've, that you've just made, and so, you know, you're almost at the end in terms of where this bill is. I think I've asked--this is the last Policy Committee; after this, it goes to Appropriations--and so there seems to be a wide distance between what you're saying the bill does versus how others are interpreting it that it may impact in their particular area.

So specifically, what you're talking about for, you know, asking for consent or changing intake, the way in which intake occurs, that's not an easy thing, and I know I've dealt with this in previous bills. So when you ask someone for consent, what specifically are you consenting them for? Are you consenting them for one service, two services? Do you have, like, how far deep do you have to go into that consent process?

It's a little bit more complicated than just say, well, we can ask if you can be signed up for other programs, because you have to be a little bit more specific if you're truly, truly getting consent, and then changing the intake process is not an easy thing either because if I'm used to just signing you up for CalAIM, now I have to know about all of these other things that you may or may not qualify for and be able to answer questions for them.

So I think it's a little bit more complicated and more in-depth and requires a little bit more structure than to just say you can ask for consent or you can change intake, but I want to move on to some specific questions around HIPAA because there is concern that this bill may conflict with HIPAA because it would potentially restrict necessary information shared by public hospitals needed for treatment, payment, or healthcare operations. How can you ensure--because this is what they're saying is going to happen with the way it is currently written--how can you ensure that that will not happen with this bill?

Well, HIPAA, first of all, has a specific clause about conflicts--I don't have the exact citation, but I can get it to you--in 45 CFR, where it does say that state law prevails if state law is stronger, and HIPAA prevails if HIPAA is stronger, and that's been in HIPAA since the beginning.

So there's an understanding that state law potentially might conflict with HIPAA and a way to manage that. In terms of the particular scenario that was, that was put out, the language in the bill is fairly plain and it talks about furthering the purpose for which the language was submitted.

When people go to receive medical care, they are providing that language for the purpose of receiving medical care, and I don't think that's ambivalent or confusing or anything else. If you asked a person why they were doing it, they were saying that they're going to the doctor to get medical care. That's the purpose.

So activities that are subsumed within the getting of medical care are furthering the purpose as far as the individual is concerned. That's why they're at the doctor, that's why they're at the hospital. They're there to receive medical care for their condition.

So the idea that you can't bill them for the medical care that they received based on the information that they gave you is a reading of furthering the purpose that I don't think the plain language of the bill supports.

We're open at looking at clarifying language, but we feel like the language supports most reasonable and routine data-sharing activities that further the purpose of the reason the person gave you the information, which is generally to receive a certain set of things.

Senator, if I may?

I would, actually, if it's okay to have someone from opposition come because--and answer the question that--

I'd welcome that as well too, but Senator, if I may, me as an in-between, it's our understanding that a number of private hospitals are already covered by privacy laws and I think we are trying to be able to modernize the IPA and reflect here for our public health hospitals as well.

So that has been an open conversation as well. I believe that a lot of the members of the Hospital Association, if we want to hear from the them, are already covered, and so we are trying to make sure that, again, without superseding CMIA or HIPAA, that we are using this vehicle to make sure that there's a level playing field with respect to privacy, but that has been ongoing conversation, that's what we're trying to accomplish here, and I'd kind of welcome further conversation there.

Right. Go ahead.

So, if I may, it's to my knowledge the language regarding further the purpose has never been evaluated or tested by a court, but I will note that when we asked the sponsors about the meaning of that and raised our concerns about conflicts with CalAIM, they affirmed that it was their intent that an individual signing up for Medi-Cal coverage is signing up for healthcare, not for housing, and therefore, would have to sign up for multiple wraparound services and that that was indeed the intent of that language.

So I'll, I'll speak to the public hospital piece and just answer both questions. So the first, as it relates to HIPAA, we do believe it stands in strict conflict with it. We've raised a number of items and for consideration and I'll just say there's pretty significant case law out there around HIPAA as it relates to our requirements and the superseding of state law, so we can't just simply say we, we feel like it works this way.

Medical information, Senator, as you are very aware, is incredibly regulated and protected. How we share it is specific. We can't say, 'well, our reading of the bill is that it furthers this process.' It has to be collected for that express purpose, and adding additional consents actually impede a number of other state statutes and federal regulation.

So I'd say it's a little bit more complex than that and we've tried to engage in those conversations with the sponsor and have sort of been met with this exact response of we don't know what we're talking about and it's simply okay.

I'd say that the bill, we're certainly willing to have conversations about how to make it workable, but it needs to be significant tweaks in order to allow our current functions. The, the second question or note around the CPPA applying to public hospital--or private hospitals--is absolutely true.

In fact, portions of the CPPA also apply to our hospitals. Those have been significant conversations, regulatory and statutory, to make sure that they don't conflict with HIPAA and CMIA. In this case, we're not afforded that same opportunity to make those corrections and ensure that there is not a conflicting nature that prohibits us from fulfilling basic functions. Thank you.

Thank you. I will move on to my next question, specifically around public hospitals. So public hospitals, as people are aware, are funded by a variety of payment mechanisms and funding formulas, many of which require data sharing with federal agencies such as Centers for Medicare--Medicaid and Medicare Services. So, could this bill jeopardize federal funding for public hospitals?

Only if the data-sharing in question is prohibited by California law. The language that is currently in the bill regarding data-sharing with the feds is being changed from authorized to call out by California law. So unless this Legislature passes a law in some way prohibiting or limiting that data flow for various concerns, it is allowed by the IPA.

And just to clarify, that's not allowed under this particular law; that's allowed under any state law. So if, for example, it conflicted with any of the shield laws that California has put in place around reproductive healthcare services or gender-affirming care services or the sanctuary state laws, then those laws would come into place. That's what we're talking about when we're saying, unless not authorized under California law.

So I'm sorry, you just said the wording is--

Or, sorry, not allowed under.

The wording has changed from what to what?

It currently--in the current language of the bill before the committee commanded it said 'authorized by state law' and out of concern that left some open in terms of whether things were specifically authorized, that has been changed to 'allowed under California State law.'

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator, for the very important array of questions. I think you can appreciate that while we've taken some amendments here today and we already are starting that list of improvements that we could make should this go to the Appropriations Committee, I will continue to work with all of our opposition points on technical information that make this workable, because of course, it must implement successfully.

You know, again, at the heart of it is a long overdue modernization of our public sector privacy policies. We believe that government agencies as they are collecting more personal data also are required to make sure that Californians have a process which allows for consistent, reliable protections, regardless if they're interacting with the state or local agencies. So that's the the heart of this modernization with AB 1337, and when the time is appropriate, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much, and I appreciate your flexibility. I appreciate you working with the committee to make sure that this is feasible, and I know you've already committed to continue that work and will be engaged. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next: AB 446: File Item Number Ten. And let me make an announcement. I know there's a number of folks here. We got a message from another member of the Senate asking that we adjourn at 11:45 for caucus, and since that other member is the Pro Tem, that we pay particular attention to that.

So I'm just letting other folks know that we may not get--you know, after Assembly Member Ward is done with his next two bills--we may not get to other bills this morning. So, Assembly Member Ward.

I would also hope to get through those two bills in forty minutes.

Get through those two bills in 40 minutes. 20 minutes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, I want to thank the Committee again for a lot of the hard work on this bill. And I state that I will be accepting the Committee amendments which are outlined in your analysis.

This Bill before you use AB446, the surveillance pricing Protection act, which would prohibit the practice of surveillance pricing by making it unlawful for businesses to use personal data when charging different different prices for the same product or service, whether they're online or during in store checkouts.

Now, Consumer Watchdog published an article that you should all read in December of 2024 which exposed a lot of businesses for aggressively engaging in the practice of surveillance pricing. And what is that? It's a practice of which your personal information of a consumer is used to increase the price of goods based on your data profile.

So dial it back to 2022. County of San Diego actually was able to use existing law to be able to settle a $5 million lawsuit for raising the prices of products as soon as a customer entered the property based on the Geo fencing and that price that was attached to their phone.

Now you pair that with companies existing ability to collect and analyze massive amounts of customer data, the installation of facial recognition and electronic shelving labels which give companies the ability to change prices in real time. And that's according to a consumer's individualized data profile.

So this is getting down a hole that is predatory, discriminatory and I believe violates the public trust at a time when consumers are already stretched thin and don't deserve to be unwittingly exploited. Additionally, the evidence of surveillance pricing is also suggesting there's some disproportionate effect for lower income individuals, rural customers and those with fewer shopping alternatives.

Now this isn't just theoretical or incidental or random.

If you go back to a report that was released by the FTC in just January of this year, of course before the Administration changed over, they had been working over the course of several years to be able to achieve information that was demonstrating the prevalence of this so called surveillance pricing.

Again linking your personal information to the price you pay. That report actually was tethered to a report by McKinsey&Co. Which directly said that this is an opportunity to use algorithmic based pricing models to be able to actually increase your profits by 2 to 8%. There's a calculation behind that.

So we know that this is something that has been emerging a little bit more. But sadly for many of our neighbors, constituents and consumers, you don't know that it's even happening to you because you think the price that you see on your phone or your computer is just the price that everyone's paying.

Until somebody goes so far as to test that out. Of course nobody wants to be unfairly charged for higher prices do specifically to their actual or perceived characteristics.

And more importantly, I believe that we all heard loud and clear from voters last November that we should be doing everything in our power to make sure that we're finding ways to be able to lower costs and not leave them susceptible to higher costs, especially based on their personal characteristics.

We of course in California have some of the strongest privacy laws in the country to give consumers control over their data. But we believe that this existing practice is actually exploiting some loopholes which allow companies to to charge different prices based on their data.

The right to fair pricing should not be a privilege for few, but a fundamental protection for all. I do want to clarify as we get into this conversation because I think this is an important fundamental to really sink in this Bill AB 4046 does not negatively impact dynamic pricing. Dynamic pricing and surveillance pricing, two different concepts.

Dynamic pricing, for example, there's only so many tickets left on the airplane and of course that demand that supply is reduced. That still is something that as we've come to believe as consumers, is fair and is competitive for those few that are remaining.

This is particularly based on certain criteria which are linking current surveillance technology, current information about you to the price that you pay for a product. So wanted to make sure that distinction was clear.

With me to speak in support of this bill are two of our co sponsors, Kim Stone on behalf of Consumer Watchdog and Kristin Heidelbach, the Legislative Director for the UFCW Western States Council.

Thank you very much. First witness.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog, one of the co-sponsors, in enthusiastic support. Retailers know increasingly more and more information about us and can use that data to charge us as much as they think we will pay or that we're willing to pay.

My client, Consumer Watchdog issued a report. Some of the examples were that a travel website charged Mac users more than PC users for the exact same reservations, Target charged people more for televisions and electronics depending on their proximity to the store and Rideshares charged riders $5 price difference, same ride, same location.

Unclear exactly why, but a data scientist said that they did not. Customers battery data usage and that could have been one of the reasons why this bill prohibits retailers from charging a secret price to us based on information that they have gained by surveilling us.

The bill does expressly allow many of the discounts that we know and may love. Your Safeway or other grocery club card discounts for groups like veterans, teachers, students, legislative staffers. Legitimate sales like candy is cheaper on November 1st. None of those are affected by this bill.

Some amendments in the bill also specify that the bill doesn't change existing law about insurance or banking regulations. The bill merely prohibits letting retailers use our data against us. If we don't stop this now, this Genie's never going back in the bottle. Urge your support. Good morning, Chair. Do you want me to wait.

Go ahead. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Kristen Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council. We represent 180,000 workers across California, Arizona and Nevada. From meatpacking to grocery retail. Working in our local grocery stores and community pharmacies, our Members see how technology is being used to maximize profits at the expense of consumers and workers.

Today, retailers are putting more and more effort into knowing everything they can about their buyers, their preferences, when they shop, when they get paid, and what they're willing to spend more on. But it doesn't stop there. The massive data collection is not only used to determine a price. Our data is then sold for alternative profits.

As detailed by a May 21, 2025 Consumer Reports study of grocery loyalty programs. Shifting prices in real time is not anecdotal.

On August 5, 2024 Senators Elizabeth Warren and Robert Casey sent a letter to a large grocery chain requesting further information on the rollout and implementation of electronic price labels in many of its stores, allowing stores to calibrate price increases to extract maximum profits.

At a time when the amount of Americans income spent on food is at a 30 year high, stores such as Walmart, Whole Foods and Amazon Fresh are actively adopting the same technology. Food affordability is increasingly becoming an issue for all Californians. From USCW's perspective, our workers are consumers who are trying to afford everyday items.

And while we fight at the bargaining table for better working conditions, we feel grocery retail locations hold much of the power against the consumer, using technologies and algorithms that determine how much we can be squeezed. For these reasons, we feel AB446 can help even the playing field. And we respectfully urge your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. All right, if you're in support of AB. 446. 446, please approach. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Robert Horrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. Strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.