Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee and I'd like to begin welcome everyone to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. I'd like to begin by noting due to Late opposition, item 5 AB 1382 Castillo is pulled from consent calendar so we will be hearing the Bill.

Also want to welcome and thank Assembly Johnson filling in from Ms. Sanchez today in order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time rules for witness testimony.

As usual, each side is allowed two minutes or two main witnesses each and each witness has approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill. Additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the Bill.

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

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time. As mentioned, no engaging conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes orderly conduct of this hearing. So we will begin as a Subcommitee. So since we have so many authors here, which is great to see, and item one on the agenda is AB634 Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez. So go ahead and take a seat whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members, staff I'm here today to present AB 634 which would prohibit the manufacturing, distribution or sale of Ty Neptine in the State of California. I'd like to extend my sincere gratitude to the Community Committee Chair and your staff for working diligently with my office to get this measure ready for today.

I'm happy to accept the Committee's amendments noted in the analysis. AB634 will prevent Californians from being exposed to Tyneptine, a dangerous substance dubbed gas station heroin. Gas station heroin is often sold over the counter at retail establishments such as gas stations, tobacco retailers and small markets with no age restriction.

This means that when children go to buy their favorite snack, they also have access to gas station heroin. Existing federal law does does not explicitly approve or disapprove of this substance as it is marketed as a supplement. It currently enjoys a legal gray area.

While approved in some European and Asian countries to treat depression or anxiety, this substance can produce both an opioid like high and an opioid like addiction when used recreationally. Multiple other states have already acted against this substance, from placing it on a schedule to restricting its sale.

Amendments to the introduced version of this Bill have switched the applicable penalties for a violation of the section from criminal to civil, which I believe is the correct course of action. This measure has come very far since introduction.

However, I would still like to commit to this Committee and its Members that my staff and I will work to ensure that employees are not inadvertently targeted by this Bill. In addition to ensuring that they are protected from my.

From any instance of employer retaliation in relation to this Bill, I would like to make it clear we will also work to ensure that this substance can still be researched by accredited institutions, recognizing its potential legitimate medical use. Joining me today to testify in support of this measure is Ryan Sherman.

On behalf of the California Narcotics Association, I am confident that we are on the right track to protecting Californians from the dangers of gas station heroin through this measure and respectfully request your aye vote at the end.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members, Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association.

We are pleased to sponsor this bill and grateful to the Assembly Member for authoring it and to the great work that your staff has done in narrowing this Bill and being able to focus on the truly most concerning portions that we're seeing out in the state. The biggest problem is not possession.

It's really that it's being marketed and being able to be sold in our state and that anybody can get it, especially without a prescription. So we appreciate the changes. We're entirely supportive and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 634? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 634? We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions or comments, Madam Vice Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Assemblymember Gonzalez. I appreciate you bringing this extremely important measure before the Committee today. This drug, as you say, is not approved by the FDA for any medical use and is not recognized as safe for use in food. However, it is being marketed as a potential dietary supplement or cognitive enhancer.

DEA has also warned of adverse withdrawal symptoms and users that have led to multiple hospitalizations. The drug is dangerous, and I applaud the author's efforts for taking action to ensure it does not hurt any more Californians who consume it.

I know our offices have communicated about this measure, and I'd love to reiterate my desire to be added as co author to this measure and will be an emphatic yes vote today and I'll make the motion.

I think we'll have to wait for quorum, but we'll keep that noted. Thank you. Any Other questions or comments? Senator, thank you for bringing this forward and also for sharing how you pronounce Tianepton. Just curious about that.

I think in our staff meeting it was pronounced a variety of different ways, but the principles of the Bill I think we all appreciated and do appreciate. So thank you so much and to the sponsors for working with the Committee staff.

I think where the Bill is now meets the intention of the author and I think of all of us, to ensure that this product does not get in the hands, particularly of children, but of anyone that may fall addicted to it. Would you like to close again?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for, for the opportunity. Thank you to the Committee and staff for the opportunity to speak. Thank you for committing to protecting our public. This is not a partisan thing. This is a public thing. And when we can come together just like this to solve issues in California, this is what Californians love to see.

So thank you again and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. When we get a quorum, we'll, we'll take that up. So thank you so much. Assembly Addis, Item 3, AB 1159.

Well, thank you Chair and staff in particular and all the advocates and Members here today. We're here to present AB 1159, the California Learner Personal Information Protection Act, otherwise known as CAL PIPA. And I will say I've learned a lot about PIPASs as I've been going through this process.

But what this does is makes critical improvements to California's student data privacy laws to reflect the modern reality of our education system and protect our students. And as some Committee Members have heard from me, this is particularly important to me as a longtime K12 teacher, but also currently the mom of college age students.

We really appreciate the thoughtful analysis and I do accept the amendments that are coming in this Committee. So as some may know, the Student Online Personal Information Protection act, otherwise known as CALPIPA, was signed into law in 2014. But since that time, EdTech has really evolved dramatically.

And we know that Ed Tech is in our classrooms from every level, from preschool through university, as well as post grad. And it has a near constant presence in all of our educational systems. Kids are on all kinds of educational platforms as well as young adults.

What we've come to know is that the platforms themselves serve an important tool. However, the information that they're collecting about our students, who are really not able to give consent because they're obligated to use these tools by going to school, includes photographs, videos, audio recordings of the kids themselves. It can include financial Information information from purchases.

It can include home addresses, family contact information, attendance patterns, health related information that could reveal healthcare decisions. We also know that it collects all kinds of intellectual property, private intellectual property, I would say. And we've seen invasive questions asked that our primary witness is going to talk about.

And we also know that data now can be re identifiable. So we're always told like don't worry about it. We de identify your data, nobody knows who you are. What we find now is technology has really increased its ability to re identify data and then people know exactly who you are, where you live.

And if you have sensitive information such as LGBT status, gender identity, immigration status, if you are a person who can become pregnant or is pregnant, that kind of information is available and personally identifiable.

So we have brought forward CALPIPA to address this situation and really to help the 2.9 million California students that are in higher education and to create better protections that are more in line with our current situation.

So the bill is really about one building on existing student data privacy protections, two, extending the existing protections to the higher ed level where they do not exist right now.

And then I'm sure what's of interest to this Committee is an incredibly limited private right of action that is modeled after the student borrower borrower Bill of Rights for students that have been harmed by violations.

So AB 1159 will ensure that students don't have their personal information put in harm's way, but it will not limit any kind of access to students to use the Edtech tools that they need to use and to get information that they need around scholarships or universities that they may want to be exposed to.

And I'll turn it over to my primary witness who's here today, Becca Kramer, representing the Privacy Rights Clearing House who's the sponsor of the bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Becca Kramer, on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, proud sponsors of AB 1159, California has long been a leader in protecting student privacy, passing the first law in the nation directly regulating edtech providers that were starting to proliferate in classrooms K through 12. To ensure educational privacy law kept pace with technology.

AB 1159 extends those protections to college students, including high school students with dual enrollment in college courses. College students are required to use Ed Tech in order to get their degrees.

They must read the digital coursebook their instructor selects and answer its digital prompts and questions, which have included questions from ed tech providers such as do you have more than one sexual partner? Do you use oil based condoms and lubes that professors and ed tech companies really shouldn't be getting.

No student should have to sacrifice their privacy in order to get an education. And AB 1159 simply ensures that all California students have the same privacy protections when it comes to ed tech. AB 1159 also ensures that families have a meaningful way to ensure that companies are following the law.

The very narrow limited PRA in the bill mirrors the Student Borrower Bill of Rights, which the Legislature passed in 2020 and which has not resulted in a flood of litigation. Under this limited PRA, students must allege actual harm to have standing.

The bill also requires 45 days written notice before filing, giving operators an opportunity to fix any compliance issues. If an Ed Tech operator fixes the violation within 30 days, an individual lawsuit is blocked.

Class action lawsuits face an even higher bar as operators can defeat them by identifying affected students, notifying them of available remedies, making corrections, and stopping the conduct. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1159? Name organization, if any, and your position on the bill?

Is this thing on? Cat Brackman with the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, Members, Yvonne Fernandez, on behalf of the California Labor Fed.

Also on behalf of the following organizations, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California Children's Advocacy Institute, Students Deserve Oakland Privacy, Consumer Action, Indivisible California, the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, Genders and Sexuality Alliance Network Courage California Secure Justice Tech Oversight, California Asian Solidarity Collective, and California's Together. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association on behalf of our 29,000 members who work in the CSU in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition? AB 1159 is you. Make your way up here. I'm going to hand the gavel over to the vice chair. I have to run to the swing space to vote, so she'll take it over from here. And we don't have a quorum yet, so let's keep that in mind.

All right.

Who's going to be first? Please proceed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Kalra, Vice Chair Dixon, and Committee Members. My name is Chibunda Inake, Senior Director of Government Relations for the College Board, an education nonprofit serving millions of Californians. We share the author's goal of protecting student privacy. We comply with SOPIPA today and will continue to do so.

However, we oppose AB 1159 as it introduces unprecedented areas of new regulation of privacy at the college level and AI and K12 through college. For this committee's particular attention. The private right of action is also among the reasons for our opposition.

This Committee knows that the method of enforcement defines the law's impact by creating an express private right of action, AB 1159 invites a litigation first model. The bill tries to limit this by including a right to cure before the plaintiff can sue. But you can't untrain an AI model so that limitation won't mean anything in practice.

And although seemingly small, $500 is a massive number to put in context, there are more than 5.8 million California K12 students. If only 5% of them were included in a class action lawsuit and you assume a three year statute of limitations, the resulting lawsuit would total nearly $150 million.

This provision would be weaponized to extract settlements even in the absence of wrongdoing. It is a predictable, calculated strategy, and it is one we are already seeing play out across the state. For a nonprofit, the cost of defending against even meritless class action claims over technical compliance is extraordinary.

These are resources we divert directly away from our own educational mission and student support, which will also have a chilling effect on innovation. Second, the AI prohibition is overly broad and unclear, stating just a few lines in attempt to regulate AI from kindergarten to college.

We shouldn't block educational innovation and privacy in a privacy bill when a separate AI legislation is a better solution. Finally, extending these rules to adult students in higher education ignores their right to inform consent for their own data and perpetuates an AI prohibition concern in colleges.

We are ready and very willing to work with Assemblywoman Addis and other key stakeholders on amendments to protect privacy without creating a litigation engine or hindering innovation. Until then, we must respectfully oppose thank you and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Yes Sir.

Excuse me. Good afternoon Chair, Members, Jose Torres with TechNet. I'm hearing respectful position of AB 1159. TechNet and our Member companies are strongly committed to protecting student data and privacy. However, this bill remains overly broad and would significantly chill responsible AI development, particularly in education technology at a time when California should be leading.

As we see it, the bill restricts the use of student data for AI development when that data is used responsibly, securely, and for educational purposes. Data is the foundation of modern AI systems and without the ability to use relevant safeguarded data, developers cannot improve accuracy, enhance accessibility, or build effective learning tools.

Paired with a potentially expansive private right of action the bill would create would also create significant legal uncertainty and pose a large litigation risk that could chill innovation in the state as there would be uncertainty around whether AI systems can be trained, improved or even maintained using education related data.

This impact is very much real in educational technology we see currently being used throughout the state. AI powered tools are supporting tutoring, personalized learning, language translation, accessibility for students with disabilities, and improving school efficiency. Many AI systems require these contextual signals such as grade bands, course levels and learning progression to evaluate real world progression.

And in practice, these systems require more than static data sets. When developers cannot clearly determine what is allowed, they will pull back. And when that uncertainty is paired with that private right of action, it discourages investment, research and deployment in California. For these reasons, we oppose AB 1159 for its negative impact on innovation in California's educational technology.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any witness or speakers in opposition? You want to come to the microphone?

Jonathan Lan, Act Education Corp. And we respectfully oppose.

Thank you very much. Any other speakers in opposition? Okay, bring it up to the dais. Yes, Ms. Pacheco.

Thank you and thank you to the author. I know we talked briefly before this Committee hearing. I do have some questions to the opposition. I noticed that there has to be. Actual harm. That has to be in. Order for a plaintiff to win a lawsuit. And I noticed that there's also a.

45 day written notice that needs to be provided to cure before litigation can be filed. So my question is, wouldn't this alleviate the problem of there being litigations or over, you know, plaintiffs, a situation where. Plaintiffs will be filing lawsuits.

Thank you for that question. So as the law is currently drafted, you only need an alleged harm to bring lawsuit. And so once the lawsuit is filed, then anyone who's being sued has a responsibility to notify their insurer, hire legal counsel, and then begin to prepare their case in the instance of a harm.

And the right to cure. You are correct in that they do have 45 days. But as stated, if the alleged harm is that an AI model was trained on the data, you can't cure that because the AI model's already been prepared and trained. And so there, the harm can't be remedied.

And so, so yeah, so you don't need an actual harm to bring suit. Actual harm is a matter for the courts to prove. You only need an alleged harm.

And then once that, once that, once that number gets filed and the $150 million number gets thrown out there again, they're going to use that to weaponize and try to move towards settlement. And so those are kind of the things that this law provides us as it's currently written.

Can I hear from the author as. To what opposition just mentioned.

Yeah, so it, sorry is this one. It is a little strange to me that the opposition seems to be arguing that at least for certain parts of the bill there should not be an opportunity to enforce the law.

That if they broke, if they, if they did not follow the guidance and the law about what is allowable and what is not and if there's needing, if we need to tighten up that language, we are happy to work with them and committees on making that tighter.

But if they, if their argument is that if they violate the law and there's no way to fix it, they shouldn't be held liable. There shouldn't be a PRA to hold them liable. That itself is concerning.

The other mechanism for enforcing this statute for the existing PIPAs is through the Attorney General and they as we know, are tasked with enforcing many, many other statutes.

And so in the 10 years that COPEPA has existed, they've had only one enforcement action that happened this last November and it was for data breach that from four years previous that affected over 4 million students.

And so right now we need to make sure that families have an opportunity to remind the these tech companies that this is the statute and you need to actually follow this. My child's data is too important, their privacy is too important to just break it and have no recourse.

I will be upfront that this is not the PRA necessarily that that the advocates would have wanted. This is very, very limited PRA and it is incredibly focused on making sure that it's just about having the companies follow the statute. It is not about extracting money from the companies or punishing them in any way.

It's focused on making sure that the companies follow the law when it comes to the privacy of children and students educational information. Which is why there are these protections in here that are very business friendly.

And if someone wanted to share their SATs or test scores, that information can be provided.

Absolutely. The statute is clear that students have access to their information. They can download it, they can share it. It's simply saying that rather than putting these test companies as the arbiters of which students information goes where the student gets to make that decision. And that's especially important given who some of this information is being shared with.

I Tuesday morning for example, went on the website of one of the opposition Members without logging in and making an account, just as a General thing, and was searching the database of scholarships there. Google for example, has a scholarship.

I think our students should be able to choose whether their personal Information is shared with Google where they lose control over what happens to it or not. This bill is simply saying let's leave that decision up to the students and their families and take these companies out from being the middlemen who decide which students information goes where.

Thank you. And I think it is important to protect students data that is very important, especially in today's era and with technology that we have today. So to opposition. If there's anything that needs to be fine tuned. I'm sure the author is more than. Willing to have further conversations. But I am comfortable voting for this

bill today because I do see that. It's narrowed down and you know, with, with the, the PAGA part, you know. 45 day written notice before a lawsuit can be filed and also plaintiff has to prove actual harm. So I do feel comfortable voting for it today. And I just want to thank the.

Author for the conversations that we had. And thank you for the efforts in protecting student status. So I will be voting for your bill today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I also want to thank the author. When I found out that I was subbing I was quickly in contact and had some great conversations. So I appreciate that. I also had some concerns about access and the ability to control whether it be for scholarships, but specifically for AP and SAT scores.

If you are a parent of a college student, you know that this is an incredibly difficult process already and making that even more difficult is not the goal. But I did additionally thank you for addressing that. And just for transparency, I also had concern about non traditional learners and restricting the use of tools for non traditional learners.

I have a non traditional learner and I know that we've embraced AI for and I didn't want those tools to be taken away. I also felt like it was a little premature to introduce a bill that was restricting that when there wasn't enough data to support that this is an issue.

I think we were getting ahead of something which I appreciate the privacy part and protection. But I thought we were at least in my initial read. So now for me it just comes down to one additional question. I think it's both for support and opposition. Does FERPA already protect the Privacy Act?

Because right now Family Education Rights and Privacy act has that protection. So I'm not sure what, what the gap is there.

Yeah, I'd be happy to answer that. So FERPA is what the schools can do with information. It's putting protection restrictions and protections on the schools. This all of the PIPA is in current law in California and continuing with what we're doing in this bill are on what the edtech providers can do.

And so it's not about the schools. It's filling in the gap around what the providers of the technology do.

Okay, and. And do we anticipate any unintended restrictions for students? I mean, we're talking about control and allowing the control for their information to be shared. But I mean, there has to be some unintended consequences of restricting this information. And have we thought about that?

I think that the bigger unintended consequences are with not restricting, because once information is shared, you can't pull it back from the companies. The student and their family loses their ability to have any control over the student's personal information. This continues to give students and their families control over their personal information.

And so if there is an area where the information needs to be shared, then the student and the family can still provide that information.

Okay, thank you. Once the information is out there. Once the information is out there, you can't call it back. And the author, you know, I briefly talked, I have a high guard up on private right of action. And I think your comments are not. Are good.

And that the fact that this language is not intended or the language is intended to not encourage private right of action and to get these issues resolved within 45 days. But the information is out there.

However, and correct me if I'm wrong in interpreting what I've learned about private right of action across industry, not just educational institutions or individuals, is that if there is an opening, somebody will go after it. And I don't mean an individual. Usually lawyers will seize an opportunity. I see this. My eyes are wide open.

And as we're talking about nonprofit organizations, that kind of action is not exempt for taking advantage of a situation where a little gap may exist. So it still gives me pause. I think your intention, of course, we want to protect the privacy of our students. Absolutely. The concept is right.

My focus was really in question is in the process of implementation. Is the decider, the student, when they're filling submitting applications, requests for information or providing information, is there an opt in? Yes, you may. Is there permission, you know, all this legalese that says, yes, I agree, my information can be shared or how. Tell me the process.

Right. So this bill is saying that in the education context where the. Where you have to use this educational technology in order to get your grade, there isn't really. Consent is meaningless at that point. It's really, am I getting my grade or am I exercising consent?

And if I have to agree to the Sharing of my Information to use the ed tech that is mandatory for me to take this class that might be mandatory for graduation, is that really consent?

And so this is saying let's remove that and let's put it entirely in the student's and the family's control so there won't be those check yes boxes given that approval is given when the student themselves sends the information to a college or to a scholarship opportunity and.

They do what they are physically sending it, electronically sending it. And that is a tantamount to agreement and to no.

So that. That would be completely exempt from any of the prohibitions under the bill. There would be no liability for the company. All right.

When the language refers to the operator, who is the operator?

Ed Tech Company.

Who? Tell me the names of EdTech. Not to be pointed fingers, but what kinds of companies are they? They. The scholarship companies or the data brokers or. Who are ed tech companies?

There's a couple of them here today. Pardon me? You've heard from a couple of them here today. College Board is one. So they're. Edtech is one. Canva is one. There's also host. Google is one. Illuminate is one. That's a student information system in the schools. We could name dozens and dozens now.

Okay, I get it now. I just didn't understand where. Where in the scheme of things. This is a spectrum of providers. So whose fundamental responsibility is to make sure that that data is protected? Is it the student and the family or Ed tech or the school?

So this bill is putting in guardrails of what the ed tech companies have in order to protect who monitors that? The school? No, there's no. The PIPAs in California do not put any requirements on the schools. So it is specifically on the companies themselves. I see.

And so that is where the enforcement piece comes in is because there is no one monitoring it other than when there's enforcement.

Okay. I'm still figuring this out. No worries. I'm just concerned about the private right of action and how that gets expanded to have unintended consequences. Anyway, thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right, the chairman has returned.

Let's start with establishing quorum, please.

Komra.

Here.

Dixon. Here. Barracahan, Brian.

Here.

Connolly.

Here.

Karabedian. Macedo. Here. Pacheco. Here. Pappin Johnson. Here. Stephanie. Here. Zipper.

All right, we have quorum established. Any other questions or comments for the author? I assigned Member o' Brien move the bill. A motion a second. Any other questions or comments? I want to thank some Member Addis for bringing this forward.

I do think the private right of action is narrowly tailored and as was indicated by your witness, there isn't. You know, we can create a big bureaucracy to do the, to do the investigations and the enforcement.

But absent that, I think this is, given the narrow nature of the private right of action, I think this, this is the best course of action to ensure the protection and of the privacy of the students. Would you like to close?

Yeah. I just want to thank the Committee. We've had a lot of really important questions and I think at the heart of most of those questions are how do we protect students who actually don't have a choice in school?

I hate to use this term, but I will say they are held hostage in school to use these tools. There's no way to be a high achieving student in California without using an edtech tool, whether that's an AP test, an SAT test, an ACT test, or any other host of tools.

And so students within our school system really don't have a choice about using tools or not using tools. So they really don't have the ability to consent. And that's something we've talked about a lot. And so we've tried to narrow the pra, as you've heard a lot of discussion there.

But I just want to commend the folks that have really engaged on the issue. We've had a lot of bipartisan support so far because at the heart of it, I think every person in this Legislature actually wants to protect student data.

And so I really want to thank the Committee Members, all of them, especially the new Member who's subbing in today and really read closely and respectfully asked for your aye vote.

[Roll call]

All right, that Bill is out. Thank you so much. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? AB501. Papin.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so calendar is out. I'll ask Assembly Member Castillo, AB 1382 to go ahead and make her way up there. In the meantime, I'll ask if there's a motion on item one, AB634. Jeff Gonzalez.

Yeah. Motion. Well, let the. The Vice Chair have that motion since she was so anxious before we had quorum, and then I'll let Madam Secretary decide who has a second on that.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill is out. AB 1382. Assemblymember Castillo, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I am here to present AB 1382, which would prohibit the sale of genetically modified animals where the genetic modification is for cosmetic purposes.

While investments have been made to further genetic research for potentially beneficial medical advancements, some companies have begun the development of genetically modified cats, dogs and other pets with altered appearances to fulfill consumer demand for designer traits. Despite unknown long term health risks.

These genetic modifications run the risk of prioritizing aesthetics over the well being of the animal, as well as drive consumer demand for novelty pets when there already exists a pet overpopulation crisis. As reflected in the bill's recent amendments. I want to clarify that this measure will not inhibit genetic medical research aimed at benefiting society.

The language is explicitly curated to target animals genetically modified for the sole purpose of sale. Furthermore, in an effort to address the concerns expressed by last minute opposition to the bill, we have submitted language to Legislative Council to exempt the sale of current species of Glofish from this ban.

These amendments would be added at the next available opportunity. With me today to provide testimony is Nick Sackett, Director of Legislative Affairs for Social Compassion and Legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblywoman.

Yep. Okay. Good afternoon, Chair. Members. Apologies for those who heard me the other day in BMP. This will sound familiar. AB 1382 addresses two issues. Preventing the exacerbation of the pet overpopulation problem and the questionable ethics of modifying animals genes for the sake of novelty.

California animal shelters euthanize approximately a quarter of a million animals every year. There are not enough homes for all the animals being bred. The public pays for that to the tune of about 400 million per year to operate animal shelters. And that doesn't include the millions that nonprofit rescues spend to save animals every year.

The last thing we need is for a novel pet such as a Glow in the Dark rabbit to become the latest fad on TikTok, leading to these animals being bred at a pace that puts profit above their well being and later dumped on the side of the road after the photos have been taken and posted on social media.

Thousands of impulse buys later and after the novelty wears off, the public will be left to foot the bill and the animal to suffer. The California Fish and Game regulations only regulate aquatic transgenic animals, with the regulations silent on mammals and birds. From 2003 to 2016, the Fish and Game Commission banned the sale of Glofish.

At the time of the initial vote, one commissioner was quoted in the LA Times saying, for me, it becomes a question of values. Under what circumstances do we want to monkey around with the genome of an organism? To do it for a pet seems rather frivolous.

This bill will ensure that California does not encouraging this burgeoning and indeed frivolous industry. It will reduce the burden to regulating this industry for both the Fish and Game Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

And it will save untold dollars that our state will incur if we add to our overflowing shelters or by disrupting our natural ecosystems with abandoned genetically modified animals. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1382? Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Animal Welfare Association, which is a statewide association that represents California's public and private nonprofit shelters in support of AB 1382. First off, thank you to the author and the sponsors for running this bill.

We believe it will help prevent a future surge of medically of genetically altered designer animals which will have complex health problems from being sold into California's pet market and later, heartbreakingly, as we heard, surrendered to already overcrowded under resourced shelters due to things like cost of care, et cetera.

By restricting commercial sales of pets modified for cosmetic traits, except for when changes clearly benefit animal health, it prioritizes animal welfare and reduces the risk of unhealthy high maintenance animals ending up abandoned or in need of costly care and shelters supporting this bill aligns with efforts to protect vulnerable animals and ease the burden on shelters struggling with high intake and limited resources.

So for that, thank you and we urge an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair, Members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Thank you for taking on this bill. And we're in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of Humane World for Animals in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1382?

Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I'm Alyssa Miller Hurley. I'm here on behalf of the Pet Advocacy Network. The Pet Advocacy Network is the trade association that represents the responsible pet care industry, and we have Members across California.

We're here in opposition to the bill as is currently written, and we've been encouraged by conversations about amending it to exempt Goldfish.

Our concerns right here are the fact that it would ban the sale of Goldfish, which are just, for example, things such as zebrafish or tetras, which express fluorescent proteins resulting in those beautiful, bright, vibrant colors that we see so often in fish tanks, around private homes and in aquariums.

These animals are already subject to extensive state and federal regulatory restrictions. In California, each new species has to be reviewed by California Fish and Wildlife, and the organization that creates them must submit extensive scientific research and make sure that there's proof, ensuring no environmental harm and no animal harm.

So our opposition here is the fact that this would replace something that is already scientifically regulated, something that already has a very scientific process, with a bill that is reducing all of that over emotion and aesthetics.

We believe that there is some legitimate concern here, and we would be open to making sure that we can protect animals in the appropriate manner, while also making sure we're not restricting consumer choice and inadvertently outlawing something based on emotion and aesthetics and outlawing something that's already subject to extensive scientific and state regulatory review.

We're again encouraged by the conversations, but this moment remain opposed in the manner it's written.

And just a quiet. The amendments that have been put in print by the authority, would those satisfy your concerns?

The amendment and the amendments that we have reviewed thus far are a good stepping stone, but would not satisfy those concerns.

Okay. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1382? I'll bring it back to Committee. Yes, we have a motion and a second. Assembly Member Bryan.

Do they not satisfy your concerns because they exempt what's already on the market and we have some genetically altered modified animals coming down the line?

Yeah. So the manner it's currently written would exempt everything. As you said, that's already on the market, but it would not exempt any future products, which essentially creates a grandfather clause. But something like that can grandfather someone out of business.

Instead, what we would propose is changing some of the language in existing exemption form that already is there and making it so that the aquatic, again, just aquatic species are protected and exempt, nothing having to do with the intent of this legislation.

I don't want to show too much of my animal activist hat, But I think even just referring to future products might be some of the reason folks are moving a bill like this. Assembly Member, I'd like to make a motion. If you're looking for co authors, I'd be happy to join you.

Thank you. Senator ZBur.

I said questions?

Yeah. Any other questions or comments? Yeah. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate so many women bringing this important measure. As a pet lover, I want to protect the integrity, genetic integrity. I had no idea that we needed to take state action to do that. I think this is extremely important step to disincentivize the unethical breeding of pets and animals.

And I'm proud to support it and love to be a co author. But. But I understand, if I understand your opposition clearly, it's really directed to fish. Yes, ma'am. And goldfish specifically?

Yes. Goldfish have been on the market here and have been sold legally in California and have been, again, extensively regulated within the state of California for the last decade.

So I would just encourage you and the author to continue. I mean, the focus is on goldfish. I had no idea. That's why they're so beautiful, I guess, in aquariums. I had no idea. But if it's already permitted under state law and you just want to refine it, I just would encourage you to.

To figure out a way, since she's already accepted the glofish exemption, so. But anyway, I support you for doing it. Love to be a co author, and thank you for bringing it forward.

I want to commend the author for taking a meaningful amendment. It sounds like there's definitely opportunities to have further conversations, but I think the amendment that has already been put in print shows an effort to try to resolve some of the issues from the outstanding opposition.

I would think that just making a blanket exemption for all aquatic life was probably a little too broad, but I would just suggest further working on it, and this does enjoy a do pass recommendation. Any closing comments?

So this bill received no. No vote in the previous Committee, and. I respectfully asked for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

All right, the bill's up. Thank you. Thank you. The last bill is item number two, AB871. Stefani. Second motion and a second. Does, does this bill involve cosmetically genetically modified animals or gas station heroin?

No.

Okay, just double checking. We reached our fill on that for today, I guess.

Yeah.

So funny.

Whenever you're ready.

My glasses. When I'm ready. Okay, great. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you Members. I'm happy to be here today to support AB to present AB871. This is about financial elder abuse. I think we all have heard stories from, from our loved ones, friends, constituents about the scams that are just prevalent in our society today.

Last year I went home to visit my mom in West Sac after a day of working here and she told me she'd been on the phone with her bank for about 45 minutes and they were so nice and she had to reconcilidate accounts and do all these different things.

And I said, mom, I don't think you were talking to your bank. You need to go there the next morning when it opens and talk to someone. And sure enough, there were thousands of dollars that were ready to be wired out to God knows where. And we were able to stop that from happening.

But had she not had that conversation with me, my mom would have been out a lot of money. And this is not a story that is rare, unfortunately. It is happening all the time to people. Over the interim break, I had two senior scam stopper events in my district and there were hundreds of seniors there.

And the stories we heard, and I'm sure you hear them as well, are just absolutely gut wrenching. And so AB 871 attempts really to respond to this crisis. And what it will do, it will strengthen protections against elder fraud and financial crimes by ensuring that financial institutions have appropriate reporting processes and training for their employees. As amended.

We did accept those amendments that were offered in the Banking Committee. I believe that they're being incorporated here.

This bill will require mandated reporter trainings to include clear guidance on reporting suspected financial abuse not only to the Adult Protective Services as we do now, but it will also require them to be reported to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center.

Importantly, it also requires a financial institution to promptly share information about this reporting with clients upon discovering the suspected abuse, and also requires the financial institution to encourage clients to submit their own complaints within 24 to 48 hours.

So by requiring the reporting of suspected financial abuse and fraud to the appropriate federal entities dedicated really to combating these cyber related crimes, even the smaller dollar amounts will really help them get to the scams that are out there. And with me today in support of this bill is Amanda Kirchner with the California Welfare Directors Association.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Amanda Kirchner, on behalf of CWDA. We represent the 58 counties Human Services agencies, which also includes Adult Protective Services. Oftentimes in APS we see our seniors and vulnerable adults who have been taken advantage by these financial scams.

And so as the Member mentioned, 8871 helps address that issue in a couple of ways, but Most especially for IC3.

When that report comes in from the bank and also hopefully from our client as well, who's been scammed, they get a significant amount of information and the ability potentially to reverse those transactions within about a 48 to 72 hour window.

Most recent data from their DOJ's 2025 report shows that when they got enough information, they were successful reversing those transactions about 56% of the time. So we want to make sure that the bank is reporting so that their side of the information gets into the, into the database.

We want to make sure that the client reports so that their side of the information, how they were approached, what sort of scam it was and the way that, you know, they sort of started giving over their money, was it through a bank transfer, was it on a text, things like that, that information comes forward.

So it allows for the client to hopefully recover some of their assets. It also allows for a nationwide law enforcement to be able to pattern spot. So if you see something happening in LA and it's sort of a small dollar scam, you can look on the IC3 database and see if other parameters are being met.

Maybe it's happening in San Bernardino, maybe it's happening in Shasta, maybe it's all the way out in Nevada and you can start working across jurisdictional lines. This is just a small tool to try and help our seniors who are being taken advantage of. By 20301 in four Californians will be over the age of 60.

And the silver tsunami is here. So that's so many more victims. And we want to do everything we can to try and protect them and their assets because when they lose their life savings, it can have a significant impact on their independence. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB871?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, as well as the Board of Supervisors for the Counties of Humboldt and Kern, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeff Neal representing Contra Costa County and Yolo County, both in support.

Thank you.

Andrew Mendoza on behalf of The Alzheimer's Association in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 871? Bring it back to Committee. Senator Burke. I'll make my way around.

It's a terrific bill, and I'd love to be added as a co-author. If that would be welcome.

I would love that. Thank you.

Summer Pacheco.

I. I'll second that. Terrific bill. I think it's amazing. We need to help our seniors as much as possible. And I would also love to be added as a co-author.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair.

Hi. Thank you. Yeah, I'm in support of the bill. I have a question because when I heard this bill in banking and finance a year ago, another similar bill about senior scams and preventing them, the primary issue was how do. How does the financial institution respond fast enough?

Because with these scams, it's like, instantaneous and you can't claw it back. Has technology changed in the financial institutions or the FBI can call that money back, or is it now liability to the bank? Because that was a big issue that once, once your mother pushed that button, it was gone.

Now because it's Eastern Europe or somewhere else in the world these scams are originating, what's happened with technology that gives the banks the control to reclaim it?

Do you want to go? Yeah, sure.

Thank you so much for that question. So the IC3 Internet complains database, they have what's known as a recovery asset team. That team can do something that's sort of technical. It's a kill chain command that can stop the transaction within 48.

Within 48.

Within 48 to 72 hours. My understanding is it's most effective when it's being used within the US Once it gets into international, it's far less effective. And I think it also depends on if it's a financial institution to another financial institution versus whether someone has physically taken money and then deposited, for instance, at an ATM for cryptocurrency.

That's a different sort of thing.

But it can be. I mean, this is important information that I've heard just two years ago at senior scams I've had where even the state representative from the financial agency who comes to speak, that once the money's gone, it's very difficult. So I'm pleased to hear maybe things have changed positively in the last couple of years.

Yeah, that's you. I'd like to co-sponsor or co-author it as well. So thank you.

That's great. Thank you. And I just want to add to that, too, that not enough scams Are are actually reported to IC3 right now and that's why we're changing that. And they are in a unique position to be able to reverse those transactions.

Assembly Johnson, thank you so much.

Thank you. I want to thank the author. I think it's important for me to establish My entire career 28 years is in financial industries. I'm a banker, credit union leader prior coming to the Assembly. This is what I've built my career on. I'm a little bit concerned that there are current practices in place right now.

Currently financial institutions are heavily regulated in reporting and and I'm concerned with. I'm very familiar.

So to answer your question, Member Dixon yes, within the 72 hour window institution to institution it can be pulled back but there has to be something else that that this bill doesn't include and which is already part of those internal processes that almost every financial institution have which is a suspicious activity report.

The SAR is done at the level let's say you come into an institution the Member feels like let's say the author's mother. And this is a very very common story. Unfortunately if there is something off about that transaction, whether it be elder abuse, it doesn't seem like a safe situation.

Maybe they're not an elder and it's still an abuse situation. That suspicious say that fast three times. Suspicious activity report is filed and then it is sent to IC3. My concern is that we are over regulating what's already happening. No financial institution wants to see fraud happen. It's their biggest suspense.

Protecting the elder is the most important part. This also what concerns me about is in the description of this is in the reporting that's happening with the Member that puts them in an unsafe position as well.

Let's say the consumer is reporting it and then now that puts them in an unsafe position and that concerns me as someone who's viewing the whole transaction. That's why the SAR as I just explained suspicious activity report is anonymous. Because you don't want to put someone in a in a difficult position. I am in support of protecting.

I'm concerned that given the 48 hour turnaround time the SAR already notifying this could be the level of volume that their IC3 is going to get is going to take away their focus from some of those larger the spot patterns that's already happening.

So I am support but I'd like to know how this is going to be different from what already is currently in place.

Sure. Thank you. I appreciate the question. So it's my understanding that not all of the Financial institutions will report up to IC3 if it's below certain amounts of money. And so not Everybody files the SAR that then triggers going to IC3.

So what we've tried to do is build this on existing practices of what they're already required to do. So everybody already has for a financial institution the mandated training for the elder abuse. That's a federal requirement. So we're not mandating what type of additional training, just that in the training they already do.

Please train to also report to IC3 so that you've got that going and then do the report as a follow up.

And then for the client we're not, we say sort of immediately, but immediately can kind of mean if it seems unsafe because someone is sort of leaning over their shoulder, then maybe you do a follow up or you escalate up the chain of the bank to get to your appropriate sort of internal processes for how you would normally flag a fraudulent transaction for them.

Or if they are just sitting there and you think that they're being scammed in that moment, maybe that's when you can provide some of the resources that we refer to in the bill.

There's a number of them available both from the American Banking Association, ARP's Bank Safe Program, FINRA, where it can sort of lay out here's your options as a potential for fraudulent victim and here's the, the hotlines that you can call and IC3 is one of those things that they can call so the, the client doesn't have to.

But we are trying to encourage them because we're trying to capture as much information as possible for the investigations.

Yes. And in theory, I, I hope I'm articulating that in theory this is extremely helpful. But processes already exist like this when we're talking about the dollar amount. If it's under a certain dollar amount. Correct. IC3 is not, we're not reporting to IC3 but because they're not going to go after those dollar amounts.

So that is then becomes a financial institution liability that they will help with their consumer and protect. So I don't know that we're getting where we need to be with it. Does that make sense? I understand the process and what we're trying to do, but we already train on this in most finance.

I think what we're talking is that most financial institutions don't train almost 30 years in the industry. I will tell you I would never bank with an institution that didn't have a very high training program nor would it provide protections in their insurances to their Members. So I don't want to come off as that.

I'm not in support. I'm in support of the efforts. I think it's duplicative and that's what I want to ensure. So if there's conversation to get us there to clean that up, I think that that's great. But. I don't want to project that this is going to help elder abuse.

If the dollar amount is a certain dollar amount, it. It's not going to be reported anyways. If you're saying it has to be because that's what this is going to do. Where are those resources going to be allocated for under that certain dollar amount? Those don't go high priority to the FBI.

No, they don't. But I think because the IC3. I'm sorry, the chair, sir. Because the IC3 database allows for any of the sworn officers across the nation to be able to look and pattern spot.

It would allow for shared resources and investigations so that it's not all at the FBI and IC3 level and more local jurisdictions can partner together in order to attack the scams as well. Trying to get after those low dollar scams that don't raise to the attention.

And I do want to acknowledge your concern and thank you for bringing your experience into this. I think that's really important.

I wanted a bill that was going to pass and I wanted a bill that was going to make a difference that would even help a little bit because I knew that past attempts at holding bankers or the banks liable in any way probably was a non starter.

So I wanted to work with the California Bankers Association and understand the reporting requirements, to understand how we can make them better, to get at the low dollar amounts, to be able to collaborate with other agencies to really find out how we can get enough information out there between the agencies to make a difference.

And this is what we've come up with. You'll see that nobody's here in opposition. It's because we've been working with them to try to get a bill that is actually going to be meaningful in work. And so I think it's not just duplicative. We have added more to this. We've given this more weight than there currently is.

This isn't a nothing bill. It is definitely something that we've been working with with the bankers. They believe that this is something that can work. We continue to have dialogue and conversations with them so that we have a bill that is actually going to be effective. But I appreciate you bringing your concerns. Yeah.

If the Chair If I could just respond, I want to say thank you and I appreciate that. I would never call this a nothing bill, but I will say that I too want to see it do exactly what you're saying. But there's some components of it that we really need to address.

And I'll just leave it with this. If an elderly Member walked into a financial institution and was being coerced to take out money of their account, which happens all the time, they're being scammed, correct? Your. Those kinds of interactions are already currently being reported.

The interactions that you're looking to provide are typically on social media platforms, on meta, they're over the phone, they're on the things, the things that we're talking about. And we already, there's already recovery asset teams in place that are looking for spot patterns for some of these digital scams that are happening.

So I, I am in support of this today. I just don't want to make it harder for the financial institutions when they're already trying to protect their own assets and their consumer.

And I don't think adding one more layer on top of everything they're doing, no one wants to write off that the amount of fraud that's evolving now today, it's, it's the highest expense to every financial institution.

So respectfully, I, I am going to support, but I do think we need to clean it up a little bit to make sure that this isn't duplicative. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Papin.

So, first of all, I want to thank you for reading the bill.

And I, I understand where you're coming from, that you got to strike that balance between the financial institution giving people their own money, should they want to walk in the bank one day and get some of their own money, and protecting them against somebody who might be acting in a nefarious way to take their money.

And we all know when you're a senior, as I'm sure you all know, in your job, there's no time to make it up if the money is gone. There is not a lifetime to continue to make it up, which makes it so, so tragic.

So I think the bill does strike a balance that I appreciate the author saying. I was really trying to strike this balance between too much obligation on the financial institutions and yet at the same time protecting something that starts very nuanced and very innocently, and then before you know it, the money's gone.

So I appreciate it, happy to support the bill, would like to be a co-author, and we'll continue to work on this And I appreciate my colleagues comments from the inside as it were.

Thank you again. As the old timer on the Committee, I've been through many of these fights that we've had over the years trying to protect seniors from these scams and banks. And I sat on the banking Committee for many years and they've almost all failed.

And that is really an absolute failure on the part of this Legislature to do, I think what it is our highest obligation to do which is to protect vulnerable communities including our seniors.

And so you coming back at this and trying to figure out a way that we can achieve it, even if it's one step in the right direction, I think is so commendable and excites me because maybe before I leave I can vote for a bill that actually passes over tech seniors.

So with that I just wanted to thank you but also be asked if I could be added as a co-author. Of course, Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Just a quick question then. Banking and finance, I guess just the other day whenever it was California Bankers association had some issues, they were not in opposition but they just had some process related issues. Have those been resolved?

We continue to work with them on that. Okay, all right, very good, thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Well, I want to thank Senator Connolly.

Just please add me as well. Great.

I have a long list, a lot of text has to be updated on your bill. I want to thank the, I want to thank, add me as a co-author by the way as well. I want to thank the author.

You know, I think that a lot of us have elderly parents that we're dealing with and I, I the amount of scams that come in through cell phone, through phones, through emails is just relentless. Now use of AI international scams and the banks have to deal with that too.

They're going to see more creative ways of trying to scamp our elderly community that's you know, the population with the largest amount of wealth and home ownership in our nation. They're starting to retire, they're getting older, they're getting, they're getting shipped up by the new technology like we all are.

And so I think this is critically important and I think the aspect that was mentioned by our witness here that is really important to recognize is just the fact getting it to this database.

Because as much as the bad folks out there that are trying to scam our seniors are using more and more technology, our investigative agencies also need that data because they also have technology they can use in terms of their algorithms and ensuring that they're Finding patterns. And sometimes those patterns will be small amounts, some large amounts.

But I think just giving, not just, it's not just about going to the Federal Government. And it goes in an abyss because the dollar amount is too small. All of our major prosecutorial offices have financial crimes units and giving them the ability to have access to this data is critical in order to protect our seniors.

And we heard from a lot of the support is from counties because when folks lose their money, who's the safety net? It's the counties that come in and protect these seniors. It's understandable that so many of our counties are coming up and saying we support this because they also are looking out for our seniors.

I commend you, as some Member of Bauer-Kahan said on moving something in this space. It's incredibly hard to do that. And so thank you for working with. With the opposition. Continue to work with them. And would you like to close?

Yeah. Just thank you to everyone for your support and for your comments, especially from you, Senator, Member Johnson, for your experience. And I think that's very helpful. And I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

[Roll call]

Alright, that bill is out. Before we do add-ons, I would like to hand it over to the our Vice Chair for a special announcement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Before we leave the Committee room today, I wanted to take a moment to provide some special recognition to my neighbor here to take a moment to recognize Republican Caucus Judiciary Consultant Daryl Thomas. This is Daryl's final Judiciary Committee hearing before he officially retires from the California Legislature.

Darrell has been an integral part of our caucus team for more than 20 years, providing his expertise and experience to staff and Members alike. As Vice Chair, Daryl, your expertise of the law, which is critical for the Judiciary Committee and willingness to discuss the bills that we hear every week, literally every week.

And Judiciary Committee has been invaluable. Your commitment to the legislative process and the creation of policy, sound policy, is apparent in everything you do. We are lucky to have you. I'm very grateful for your support in my role as Vice Chairman for the last three years. And we wish you all the best in your retirement. We will miss you. Thank you, Daryl.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. You know, first, Allison, now Daryl, like you're riding off from the sunset together. I suppose. But I also do want to thank you, Daryl, for your service. This Committee, as everyone here knows, has one of the largest Bill totals, some of the densest material in the Legislature.

And I really appreciate your commitment to working with my team, with the Republican colleagues to make sure they're prepared, to make sure these hearings run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Thank you, Darrell, for your service to the Assembly. And best of luck in retirement. Okay, so add ons. Let's go back to add ons now for consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

All right, we're caught up. All right. And so thank you to the Committee. And thank you. Item 1. I think everyone voted on that. Everyone's voted on it. Yeah. No, we did an add on. I think already on that. Yeah. And so, yeah, everyone. Everyone looks like they're an aye on Gonzalez.

And so thank you to our Committee staff. I think that's all we have for this month. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I know I just jinxed it, but probably. We're adjourned.