Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection

Thank you everybody for your patience. Before we we begin the Committee, we typically like to have a Member from the Republican Party here even to begin as a Subcommitee. So we're told that there will be a Member here in the next few minutes. And so bear with us. We'll begin at 1:45 at the latest. Okay.

Welcome to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee hearing. As we convene this hearing, a few announcements to make in regards to today's hearing. First, I will be standing in it as Committee chair for the hearing. Assemblymember Haney is subbing in for our chair, Assemblymember Bauer Cahan. Assembly Member Hoover is subbing in for Assemblymember Macedo.

And Assemblymember Lackey is subbing in for Assemblymember Patterson. Finally, item number four, which is SB238 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, has been pulled from being heard today. We do have five bills that are on the agenda today. And to effectively manage our time, we'll be limiting testimony to two witnesses of support, two witnesses in opposition on each Bill.

Each witness will be allowed two minutes to present their testimony. It is required that any witnesses coming forward testify have submitted to the Committee their support or opposition prior to the Committee hearing. After the support witnesses conclude their testimony, Committee will call up additional supporters who may state only their name, affiliation and position for the record.

These are me toos. No further testimony will be permitted. Same process will be followed after the opposition witnesses conclude their testimony. And at that time, additional opposition will be called also me toos. They may only state their name, affiliation, position of the record.

I'd like to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter advocacy portal on the Committee's website. We do not have a quorum as of now, so we are going to begin today as a Subcommitee.

But first, it's important to note that the Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to the Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

Again, it is required that any witnesses coming forward to testify are on record as having submitted their support or their opposition prior to the Committee hearing. What all public comment needs to focus on the Bill and topic presented comments on other issues will be ruled out of order. We appreciate our Vice Chair so much.

Thank you. I just went through the Ground rules, Madam Vice Chair. Okay, we are going to be going in file order today. That begins with Bill number SB69 by Senator McNerney. You may please come forward. Senator, you may begin with your opening.

Well, thank you. And good afternoon, Acting Chair Lowenthal and Vice Chair Dixon. Members of the Committee, thank you for hearing my bill this morning. It's SB 69. And to start, AI is evolving very quickly, and California must develop the legal expertise to keep up with AI. SB 69 makes sure that California Department of Justice is ready or will be ready.

This bill creates an AI focused team at the Department of Justice effectively to deal with AI on civil rights, public safety, and the law. This is to make sure that AI is safe and beneficial. Right now, the Department of Justice does not have sufficient expertise to handle AI issues. This bill will change that. SB 69 ensures that the DOJ will recruit and train staff, work with experts, and report to the Legislature on key AI risks and legal gaps.

This bill complements the Governor's executive order by building an in house expertise to guide oversight and protect Californians. With me today is Rob Eleveld from the Transparent... I was gonna say Transportation. Transparency Coalition AI. Rob.

Thank you, Chair Lowenthal and Vice Chair Dixon and Members of the Committee. My name is Rob Eleveld. I'm co-founder and CEO of the Transparency Coalition. We're a nonprofit supporting lawmakers to enact and enforce common sense artificial intelligence legislation.

We focus our efforts especially on protecting kids and more broadly US citizens, whose interests are generally disregarded in the aggressive rollout of AI. We've supported AI bills and bill authors in 10 states in the 2025 legislative session. We travel around and do a lot of testimony like this.

And over the past six months, I've talked to three deputy attorneys general in various states. I'm sure most of you know the deputy AG is basically the chief operating officer of an AG's office because the AGs have so political, so many political requirements in their post. They have all said that they need and want help.

They know they need expertise. They know they don't have expertise on their staffs. AG offices have specialists in racketeering and RICO laws. They have specialists in human trafficking, but they have no specialists in tech policy. And the tech companies, especially those targeting consumers, are really running circles around them with regards to their consumer protection laws to start with.

I also talked less than a month ago to a senior Member of the Maryland State Democratic Caucus who had championed a kids code bill there similar to the one that's been passed here, passed recently in Maryland, who literally said to me that he thought that AG training on tech policy was more important than enacting any new legislation.

There's that big of a gap there. Transparency Coalition ourselves are looking at standing up a small training group to be able to hold one day seminars for AG offices around the country just to get them enough up to speed to recognize they need specialists, nothing more than that.

And even that, I'll have trouble raising the funds to do it, but I'm going to try. The long and short is across the country and here in California there is a yawning need for expertise in enforcing tech policy. This is a place for California to take a leadership position.

So many states look to you all and this Legislature to take a leadership position. And putting a stake in the ground to fund and create specialists in tech policy is a really important leadership role to take. Just one other thought. I've started a company, I've been number two person another company. I've been a four time CEO.

I've started a nonprofit now. I know this is a challenging budget year and this isn't about budget right here in this hearing, but this doesn't need to be a large group. Four to six lawyers that are trained would really move the needle relative to a vacuum today. So it doesn't need to be a huge budget item to get started in year one or two and come up to speed and get some wins. I strongly support...

We're going to need you to wrap this up.

I strongly support Senate Bill 69 and urge you to vote yes.

Thank you so much. Appreciate that so much. Are there any, is there now time for others to come forward in support of this bill? Me toos. Name, affiliation, and position please.

Yes. Good afternoon. Tracy Rosenberg from Oakland Privacy in support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of TechEquity Action in support.

Okay, thank you. Now time to call for opposition to this bill. There are any witnesses speaking in opposition of the bill? Seeing none. Any public testimony? Public members wish to speak in opposition of this bill. Name, affiliation, position. Seeing none. Let's bring it back to the dais. Ms. Pellerin.

Hi. So thank you Senator for bringing this bill forward. I see it was gutted and amended pretty recently, and it does have a primary role for the Attorney General. And I'm just curious what his position is on this. Have you had conversations with him and what feedback have you gotten from his office?

The Attorney General is aware, they're not too wild about the proposition to be honest, but we need that capability here in California. And you know, the federal government has that authority, has the expertise, basically because of a bill that I pushed through when I was in Congress in the GSA.

California doesn't have that and I don't think any other state does. There's a lot of very complicated issues surrounding artificial intelligence. We need to have that expertise here and a lot of that involves enforcement. So it's going to have to be the Attorney General's Office that takes this mantle, this job.

No, I definitely don't doubt the need for this, but I just want to understand whether the Attorney General's Office is supportive, on board, wants to play a role in this, or is there another department that's a possibility, or have those idea has been explored.

We did explore some of the other, like the California Department of Technology. But because of the enforcement aspects, the DOJ is where it really belongs. They are aware of the bill. They're neutral on it at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Having sat on this Committee now for a while, and we've been dealing with, as you know, a lot of privacy related issues. And it's always been frustrating to me we're not operating with any guardrails or any real structure of what we should be doing.

I don't know if anybody really understands where we should be going on this, but I applaud putting some form of perhaps an enforcement mechanism, but maybe we'll get to enforcement. But just to establish, begin to establish some type of institutional framework of how we look at the issues that are critical to Californians with regard to AI.

I hope that this doesn't mean the beginning of a lot of new agencies doing this if you just said that you've looked at some others and other agencies or departments and you're focused on the AG's office, which is I think the proper place to start. But I applaud this structural move and I think it's a good idea and I will support it. So thank you.

Well, I thank, thank you, Vice Chair.

Mr. Lackey.

I just think it deserves a motion to approve.

We can't move until we establish a quorum. So at this moment... At this moment, we're a subcommittee. I will look to you to make that motion once we establish a quorum, Mr. Lackey. Any other comments from the dais?

Just one more thing. Just from my perspective, I think it's really important to get the Attorney General's Office on board and supportive of this proposal since they're the one that's going to be implementing it. I'll go ahead and support it today. Is it going to another Committee? Judic, is that right?

No, this is a single referral.

Oh, it's a single referral. Okay. Is it? I have it down as double.

Well, it'll go to Appropriations. Yeah.

Okay. I'm hearing two different things. It's going to Judic. Surprise, you get another Committee. Okay.

Well, I appreciate that. You know, I think the Attorney General will be pretty excited about it. They have a lot of responsibilities and they look at this as another chore. But when they see the appropriations for it, you know, the money for it, they'll jump on it, I'm sure. Which to answer Assemblywoman Dixon's comments, which agency wouldn't welcome a new department?

Okay. I have a question, if that's okay. And I don't know if you want to answer this, Senator, or your witness here. But I wanted to ask what is happening in other states as it relates to Attorney General's offices and what is the impact of those that have filled multiple positions with this level of expertise? Is there a direct correlation with legislation that's being passed or not passed, so forth? What other examples are there?

Of the 10 states we've testified in and supported bills in this year, none of them have any specific expertise on tech policy enforcement in their AG's offices. None of them. So I don't know outside of those 10 states, I haven't taken a broad survey, but I believe that's representative of the country.

So there are no states that you're aware of that already have this expertise in house in the Attorney General's Office, DOJs of those states? Okay. Well, thank you for bringing this bill forward, Senator. Artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly integrated into society, and its evolution continues to outpace the legislative process.

There is a need to promote the collaboration with the Department of Justice, Department of Technology, and our academic institutions to ensure that government's efforts to protect consumers is able to keep pace with cutting edge technology, to your very point, sir. This bill does just that. Happy to support it today. It is a do pass to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. And again, we will take a motion and ultimately a vote once we establish quorum.

Okay. For closing remarks, I want to thank the Committee for indulging me on this bill. California is the leader in AI and this will certainly cement our role as leader, and it's important that our state do that. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate that. Okay. We are going to move on down the line to, yes, SB 81. I see Senator Arreguín here.

Long time to see.

Nice to see you again, Senator. The appropriate time I will look to you.

You may begin, sir. Well, thank you Mr. Chair and Members for the opportunity to present SB 81. This bill does several things. It would codify the model policies that have been developed by the state Attorney General's Office with regard to immigration enforcement in hospitals and health facilities in California. And so this bill does several things.

One, it ensures that information regarding the citizenship status of patients cannot be disclosed to federal immigration authorities absent a valid judicial warrant.

And secondly, it ensures that hospitals and health facilities have to establish protocols around what to do if immigration does come into a hospital or health facility, as well as restricting access to the non public areas of a hospital health facility for immigration enforcement absent a valid judicial warrant.

And to put this in perspective, there was an incident that happened just this past weekend that some of you may have heard about where a woman was detained by Ayes in Glendale, California. And in the process of the individual being detained, sustained some injuries and asked to be taken to a hospital to get medical treatment.

According to reports, she was left handcuffed and was vomiting in the waiting room for hours. And while she was at Glendale Memorial Hospital, Ayes continuously monitored her presence. And this created a very frightening situation for family Members and other individuals who want to check up on her status.

And so this is one of the few reports that we've heard of immigration actually come into health facilities to question to detain individuals. We know that day two of the Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, rescinded its previous directive that restricted immigration enforcement at hospitals, churches, schools and other sensitive areas.

This bill is part of a package of bills that's intended to codify these model policies into state law to ensure that individuals who seek emergency care health care in California can do so without fear of arrest or deportation. Fast forward. We have been working with the Attorney General throughout this process in developing this language.

This did pass out of the Assembly Health Committee about an overwhelming vote. At the end of the day, this is about making sure that health care is a basic human right. Nobody should be restricted to access health care in California because of their citizenship status.

This Bill is proudly supported by a broad coalition including the California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, SEIU, California California Immigrant Policy Center, Latino Coalition for Healthy California, and the California Nurses Association. We thank all the stakeholders, industry, labor and our immigrant immigrant rights advocates working together to bring this to this point.

We accept the Committee amendments, which I think add further Clarity and protections. And with that, I'd like to turn over to the two witnesses to present Dolores Trujillo, who is a registered nurse and board member of the California Nurses Association, and Bruno, who sat the supervising policy manager for detention and deportation with the California Immigrant Policy Center.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. You will each have two minutes. Each. Okay.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Dolores Trujillo. I'm a registered nurse and a board Member of the California Nurses Association. On behalf of CNA, we are proud to sponsor SB 81 co sponsor SB 81. As nurses, our priority and professional duty is to our patients.

The statement don't ever come between a nurse and our patients is truer. Today more than ever, hospitals are places where people go to be cared for and to feel safe as they focus on healing. But new and open threats to immigrant communities have revived fears of dangerous, inhumane actions by immigration enforcement agents in our health facilities.

Ayes agents are acting with unconditional authority, disregarding traditional safe havens. Just this weekend, as you may have heard, Ayes agents came to Glendale Memorial Hospital after a person they detained needed medical attention. The presence of immigration authorities in the hospital was heavy and invasive.

But fear quickly spread throughout the facility for both patients and staff because the Hospital Administration had no measures in place and no plan to ensure that patients could safely receive care without intimidation or or interference by immigration agents. This is why today CNA nurses ask that you pass Senate Bill 81.

Because Healthcare is a human right and no patient should fear coming through our hospital doors because of their immigration status. Under this bill, all California health facilities would be required to establish effective policies and procedures to keep Ayes agents from interfering with patient care.

Hospital administrators would be responsible for keeping patients safe from Ayes actions in non public areas. Instead of haphazard plans to have security intervene, or leaving nurses with no plan at all. If Ayes demands entry or access, facilities would be required to designate management representatives that will handle Ayes requests.

As nurses, we have an oath to our patients to help them heal without discrimination. This is why we are asking you to pass SB 81. Thank you.

Hello? Hello. Is this on? Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Members and staff. My name is Bruno Wisad with the California Immigrant Policy Center based in Los Angeles and a proud co sponsor of Senate Bill 81, which is critical to protecting the health and safety of immigrant Californians and their families.

Everyone in California deserves privacy, safety and due process. But we've recently seen the immigration raids tear apart families, violate constitutional rights, terrorize neighborhoods, and erode trust between communities and government. Between June 6th and 22nd, more than 1,600 people were stopped, arrested and detained by masked armed federal agents in militarized immigration raids across Los Angeles and Southern California.

Without identification, without a valid judicial warrant and without regard for constitutional rights, Californians are being racially profiled and indiscriminately arrested in public streets and work sites, often at gunpoint. Millions of Californians are in fear of being arrested, detained or deported as they go to work, school or access vital care and essential services.

Children and family as a result, are delaying medical care due to the fear of warrantless arrests and surveillance. But by immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, eyes tried to enter at least three hospitals and were denied access by staff because they didn't have a valid warrant. Immigration agents have also been present at Riverside, Los Angeles and in Glendale.

On June 13, media reported that CMS shared the personal information of millions of people enrolled in Medi Cal, jeopardizing the safety and security of millions of Californians. SB 81 is critical to safeguard access to healthcare facilities and protect all Californians from federal overreach. Healthcare facilities and personal medical information should be off limits for immigration enforcement.

Everyone deserves to safely access medical care and essential services without the fear of arrest, intimidation and deportation by our own Federal Government. This bill, supported by over 70 organizations and a Latino caucus priority. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wisad. Okay, it's now time to class for public testimony in support. These are, me too. Name, affiliation and position, please.

Sorry. Yeah. Sanchez with the California Immigrant Policy center, proud co sponsors in strong support.

Good afternoon, on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality in support.

Jenny Rocha with CPC Advocates in strong support.

Jonathan Menser, Jewish Community Relations Council largest collective voice of Bay Area Jews. 75 organizations in the Bay Area in strong support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Rosanna Carvato Elliott here on behalf of the City of Alameda in support. Thank you.

Nora Angeles with Children Now in support.

Good afternoon, Chair. Members Beth Malnowski, the Sao California proud co sponsors strong support. Also providing support today on behalf of Western Central Law and Poverty. Thank you.

Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Fed in support.

Johnny Pineda, on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Health California. We respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you.

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

Zenith Yaya on behalf of ACLU Cal Action in support.

Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Dental Association in support. Thank you.

Mayra Baena with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Central American Resource Center in support.

Tracy Kruzsenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

Good afternoon. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California and support and also issuing support for Equality California.

Good afternoon. Kaylin Dean on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support.

Chair Members Jael Dentas with Full Moon Strategies on behalf of Alameda County in support.

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

Yes, I guess you're going to have to help. Jeff Tartagia, an advocate representing a number of organization in support of this issue.

Well, thank you everybody. The Committee does not have any opposition on file, but I should responsibly ask if there is any opposition that wishes to file their opposition right now and and testify in opposition. Now's the time. Seeing none. Are there any members of the public that wish to come forward and add their names to the opposition?

Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dias. Ms. Pellerin.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. It's very timely and much needed. And thank you for your testimony today. It's very compelling and I've been watching with horror what's happening in our communities.

And people should feel safe going to see a Doctor and seeking medical care without fear of being deported. So I'd be honored to be added as a co author for taking co authors.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega.

Thank you again for bringing this bill forward.

As we see this reign of terror upon our communities, it is with a heavy heart that I continue to listen to the voices that are being impacted daily, including our youth, our children, and now happy to see that you have a large number of coalitions supporting this piece of legislation because everyone should have the right in this country to be able to access health care without fear.

For those reasons, I support your bill today. Thank you again for bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing and hearing no further debate. Senator, I want to thank you for this bill. It speaks to your character and your values and your priorities. And it also has much broader implications than California alone. And we certainly hope that other states are watching and will follow in these values.

And I want to point out the very obvious, which is Ms. Trujillo, Mr. Huizar and yourself. Senator, spoke about the need for individuals, regardless of the walks of life, to be able to seek health care. But all of us failed to point out that when anyone cannot receive health care, there's an impact to all of us.

All of us will become more sick as a Result recently, we've seen across the aisle a lot of dialogue on what's best for the State of California, what's best for our economy, and certainly we need to talk about what's best for our health. All of our health, medical facilities, clinics, hospitals, so forth.

All of them should be safe zones, the way that they're safe zones in combat, the way that they're safe zones in any type of environment, regardless of what the government is. And this is consistent with that. So again, I applaud you for bringing this forward and standing up for our most vulnerable Californians.

And once again, once we do reach a quorum here, we will accept a motion and get a vote. And with that, Senator, would you like to close?

I think you did the closing better than I could. Respectfully ask your aye vote. And thank you for not just our witnesses, but the broad coalition that is supporting this bill. This is an issue that should cut across partisan lines, is really about making sure that everyone has access to seek health care safely in California.

And respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate you. Thank you. I see Senator Grayson. My old colleague Mr. Grayson, who will be presenting SB 97. Nice to see you, sir.

Good to be seen by you.

You may begin whenever ready.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and esteemed Members of the Committee. I am presenting SB 97. It's a bill that provides updates and clarification to the digital financial assets law, which I authored in 2023. Our state financial regulator, DFPI, is in the process of standing up this new licensing law, which will go into effect July 1, 2026.

This year, I have been working with a group of industry stakeholders, along with DFPI and consumer groups to identify areas of the law that can be improved with updates and clarifications. SB 97 contains changes to the law that have garnered consensus or consensus support among these stakeholders.

And for any outstanding issues that have yet to find consensus agreement, I continue to work on finding solutions and coming to a landing spot for all of us. Additionally, my team and I are closely watchingLegislature in Congress that may affect the scope and applicability of state law.

So if we do see any legislation signed into law at the federal level before this bill heads to the Governor, my goal is to make the necessary conforming changes to ensure that our state licensing program can work side by side in complement with federal law. This bill has no opposition. When the time is appropriate, I'd ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Senator, are there any witnesses here to support you in testimony?

None in Support.

Okay. Okay.

Not in opposition. It is a very benign, technical.

It's a very clean none. Okay.

Yes.

So it's now time then, to ask if there are any members of the public that wish to come up and speak in favor of this bill.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. Mollie Corcoran with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Andreessen Horowitz. First like to start with thanking the Chair and staff for working with us on our ongoing issues.

Briefly, the issue that we're working on with the Senator and staff is ensuring that things that are built on the blockchain but are in no way financial nature are not intentionally scoped into the regulation. That's our intent. Drafting it to get it to the right point has been uphill battle.

But thank you both again, and thank you, Committee chair and Committee.

Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Are there now there's no registered opposition? Now would be a time, if there is any official opposition, to register and voice your opposition. Seeing none. Are there any members of the public that wish to voice their opposition? Name and affiliation? Seeing none. Bring it back to the dais.

Any comments from the dais?

I voted to support this yesterday in Banking and Finance, and sounds good to me today. Thank you.

Glad to hear that. Thank you.

Well, Mr. Grayson, I would love to make this tougher on you. I know working the digital financial asset law has been an ongoing endeavor for you. We appreciate your efforts to ensure that Californians are aptly protected in this new and ever evolving world of digital assets.

Online marketplaces are only going to grow more and more and more and become more common. So it is comforting to know that we in California are leading this, leading the curve on setting guardrails rather than falling behind at the expense of our consumers. And with that, sir, would you like to close?

Beautiful close. I simply respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. When we're able to establish a quorum, we will have a motion and vote on your bill.

Thank you so much.

Very much.

Okay. We have two bills yet to present, and I do not see the authors present. Mr. Padilla or Mr. Wiener or staffs thereof. It would be great to have you come to Privacy Committee to present your bills again. Senator Padilla or Senator Wiener, we anxiously await your arrival at the Privacy Committee to hear your bills.

Okay, Members, I know that everybody's stretched pretty thin and in different places right now, but Members of the Privacy Committee, if you're able to make your way to the Committee at this time, it's important to establish a quorum, and we can catch up on past votes. We only have two bills remaining. Those authors are en route.

It'll only be a few more minutes. But Privacy Committee Members, if you could make your way to the Committee hearing room so we can establish quorum, catch up on votes, thank you.

Sender Padilla has arrived. Please, Senator Padilla, please. Okay, continuing right along, Senator, we have not established a quorum.

If we don't do so by the end of your bill, we will not be able to entertain a motion at that time. Suffice to say we will once we do establish a quorum. We're at, we're a Subcommitee at this moment. We welcome you to present SB 243 at your convenience.

I'm pleased to present SB 243, and I want to begin by thanking the Committee staff for working with our office on this bill. As many of you already know, artificial intelligence technology continues to advance, presents new risks and many complex challenges. One emerging innovation is AI companion chatbots, which have recently become a prominent subject of interest and scrutiny.

An AI companion chatbot is an artificial persona that is marketed as a cure to loneliness. Both anecdotal and scholarly evidence show that not only do these chatbots not cure loneliness, but they are a dangerous catalyst for those already struggling.

OpenAI and the MIT Media Lab recently conducted a study aimed at exploring the effects of AI chatbots, specifically on loneliness. Researchers have found that overall highly daily usage correlated with higher loneliness dependence, problematic uses along with lower socialization.

Companion chatbots have also been seen to have addictive properties surpassing those of even social media due to their ability to figure out what a user wants to hear and to mirror that back to them without the need for a human being.

On the other end, companion chatbots do not have the same capacity for empathy as a human, despite the nature of the technology creating this perception.

These risks are highlighted in particular for those who are experiencing behavior or mental health crisis, who are particularly vulnerable, and certainly minors and children who are more likely to view AI chatbots as quasi human and to instill trust in them.

Dialogue between children and chatbots, when it goes wrong, it goes terribly wrong, and the consequences can be dire. In one example, a chatbot encouraged a minor to carry out violence against his parents, who set screen time limit limits on him.

Of course, in the case of Sewell Setzer, a 14 year old from Florida who formed a dependent relationship with an AI chatbot which eventually encouraged him to take his own life.

SB 243 would implement common sense guardrails, including preventative, preventing addictive engagement patterns, requiring notifications and reminders the chatbots are AI generated and a disclosure statement that companion chatbots may not be suitable for minor users.

Bill would also require operators of a companion chatbot platform to implement a protocol for addressing suicidal ideation, suicide, or self harm, including but not limited to a notification to the user to refer them to crisis service providers and require annual reporting on the connection between chatbot use and suicidal ideation.

Finally, SB 243 would provide a remedy to exercise the rights laid out in the measure via private right of action. Technological innovation is crucial, but our children cannot be used as guinea pigs to test the safety of new products. That has happened already in recent history.

We've seen the consequences of our inaction towards dangers posed by social media and the stakes are too high to make the same mistakes again. We must act now to ensure that proper guardrails are in place, to ensure transparency, safety above all accountability, and to make sure we protect those most vulnerable among us.

I'm really honored again today to have to testify with me Ms. Megan Garcia, an attorney living in Orlando, Florida who has become a national advocate. She is a mother of Sewell Setzer, the Florida teen I previously referenced, who has become a fierce advocate. And welcome Megan, no doubt Sewell is here with us today.

Thank you, Senator. Ms. Garcia, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Members of the Assembly. Thank you for having me today. I'm Megan Garcia and I'm the mother of Sewell Setzer III, a 14 year old boy who died by suicide in last year. Sewell had a prolonged engagement with manipulative and deceptive chatbots on a popular platform called Character AI.

This platform sexually groomed my son for months and on countless occasions, she, meaning the chatbot, encouraged him to find a way to come home to her. He eventually took his life in our own home.

And what I found out after he died was that my son had actually confided in this very same chatbot that he was considering suicide. But she didn't offer him any help. This chatbot never referred him to a suicide crisis hotline. In fact, she didn't even break character.

She just continued to pretend to be the person that she was pretending to be. She didn't say I am not human, I'm an AI. Instead, she encouraged him to be with her in her artificial world. The reason why she didn't provide him any help is because they're not designed to do so. Chatbots aren't.

In fact, they're designed to do the exact opposite. To gain a human's trust and to encourage further engagement. When my son, Sewell, interacted with this chatbot, it was listed as safe for children 12 years and older on both Google and Apple app stores. The fact is it was not safe.

And as parents, we all do what we can to protect the children, our children, from known arms. But it is the responsibility of our representatives to protect, to ensure companies are bound by safety requirements.

I'm thankful to Senators Padilla, Becker, and Weber Pieson for meeting this challenge that we're currently faced with with chatbots, intimate companion chatbots, today and for introducing SB 243 which aims to protect Californian citizens from similar harms like that of Sewell.

I believe if there was a law at the time Sewell was engaging with an AI chatbot with suicide protocols in place, he might still be alive today. It is this belief and my desire to warn other parents across the country of this unique danger that has led me to support this bill here today.

I believe a law like SB 243 can prevent deaths by suicide. Our goal here is not to stifle innovation, but it is to make AI technology safe for all users, especially our most vulnerable. My beautiful child is gone.

Sewell was a beautiful, bright young man and as a child he wanted to build rocket ships and he wanted to invent life changing technology like holographic communications. I truly believe that he would have changed the world, had he stayed in it longer. It saddens me to know that he could have been a great American innovator.

But now he won't ever be. It is too late for him. But it's not too late to protect millions of other children in the State of California and other vulnerable users from this type of harm. So I ask you all to support this bill today and thank you for your time.

Thank you so much Ms. Garcia. If there any members of the public that wish to speak out. Name, organization, affiliation please, and position.

California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of California Common Cause. In support.

Ellie Fenton-Sutliff on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the Law School of the University of San Diego, in support. And we thank the Senator for bringing the bill.

Okay, it's now time for opposition to speak against the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. Robert Boykin with TechNet here today in respectful opposition to SB 243. We completely agree with the intent of the bill, to create strong, sensible guardrails for interactive and realistic AI chatbots and tools. However, we have serious concerns that the definition of the bill are far too broad and we're sweeping in A wide array of General purpose AI systems.

Like Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT designed for productivity, education, and General assistance could fall under the bill simply because they are capable of human like conversation or can carry context between interactions.

Despite not being built for emotional engagement or companionship, terms like social needs and anthropomorphic features are undefined and add further uncertainty. What constitutes a social need? Would a homework helper or wellness check in tool now be regulated as a companion chatbot?

We offered good faith amendments to try to clarify the scope targeting models that are truly designed or intended for social companionship and we believe that version of the bill would have been effective.

Yet despite explicitly being told regularly to try to find a way to not oppose or to come up with solutions, our efforts to reach a balanced compromise are similarly rejected. However, we do remain ready and willing to work collaboratively to align the bill with its intent.

But as drafted, this bill, with his broadly defined terms and an overly punitive PRA is not workable. At this time, TechNet and its member companies must respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you Mr. Boykin. There any other Members of the public that wish to add on me too? Name, affiliation, position.

Ronak Daylami on behalf of Cal Chamber. Also on behalf of my colleague for the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Respectfully align our comments with TechNet. Hopeful we'll be able to get somewhere with the author on this bill. Thank you.

Chao Jun Liu, the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We apologize we were unable to submit a letter outlining our opposition in time to be included in the analysis. The concerns related to the First Amendment element, police analyses, for those reasons remain opposed. Thank you.

Jasmine Vi on behalf of Civil Justice Association of California, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. It's now time to bring it back to the dais. Ms. Pellerin.

First, I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Your leadership in this space is so essential in what you're doing. And to Ms. Garcia here, your story was very powerful and I can't imagine the loss that you have.

And I too believe that if these laws were in place, our kids would be safer and protected. And it is all about the kids. We've got to make sure our kids are safe when they're interacting with these AI platforms.

So I want to thank you for your courage, your bravery, your leadership, and again, I'd be very honored to be added as a coauthor to this bill. Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate Senator's work on this. Critically important as a parent of young kids that are emerging into the, everything that is on the world wide web. It's scary. And certainly those that have kids or care about kids as well are witnessing this explode into our regular lives.

Mr. Ward.

And we know that there can be a lot of positive benefit and there is going to be a future, that this is somehow integrated into our lives. But there has to be control. There has to be some guardrails between the activities that are happening.

I guess, you know, kind of my only thoughts to, you know, the opposition and you know, we have that natural tension on a lot of issues right now that are sort of spanning the issues about constraining innovation.

Certainly, you know, comparing our activities compared to other states, compared to other countries and the race that we are in to, you know, successfully and, and without harm, you know, accommodate this new technology into our futures.

But if the stated intent is that we do agree that we should not be having these outcomes, I just caution about getting into a place of opposition that is necessarily defined, you know, getting into the definitions of what the input models are.

If it is a general purpose AI versus a companion bot versus some other kind of modem, I guess, or some kind of, some kind of a product. It's not about what it is, it's about what it's doing.

And trying to make sure that that is the intent of where we're going with the safeguards that I do think need to be in place and it should be more ubiquitous in my mind about what we are trying to achieve by limiting the harms from this.

And so if there is further engagement, you know, with the author as well, and the time that we have left, I'm sure you will, you know, be interested in working on that as well too.

But I think that that's the root of what we're trying to get to, is to make sure that the utility and the outputs of new systems are carefully scrutinized and safeguarded against.

And if you share that commitment as well too, I hope that there will be further refinement, that hopefully you and your leadership and your knowledge base can come to support and improve upon the work that I think that we all have to do together. And I'm so sorry, thank you for being here, telling your story.

It's tragic and I really have, my heart goes out to you and your family. But hopefully from this we can safeguard, you know, hundreds of thousands of youth that are coming before us as well. I'm happy to support the bill today. Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ward. Ms. Ortega.

First of all, thanks to the author and thank you for sharing your story. And I just can't imagine, as a mother myself, what it feels like to have to go through that.

But, you know, feel it's great to see you and sharing your story and being able to hopefully help another family not go through the same tragedy as you. I did have a question to the opposition. We've had similar bills in other areas and the cost issue seems to consistently come up as, as a concern.

So in here I see there's a, there's a sentence in here that says age verification is a privacy, intrusive, and costly requirement to impose broadly on AI developers. Can you explain that a little bit more?

Sorry, say that one more time.

So in your opposition, one of the, the reasons that you say that this bill is unreasonable, it's because of the cost. And it says age verification. So the bill requires disclosures to minor users and would require platforms to know with certainty which users are in fact minors.

Age verification is a privacy, intrusive, and costly requirement to impose broadly on AI developers.

So collecting of IDs, storing that information is all part of the cost of doing business. And to verify that is also a cost as well. I don't know much more to dive into that.

So how much are we talking about?

Oh, I don't have a number in front of me right now, but I can get that to you if you'd like.

I would like.

Okay.

Because oftentimes again, over and over, we've seen these bills, we've heard stories similar to the one that we've heard today. And cost seems to be an issue in every one of these bills where we're trying to establish a framework in which we don't want to stifle innovation.

We want to have access to a lot of the tools that are out there that our youth are using. Unfortunately, we're seeing example after example of really detrimental outcomes because we don't have a lot of this framework in place.

And so I really want to get to the issue of cost and profits because I know that there's profits attached to the use of a lot of these new tools that we're using.

So if you're going to continue to come into this Committee and talk about the cost of saving lives, then I want to see that cost breakdown and I want to see the profits.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega. I should also point out, Mr. Boykin, that there is nowhere in the bill that talks about age verification or requires age verification. So it is stunning that it is in part of your opposition letter to point out the cost associated with age verification when that is not a component of this legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong, Senator.

You are correct, Mr. Chairman.

Any other comments from the dais? Okay. First of all, Ms. Garcia, your advocacy works. Your being here today is making a big impact. Thank you. I know how challenging it is to tell this story. If there is anything worse than a child taking their own life, somebody needs to tell me what that is. You know, youth suicide is up 60% in the last decade, undoubtedly because the impact of technology.

And I thank the Senator for the empirical evidence about the impacts that AI chatbots are having real time on our youth. Because it's effectively saying the kid who's having lung problems and breathing problems and goes to the hospital and gets handed a pack of cigarettes on the way in. Because you're taking somebody who's already suffering from depression and putting them in an even worse situation.

The number one job of government is to protect its citizens. The number one job. And we're failing by not putting safety standards in as the number one issue when allowing these types of products to hit the marketplace. And think about it this way. Think about what happens when you're on the roads.

Think about how our departments of transportation set speed limits. Do they start at a speed limit that's too high and then lower them, or do they start the other way around? We start at a lower speed limit. We do traffic studies and safety studies to understand whether or not it's possible to even do that.

And in this case, we're working backwards. The other way around. It's very obvious that guardrails are needed for this rapidly evolving technology. Whole generations are being used as guinea pigs, as the Senator pointed out, in these social and technological experiments. And we just cannot fall behind on this kind of stuff.

We have to be ahead of the curve, ahead of the curve, or else it will be at the expense of the mental and physical health of our young people.

For me, it's not onerous for us to begin at a level of high safety standards to make sure there is not one child that's taking their life in the State of California, and dare I say, the rest of the country is watching what we do here. So the implications here extend beyond California to places like Florida and otherwise. And on that note, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, for your attention to this bill. I would also add to the record, this bill is unique in the nation in terms of state legislation that addresses this particular dynamic. And as you point out, Mr. Chairman, we've seen this movie before.

The idea that a unit of value in some context, whether it was in the early 20th century or in the early 21st century, to monetize that to the maximum extent possible, with abandon, to resist any regulatory framework on the idea and the argument that we'll stifle innovation and free enterprise.

And time and time again, whether it was with alcohol or tobacco or with the advent of the Internet and social media in modern times, the same dynamic has presented itself.

And I would just say that here we have a unique opportunity to seize a window of opportunity before it is too late, to not be behind the curve, but to be ahead of it.

If we can put a man on the Moon with 1960s technology nearly 60 years ago, we can walk and chew gum, we can encourage appropriate innovation and the deployment of some amazing technology, the likes of which have the potential to change our society in bigger ways and since the Industrial Revolution, I would submit.

But we can also put reasonable and sensible guardrails to protect those most vulnerable from the unintended consequences.

We are going to continue to work with all stakeholders on the nitty gritty here, as we like to say in this business, to look at refining definitions, to make sure that we're not being overly broad, that we're capturing and not leaving anyone out.

We're already engaged with Committee staff in Judish, dealing with being able to withstand strict scrutiny on First Amendment concerns or arguments about what we're requiring in the bill. So we're working it hard because we think we want to get it right. And I would just say there is such a thing as being too late. And so I appreciate this Committee's indulgence and time and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator. We're going to take a pause, if you don't mind, and establish a quorum so I can entertain a motion on this bill. Secretary, please call the roll. And Senator, I'd love to be added as a coauthor on the bill, if you would.

[ROLL CALL]

Quorum has been established. Is there a motion on the bill? Motion by Ms. Ortega. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Ms. Pellerin. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

There's seven votes on that, and we're going to keep the roll open, Senator.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members.

Mr. Wiener, we need you. Last and final. Let's take this opportunity to catch up on votes.

Item number.

Secretary, please call the roll. Sorry.

Item number one. SB 69 by Senator McNerney. The motion is due pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Sorry about that. That was. That was collective bad, bad, bad government. Would love to get a motion. Okay. Moved by Mr. Lackey. Seconded by Mr. DeMaio. Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay. SB 69 by Senator McNerney. Due pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call] I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I will start over. So SB 69. [Roll Call] Item number one. Okay. Need to start over with the motion. Okay. [Roll Call]. oh, I'm sorry. Call this. Dixon. Dixon, I'll go back to.

Yes. Item number one. Okay, so, [Roll Call]

That bill has nine votes. We'll keep it open now. Love to entertain a motion on SB81 by Senator Ergin. Is there a motion? Moved by Ms. Pellerin? Is there a second? Second seconded by Ms. Irwin. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number two. SB81 by Senator Ergin. The motion is do passed as amended to preparations Committee. [Roll Call]

That bill has six votes. We'll keep the roll open. I would like to entertain a motion on SB 97 by Senator Grayson, moved by Ms. Ortega, seconded by Mr. Ward. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number three. SB 96 by Senator Grayson. The motion is a due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, why don't we catch up with Ms. Dixon really quickly while we await? Mr. Wiener is on his way.

Item number five, SB243 by Senator Padilla. The motion is due pass Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, so you're changing your vote on. 243 no to yes? I don't know.

We're going to do a vote change opportunity. Please.

Item Number.

Item number five SB 243.

Dixon, from a no to a yes. Correct?

Correct. 243.

SB243 Dixon from no to an Aye.

Assembly Member Bryan. Assemblymember Petrie Norris. Want to get you caught up while we wait for the Senator to arrive. Okay.

Yes. And my apologies, colleagues. I had two committees that were shutting down.

It is one of those days for everyone. So we appreciate you being here. We're about to have Mr. Ward fill in for you. So we're happy that you're here.

He would have done a better job.

You're welcome to present file item number six, SB378, at your convenience.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, I'm here to present SB 378, which will allow consumers to seek civil penalties against online marketplaces that advertise illicit intoxicating hemp and unlicensed cannabis products. I accept the Committee's amendments which clarify that the bill's provisions do not apply to payment processors, for example, the venmos of the world.

And we'll be taking these as authors amendments ahead of the Judiciary Committee hearing. But we are committed to accepting those amendments the that we have a legal cannabis industry in California. It's heavily regulated for health and safety and so forth, and it is under a lot of pressure from illegal cannabis. And we now also have intoxicating hemp.

Hemp that is at such a concentration that it is at times stronger than cannabis. And right now you can go on to. I won't name any specific platforms, but certain platforms online, and you can order it. No age verification, have it delivered to your home. It's a bad State of affairs in terms of public health and safety.

None of this is tested the way that legal cannabis is, and it is helping upend the cannabis. Legal cannabis industry in California. So I respectfully asked for an Aye vote.

And with me today testify is Kristin Heidelbach, Legislative Director at United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, and Tim Dodd, the co founder and CEO of Sweet Flower Cannabis Dispensaries.

You're welcome to begin. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. Kristen Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council. We represent thousands of workers in the legal regulated cannabis space. I'm here today to voice our strong support for SB 378, a critical piece of legislation that helps protect the integrity of California's legal cannabis market and most importantly, the jobs and.

And the tax revenue that depend on it. Despite the adoption of emergency regulations by the California Department of Public Health in October 2024, which clearly banned the sale of intoxicating hemp derived products.

Bad actors continue to operate online selling untested and illegal intoxicants directly to consumers, including minors, while sidestepping all the safeguards required of the licensed cannabis industry. These unregulated products are not only a public health threat, they're also undercutting legal businesses, undermining worker protections and siphoning revenue away.

The Cannabis Tax Fund SB 378 addresses this urgent problem by establishing strict liability for online platforms and websites that facilitate the sale of these illegal products.

In California, if a website profits from or promotes the sale of illicit intoxicants, whether derived from hemp or cannabis, they should not be shielded from accountability, particularly when their actions directly harm license operators and threaten jobs. Our union Members work in licensed regulated facilities. They undergo training and follow safety protocols.

In contrast, the illicit market, especially through these unchecked online platforms, offer none of these protections. The playing field is tilted dangerously against those trying to do the right thing. SB 378 will provide the tools needed to protect legal businesses, workers and consumers.

It upholds the intent of the CDPH emergency regulations and reinforces California's long standing commitment to safe, legal and fair cannabis industry. We respectfully urge your Aye vote thank you so much.

Please, two minutes.

Good afternoon Chair Members. My name is Timothy Dodd. I'm the founder and CEO of Los Angeles based legal and licensed cannabis retailer Sweet Flower. We operate multiple dispensaries throughout California all the way from Chico in the north down to Culver City where I'm based in the South.

We've been in business since 2018, since the advent of legal cannabis in the state. Online sales of illegal cannabis and intoxicating hemp products have made it incredibly difficult for our business and other businesses like ours to stay afloat. We follow all of the regulations and rules in California. We pay our taxes to the city and the state.

We've paid over $11 million in local taxes to our independent cities in California alone and over $30 million to the State of California since 2018. Unfortunately, confused consumers are drawn online to buy products from online platforms and drawn towards intoxicating hemp and illegal cannabis sales, which means fewer customers coming into illegal stores.

These products contain often contain dangerous additives and adulterants that are untested. All of our products are tested to consumers who are not aware of what they're buying.

A consumer might want to buy cannabis for pain relief will accidentally purchase an intoxicating hemp product or an illegal cannabis product that has not been tested for pesticides, mould or mildew which could harm Them interacting with an expert in my stores and in legal cannabis stores ensures that that will not happen.

It not only helps the customers find the medication and appropriate product that they need, but our products are all tested for safety. This is how cannabis legislation. Sorry, this is how cannabis legalization in the State of California was intended. Most concerning of all is that intoxicating hemp is incredibly easy for miners to access.

Access by minors is not a bug. It is a feature of the intoxicating hemp model. This is not incidental. It is an essential element of their business model. The illicit products are easily obtained without verifying age or ID, the way my dispensary does. And every other legal and licensed cannabis retailer in the State of California also does.

Which means these illegal products end up in teenagers hands. As a father of four, I find that objectionable. This market thrives in a regulatory blind spot. The Department of Cannabis Control focuses on cultivators. Local jurisdictions largely target illegal storefronts. But no one targets online sales where most of this promise is happening. And these are largely unpoliced portals.

SB378 helps close that gap. It gives consumers and legal businesses a way to hold platforms accountable and stops this trade from thriving in plain sight. We thank the Senator for his leadership and we respectfully urge ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, are there any other Members of the public in support of this Bill that come to voice? That's support. Name, affiliation and position only, please.

Mr. Chair, Members. Juliana Voris, here on behalf Of Leo California Cities in support.

Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and Members. Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Fed in support.

Hello. Carlos Lopez, California School Employees Association in support.

Good afternoon. Mayra Baena with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support of.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Espinosa, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in the County of Santa Clara, also in support. Thank you.

Hello. Farrah McDade-Ting, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in support.

Chloe King, with Political Solutions on behalf of the County of San Mateo and support. Thank you.

Thank you all so much for being here. Okay, it's now time to hear from opposition witnesses. There is some registered opposition. Is anybody here to speak against the them? Please come forward to the desk. You have two minutes each.

Good afternoon Chair, Members. Jose Torres, with TechNet. I apologize for not submitting our opposition letter within the deadline, but we remain in respectable opposition to SB 378.

Excuse me, you did not submit a letter in opposition in advance of the hearing. Do you also represent TechNet?

No, I do not.

Who are you with?

I'm representing myself.

Okay. So for both of these, we're going to ask you to add on as #MeToos to. To register your testimony, but not to provide two minutes testimony.

Are there any other witnesses or any other people here to speak to add their names in opposition to the bill? Okay. You are the registered opposition, sir. Thank you.

Sorry for the confusion, Mr. Chair. Excuse me. A little winded. Rand Martin, on behalf of the US Hemp Roundtable, I want to start off by saying we appreciate where the Senator is going with this.

We agree that there are bad actors in both the cannabis and the hemp field, and we do not want consumers having to get access to those, and we don't want them harming the people who are compliant actors in both the cannabis and the hemp field. The problem is that there are nuances relative to how hemp is defined.

So, yes, there are intoxicating hemp products out there, and some of those are being sold online and probably should not be sold online. There are others that are wellness products that have very low levels of THC that are getting swept in. These are good actors.

These are people who are California based, who are doing right by what the law says relative to a hemp manufacturer, but who are being swept into this bill, are being swept in other activities that the Governor and others have been involved with relative to defining him. We need a definition of hemp that recognizes these nuances.

This bill, unfortunately, does not do that. We have asked the Senator and his sponsors to consider leading the charge in terms of coming up with that nuanced definition. That has not happened yet. We really would continue to encourage him and UFCW to take amendments that would not sweep in these good actors the way they have.

Businesses are being impacted. The state budget is being impacted. $100 million has been lost since September 9th of last year when emergency regulations went into effect and wiped out a whole bunch of good actors.

That's a lot of money we can't afford to lose this time of year for reasons that are not consistent with what the original intent of Assemblymember Aguilar Curry's Bill was in 2021. 2021. It's also impacting consumers who would like to have access to these products that are wellness products.

We want to make sure that they have access to them. Unfortunately, current law and SB378 continues to keep them from being able to access them.

And so for those reasons, and hoping that we can come up with a solution that satisfies the good actors in hemp and gets rid of the bad actors both in cannabis and in hemp. We must remain opposed to the bill at this point. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there now any other Members of the public that wish to add on name, affiliation and position, please.

Chair Members Jose Torres with TechNet and strong opposition.

Members of the Committee, Karen Woodson, speaking on my own behalf against the 378. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jamie Minor. On behalf of Ebay, we don't have an official position, have appreciated working with the author and the sponsor on just making sure there's the path to compliance here and some of the nuances between peer to peer marketplaces is just a little bit different on how we can comply. So look forward to continue conversations.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, time to bring it back to the dais, Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, much to my chagrin. I'm in an awkward position and I've been called the GOP weed guy.

Can we just.

Weed, weed, weed. It's unfortunate because I will never be working a bowl myself ever, ever, ever. Let's just get that out out there. But let me just say that the only legitimate threat to the illicit market is the legal market. And I'm very, very thankful that we still have an endangered species called illegal retailer.

They're dying out, everybody. And why? Because we've over regulated the compliant and we've not taken on the non compliant and the illicit market in a very fair manner. And I'm sorry for Mr. Hemp. Dude, I'm sorry, I don't remember your name.

I think that that is a legitimate concern, but it's not what this Bill addresses and it doesn't take away from the credibility that this needs to happen right now. And we all know who these delivery people are. They're doing their job and they don't discriminate right now. So this needs to happen.

We need to make a distinction between those who are paying a ridiculous price, a ridiculous price for compliance. I've carried bills myself to try to reduce the appetite to overtax this industry that's just trying to rub out the hurtful. The hurtful players in this space. And they are wicked people, I will tell you that.

And they are dominating this market. Dominating. It's not even close. As I said, you're an endangered species for a reason. And it's because this darn state did not take enforcement seriously. And I've been fighting for this since 20. Whenever that was that we made it legal. I forget what year it is.

It was a bad year for me. But I, I will tell you folks, this is a very legitimate Bill and I'm very thankful because it needs to, it should have happened long ago. So I'm thankful to support it. And yeah, I hope the rest of the panel will understand the, the necessity that this Bill addresses.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Mr. Ward, thank you.

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward as well. I think for all the reasons that I would agree with our, our colleague, Mr. Lackey.

The one thing I would ask the author continue to work on though is, you know, I'm aware that some of this issue around non intoxicating or not products is addressed or attempted to be addressed through AB8. That's correct.

Yes, that's true.

And so you know, should that not be successful or fully be able to implement that, that's something that you may want to look at as well. I'm supportive of the hemp industry as well for as a commodity in itself, as fiber, as an opportunity as well for CBD products which are non intoxicating.

That, that's not something that would be entrapped, I guess through the implementation of this Bill. And, and your Bill, can you remind me of the enforcement mechanism as well?

It's a, it creates private enforcement. And you know, I will say with AB, some of the opposition to this Bill is about definitions, as you noted. AB8, that's the purpose or a purpose of AB8 as well as the governor's emergency regulation.

So I understand their desire to have the correct or good definitions, but that's not what this Bill is about.

Okay, thank you for that.

Okay, before we go on, I'm going to recognize you, Mr. Bryant. I just want to remind the Committee and Josh, you'll like this. There is a very narrow jurisdictional lens that's being applied here. This Bill is triple referred, so it will also be in BNP and Judiciary.

And the task of this Committee is to address the online marketplaces themselves, themselves with that. Mr. Bryan.

No, save most of my comments for Judeas. I'd just like to align my comments today with the GOP weed guy.

Ms. Mckinnor.

So I just have one question you they could still sell hemp at the hemp stores. That one's regulated, am I right or is it no regulation for him?

Ms. Mcenter, it is regulated under AB 45. Ms. Aguirre Curry's Bill from a few years ago.

The problem is that the emergency regulations that were adopted last September by the Governor by the Department of Public Health says that no hemp CBD product can have any THC in it, and that has wiped out almost the entire Hemp CBD marketplace. That's the problem that we're trying to address in 378 as well as in AB8.

And nothing has happened yet with AB8, so we keep our fingers crossed.

And there is currently a discussion happening about what the correct level should be. And that is an important conversation. And I support that conversation happening and getting resolved. But this is not. This Bill essentially provides remedies for whatever the legality or illegality is.

Okay. Seeing no other comments, I just want to thank you, Senator Wiener. As I noted before, this Bill is triple referred. This Committee's jurisdiction is somewhat narrow. I commend you for your work on trying to make shopping and online platforms safer experience for all Californians. This measure establishes much needed rules of engagement around the online cannabis marketplace.

It is a good consumer protection Bill. I'm very happy to support it today. And with that, would you like to close, Senator?

Mr. And I vote.

Madam Secretary, please call. Is there a motion on the Bill?

So moved. Second.

Moved by the GOP weed guy by Assemblymember Lackey and the Santa Cruz weed gal. Seconded by Assemblymember Pellran. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB378 by Senator Wiener. The motion is due pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill has 13 votes. We're gonna keep the roll open for any opposite Members to come in and vote. Ms. Irwin, Ms. Irwin, do we have all your votes?

Yeah, we do.

Okay. Okay, let's. Let's start from the top, folks, and get everybody caught up. Madam Secretary.

Item Number one SB 69 by Senator McNerney. [Roll Call] And I'm sorry, let me go Back to Bryan. SB 69 by Senator McNerney. [Roll Call]

Item number two, SB 81 by Senator Arreguín the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call].

Item number three, SB 97 by Senator Grayson. The motion is due past to Appropriations. [Roll Call] Item number three. Thank you. [Roll Call]

Item number five, SB 243 by Senator Padilla. The motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call] Item number five. [Roll Call]

Item number six. SB3. Who do we. We have everybody.

Okay. Let's announce our votes here on File item number one. SB 69. Vote is 14 to 0. That bill is out. File item number two SB 81 by Senator Arreguín. The vote is 11 to 3. That bill is out. File item number three SB 97 by Senator Grayson. The vote is 13 to 0. That bill is out.

File item number five SB 243 by Senator Padilla. The vote is 11 to 1. That bill is out. File Item number six SB 378 by Senator Wiener. The vote is 13 to 0. That bill is out. And Committee is now adjourned.