Senate Standing Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection

Alright. We’re going to call to order this very first hearing of the Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. Good morning. Today, we're gonna be taking up the consent calendar which is simply one bill. That's number 6, SB 930, and we are beginning at—we, we will now ask the, the committee assistant to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright, a quorum is present. We don't have any of our, of authors that are not members of the committee. And we have one member of the committee that is here that has bills and that's myself. So, I guess I'll proceed to the, the to the podium and ask the Vice Chair to take over.

Alright. We're gonna go to the bottom of the agenda now, with the author that's here, Senator Cabaldon. And we'll start with item eight, Senate Bill 1106, Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Every day, data brokers collect and sell the personal information of millions of Californians without ever having a direct relationship with the people whose data that they profit from. California's groundbreaking Delete Act created a meaningful tool to address this and allowing consumers to submit a single request to have their personal information deleted by every registered broke data broker in the state. Under current law though, data brokers have forty-five days to act on those requests.

SB 1106 simply shortens that window to thirty days to provide more expeditious response and service so that that Californians can protect the integrity of their own data. It's a targeted, straightforward bill simply requiring the industry to move faster and honoring the protections that California already has, and I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1106.

Thank you, Senator Cabaldon. And are there any key witnesses in support and/or opposition on this bill? Seeing nobody moving forward, I will bring it to the dais for conversation from the members. I'm sorry?

No need to. This isn't support.

Let me do that first. Are there any add ons on support or opposition, me too's?

Good afternoon, vice chair. Ken Wang on behalf of California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other add ons at this moment? Seeing nobody else, we will close public comment on this item. Members on the dais, any conversation on 1106?

Senator, I'm gonna lay off today. There's some concerns regarding the implement case, implement—implementation of the original bill that goes into effect on 08/01/2026. So, personally, I'd like to see how that goes into effect first. So, I'll be laying off today not opposing, and, seeing how it moves forward from here. Thank you.

Any other comments? With that, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Will the secretary please call the roll?

You got motion on the Bill?

Oh, let's have a motion. Yeah. Would you like to move the bill, Senator McNerney? Sorry. You give me a week off.

You gotta retrain me. Motion by Senator McNerney.

[Roll Call]

Alright. The bill has—1106 has five votes in the affirmative. It'll be on call until the other members are here. Let's move on to file item number nine.

Should we take Becker? We can go back to Becker now. Becker's available.

You—okay. It's up to your preference. Chairman?

Okay. We're gonna have the chairman take over the committee hearing, thankfully. And Senator Becker is up. Senator Becker.

Yeah.

Thank you, Chair Cabaldon and, Privacy Committee members. Excited to be able to present to the new Privacy Committee for the first time.

I'll be first presenting SB 923. Businesses today routinely augment consumer records with data purchased from third parties to enhance targeting, personalization, and profiling. For example, a retail company might collect basic information directly from the consumer and then purchase detailed additional information, like demographic data, purchasing history, other behavioral information from data brokers to create a rich profile used for marketing and pricing decisions.

Additionally, while most businesses must provide multiple methods to submit privacy requests, online-only businesses are required only to provide an email address for consumers to submit their requests. And we've heard many, many, many concerns that this single method requirement creates considerable friction for consumers wishing to exercise this right that we all granted them.

It offers minimal support or guidance for Californians seeking to make their personal, personal again. So, this bill would strengthen the CCPA by expanding the right to delete to cover all personal information a business holds about them, and secondly, by requiring online businesses to provide consumers with a web form or similar method to submit requests to delete their personal information. It's about keeping Californians in charge of their information and making the personal, personal again.

By extending the CCPA's right to delete personal information and proving how consumers exercise that right, this bill further empowers consumers to take measures to protect their personal information, should they choose.

With me, I have two witnesses, great witnesses here today. Thank you.

Alright. You'll each have two minutes. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Maureen Mahoney. I'm the Deputy Director of Policy and Legislation at the California Privacy Protection Agency, and we're proudly sponsoring SB 923 because it would expand privacy rights under the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, in two ways.

It would expand the right to delete to cover all personal information collected about a consumer. And second, it would make it easier for consumers to submit privacy requests like right to access, delete, and correct the personal information. Businesses today collect, analyze, and share vast amounts of information. Some of it comes directly from consumers, but businesses also routinely supplement that information, with PI collected from other sources.

But the existing right to delete in the CCPA only applies to information collected directly from consumers. So, it doesn't address the full scope of personal information that's held or used by businesses. So, this leaves a portion of consumers' personal information vulnerable to data breach, and unauthorized use, even after the consumer has requested deletion. This bill would bring the CCPA into alignment with several other states that have this more expansive right to delete using identical language.

Second, this bill makes it easier for consumers to exercise their rights, by requiring online only businesses to provide multiple methods, including web forms, to submit rights to access, correct, and delete personal information. Right now, online only businesses have to provide an email address to submit those requests, which isn't as consumer friendly. So, this bill will make it easier to submit requests regardless of the consumer's technical ability or legal expertise. So, thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon. Becca Cramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearing House in support. When California enacted the CCPA, our state set the standard for privacy. The right to delete was one of its core pillars, the idea that Californians could require businesses to erase their personal information.

And most Californians still believe that is what they have, but it's not. The deletion right only applies to information a business collected directly from a, an individual, and that covers far less than what the most people think. Most of the personal information being bought and sold about you, or about your family, about every Californian, was not collected from them directly. It passed through a chain of data brokers, trackers, and aggregators that we have never heard of and that you never interacted with.

Your address, your health inferences, your financial behavior, your relationships, all are assembled without your knowledge, all bought and sold without your consent. Data brokers underpin nearly every privacy disaster of the modern era. They can facilitate stalking, discrimination, fraud, and the targeting of vulnerable communities. Yet, right now, Californians cannot use the right to delete to touch any of that data because none of it was directly collected from them. PRC co-sponsored the Delete Act, and the Delete, Request, and Opt Out Platform, DROP, is now live.

And that was a critical step. But DROP only covers registered data brokers, and it only works through the centralized platform. SB 923 fixes the underlying statute, so that deletion rights mean what Californians have always thought that it meant. 16 other states already do what SB 923 proposes. This includes every state with a comprehensive privacy law, except for Utah and Iowa.

California should not be one of the three states lagging in an area that we have so often led. SB 923 is a straightforward gap that should have been closed years ago. And for these reasons, we ask for your support.

Alright. Thank you both. Are there other witnesses in support that wish to identify their name or an organization, if any? Please come forward to the microphone in support.

Yes. Good afternoon, chair and members. Tracy Rosenberg from Oakland Privacy. We are in support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Brooke Benetti on behalf of Kaiser Advocacy Group, advocacy group, on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation and Consumer Reports, in support.

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

Ken Wang on behalf of the California Initiative for Technology Democracy and TechRecovery Action, in support.

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

Alright. Are there any lead oppositions—lead witnesses—in opposition? You will also have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. Ronak Daylami on behalf Cal Chamber here in an opposed unless amended position on SB 923. When the CCPA was enacted in 2018, of course, we all know it marked a major shift in California and US privacy laws, the first truly comprehensive cross-industry consumer privacy statute in the nation. I think what's often overlooked is that the law significantly expanded the scope of personal information.

Unlike earlier, one-off privacy statutes that focus on individually identifiable information or PII, the CCPA defined personal information far more broadly to include data that could, in any way, be reasonably linked back to consumer household, even indirectly. Almost like pieces of a puzzle that may appear random, it covered any data point that could with some, or maybe even a lot of effort, be put together with other data points and eventually be connected back to an individual or household.

As you can imagine, this makes the right of deletion especially complex when you're talking about information collected not just from, from the consumer but about the consumer, which is why we intentionally wrote the law to cover information received from the consumer. Now, of course, there's the argument that this merely brings California in line with other states that already apply the right to information collected about the consumer. I'm not gonna pretend to be an expert in other states' laws.

However, all those laws were written after the CCPA, so they have had the benefit of learning from us. And to the extent that they have chosen narrower definitions or broader exemptions, I don't think that's clear to me that it's a one-for-one comparison. What I do know is that the law that this bill appears to be modeled after—has two methods of compliance and this bill only carries over one of them.

Our main request is not to change back to or to leave it as a from versus about; our request is to carry over the second method, which deems a business in compliance as long as they opt the consumer out of processing for nonexempt purposes.

This amendment is essential to prevent confusion, ensure technical scalability, and allow businesses to fulfill obligations related to fraud prevention, security monitoring, and legal compliance. Lastly, just regarding the additional methods of submission for businesses operating exclusively online, we're just asking to change the "and" to an "or" so that you can allow companies to use a web form or portal in lieu of email, just with spam issues and things like that. Thank you very much.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Are there witnesses in opposition that wish to simply provide your name and organization, if any, for the record?

Hi. Robert Boykin with TechNet, in opposition.

Aiden Downey with the Computer and Communications Industry Association, in opposition.

Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, also in opposition. Thank you.

Jonathan Arab on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers, also in opposition.

Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group with "an opposed unless amended." Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no further further witnesses, let's return bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator McNerney.

Well, I thank the Senator for bringing this forward and working with the committee. And every time you go to a a major retail outlet, they're gonna say, well, do you belong to our club? Do you wanna give us your information? And you know how that information is gonna be used. It's gonna go into a big data pool and people are gonna sell that data and buy it and it's gonna characterize your habits.

And so, this is a small step I think in, in the direction of helping to corral that that process. Basically, data is the gold of tech, and I think we need to look at how it's used, how it's gathered, how it's bought and sold, in order to protect people from harms that may come from this. So, I'll be in support of this bill, and I'll move when the appropriate time comes. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Umberg.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Becker. A couple of things. I understand you're continuing to work on the bill.

We have some concerns concerning First Amendment protected speech and whether or not this infringes upon protected speech. I'm gonna support the bill today, but it's coming to Judiciary Committee next. And I would hope that.

I think that's my next bill that, that that we had some more concern, the, the first amendment piece for 1142.

Oh, strike that. Alright.

Mr. Jones.

Did you want to get a chance to—or an opportunity to respond to Cal Chamber's concerns? Because I'm, I'm gonna lay off today, you know, looking forward to some more amendments on this bill as it moves forward because there are obviously things about it that I like. But it, you know, I would agree that it needs a little bit of a touch up.

Yeah. I, I mean, I think there's there's two main points I think you raised. I'd say on the, the, the first one that's for team compliance piece and obviously, we, we—just some of this is relatively new because we were we were out last week. So, I think we will consider that and we'll look at that piece.

I think the other piece is the "or" is, is, is, you know, probably just a little too far for us because I—the, the problem is we wanna I think what the Delete Act is success of Delete Act showed is that if we can make it easy for people that they'll do it.

Right? So, that, you know, just there are very few people, not my myself certainly, not one of them, who were gonna go to all 550 registered data broker websites and delete there and try to figure out how to delete their information. But when we create a one stop shop, you know, not everybody, but we've had a considerable number of people who take advantage of it. And so, the problem with the email, there's just a lot of back and forth and a lot of friction.

And so, we think that web form is really important.

So, I, I would like to pick up on that if there are no other questions. So, on—just to be with you on that point. So, the, the, the alternative challenge that I'm afraid of with the "or" is that the email address is, is essentially common currency. It's a common code to be able for other for other, platforms, apps, websites to be able to execute on your behalf.

So, in the same way that my—I have my, my, my Apple using my phone can execute an unsubscribe request from me, to another, to another website just by me hitting unsubscribe in the email client, it's because there is the thing.

If I can only unsubscribe from things by web forms, it makes it extremely challenging for intermediator—intermediary—companies or organizations, nonprofits, or governments to be able to, to do that on your behalf at your own at your own request. So, so, I also agree that the email address is not sufficient from a consumer perspective, but the web form is not, is not, is, has, has challenges in terms of inviting others into the ecosystem on, on your behalf.

So, I would encourage you to keep—to, to stay strong on that one. On the other piece, I, I, I appreciate the, the working, working through it.

I don't, I, I, I don't pretend to fully understand what, what the amendment would do other than you essentially could keep the data but you're not—but you are verifying that you're not going to process it for, for unpermitted purposes. So, you're keeping it potentially for other purposes that are. So, I, I get that part of it. It's worth—it's worth continuing to explore but I appreciate the, you know, bringing, bringing that, that concept forward.

Then, the last question I have for, for you, maybe the...is you mentioned in, very briefly in passing inferences, and I just want to understand, are, are inferences considered in this, in, you know, in this, in this, in this language? Are they, are, are, we, we're not, we're not expanding the scope of, of the Delete Act to cover inferences. Right?

No. It was that—it was to show that the Delete Act, while very important, is only getting at one piece of it and this will help get at another piece of it.

Okay. Gotcha. Alright. Seeing no further questions or comments. Senator Becker, you may close.

Yeah. Well, I think just with that, as I was saying, if we make it easy for folks, then they're much more likely to take advantage of these rights and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Senator McNerney has made the motion and committee assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. That bill has, six to zero and we'll put it put the measure on call. Thank you, Senator Becker. Moving on to, Senator Umbergh's favorite bill item number two, SB 1142. Please proceed with the presentation.

I thank you.

Well, we're entering a new era, friends, where anyone's face, voice, or identity can be replicated and weaponized. And I think we can agree we need strong safe gaurds to keep up with this emerging technology. This bill 1142 is really about protecting California's dignity in a digital world where the likeness can be weaponized against them. I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments and thank you for your work on this important issue.

The Digital Dignity Act establishes common sense guardrails for large online platforms, gives consumers added control over their likeness, and deters bad actors who seek to deframe or defraud Californians using their digital replica.

At the beginning of this year, Elon Musk's social media company x and its accompanying AI system Grok was used to generate pornographic content of women and children with an actual person's likeness available. These product design choices were made without regard for the well-being of their uses or the legality of the content being generated, which harm to vulnerable populations.

As as AI becomes integrated with social media, companies are reverting to some companies, I'd say, are reverting to a growth at all cost mindset at the expense of the dignity dignity, reputation, and privacy of Californians. Early in 2024, an employee at UNG UK engineering company, Arup, was tricked into transferring over $25,000,000 to fraudsters after attending a video conference where every other participant including the CFO was a digital replica.

In December, a 19 year old 19 year veteran, Washington State patrol trooper brought forth a suit alleging a pattern of bias and harassment by other officers where they circulate an AI generated video which mocked his sexuality and falsely depicted him engaged in intimate conduct with other officers.

Platforms must be held accountable to their users and individuals who decide to defame or impersonate others using digital replicas. We don't wanna make the same mistake that that we made in social media by approaching this new technology without proper safeguards. So this bill is really about providing people with control over how they would like these tools, to how they'd like to use these tools and whether or not they want these tools to be used on them within the context of social media.

Without these protections, we risk allowing platforms to publish tools that allow for unprotected access to our likeness violating both our privacy and dignity. I do wanna mention as we'll we'll discuss that the Judiciary Committee we'll go to next has raised some concerns, some first amendment concerns, and we are committed to working through those before the the hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

With that, we have our witness from the Transparency Coalition.

Good afternoon, chair, and members of the committee. My name is Jay Jesima, and I'm here to urge your aye vote on SB 1142. I'm testifying on behalf, the Transparency Coalition, and we're an independent nonprofit which advocates for increased transparency and accountability in generative AI. We're proud to act as sponsors of this bill. This bill isn't about technology.

It's about the fundamental right of every Californian to control their own identity, their voice, their face, and their very likeness in an era where generative AI can steal and weaponize these attributes with a single click. We're currently facing an epidemic of nonconsensual digital likeness abuse, as the Senator, stated and gave some examples. Bad actors are increasingly using AI to create digital replicas, highly realistic deepfakes used for harassment, extortion, and misinformation.

A staggering number of deepfake victims have been women and girls who've been targeted with nonconsensual intimate imagery. These replicas are used to defraud the public or defame individuals, creating a world where a person's digital ghost can say things they never said and they do things that they never did.

Today, victims are often trapped in a legal no man's land. When an AI generated, intimate image of a high school student or a working professional is uploaded to a major platform, the victim currently has virtually no recourse to regain control. Existing laws were written for a pre generative AI world.

Victims describe the experience as a digital haunting, where they must spend thousands of dollars on lawyers just to ask a platform to take down a fake image only to be met with silence or slow moving bureaucracy while the content goes viral. Under current law, they cannot even often pursue private legal action for the Mercurial use of their likeness in the synthetic format.

This bill solves these or closes many of these gaps by establishing a more balanced and enforceable framework. With revocation rights and man and mandates that large online platforms provide generative AI tools, a mechanism they they must give users a a mechanism to revoke access to digital replicas of themselves. It provides clear penalties and holds platforms accountable with a forty eight hour takedown regime. Also requires them to preserve evidence.

And after that

Thank you so much and ask for ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you very much. Are there witnesses in support that would wish to come forward to provide your name, organization, if any?

Yep. Brian Spencer, may I have the California Orthopedic Association, the California Podiatric Medical Association, and the California Society of Pathologists all in support. Thank you.

Ken Wang on behalf of the California Initiative for Technology Democracy in support. Thank you.

Alright. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Lead witnesses in opposition? You're both welcome to come to the table and you'll each have two minutes.

Mister chair, members of the committee, my name is Melissa Patack. I'm here on behalf of the Motion Picture Association. We're the trade association for the leading producers and distributors of movies, TV shows, and streaming series. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for the meetings we've had with the committee staff, with the author and his staff about our concerns regarding this bill. We appreciate Senator Becker's, accepting of the two amendments, as detailed in the analysis, regarding the definitions in the bill.

We do have remaining concerns and I'll highlight them briefly. MPA has worked extensively with the legislature over many years on California's right of publicity law both for living and deceased personalities. And we've appreciated working with the with legislators on digital replica laws in more recent years.

This bill creates an addition to California's right of publicity law at section four, seeming to provide for enhanced penalties in a defamation action where the claim is for distributing content with actual knowledge that the content includes a digital replica or violates existing sections of the penal code prohibiting false personation. The bill then provides that the prohibition applies for seventy years after the imitated person's death.

This appears to attempt to create a claim for defamation of a deceased person. A right of action that doesn't exist under California law nor the law of any other states. And this provision seems to create a special liability based on methods. That is the use of a digital replica, not on the harm caused. Harm is foundational to a defamation claim.

And since a deceased person cannot claim harm, it is well settled law that such a claim is not available where the subject is deceased. We look forward to continuing to work, with the author, and as it approaches judiciary committee, the staff to address, this issue. It's related to, the issue that Senator Umbrick raised, around the First Amendment. Thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Chair Cabaldon, members of the committee. Good afternoon. My name is Aiden Downey. I'm here on behalf of the commuter and Computer and Communications Industry Association. I wanted to begin by thanking the author for raising this important topic.

Responsible businesses like our members support robust protections against the misuse of digital replicas. However, we're currently in a oppose unless amended position on the bill. While well intended, Senate bill eleven forty two currently creates significant constitutional and operational challenges that could unintentionally chill lawful speech. Our concerns center on three primary areas. The first, vague and overly broad definitions.

As drafted, the bill's definition of digital replica and digital likeness are broad enough to capture a vast array of protected content. Without clear guidelines, these definitions risk sweeping in transformative art, satire, and commentary. We believe liability must be strictly targeted towards those who intentionally and knowingly violate an individual's rights rather than the platforms or tools that merely host or generate the media. Second, we have some due process and free expression concerns.

The proposed notice and takedown framework essentially delegates a judicial function to private platforms by requiring removal based on individual reports rather than a court's determination, the bill risks the systemic suppression of constitutionally protected content, such as political parody or news reporting before an impartial judge can never evaluate it.

The framework timeline is also extremely tight. The forty eight hour provision is operationally difficult and would exasperate the removal of legal speech in order to ward off liability. Third, liability and incentives. We have some concerns around those. Because the bill holds large online platforms liable once they have actual knowledge, which could be considered the individual's report.

It creates a financial incentive for companies to adopt, remove first policy. To avoid costly litigation and statutory damages, platforms will likely over remove any flag content that sits in a gray area, leading to the disappearance of lawful discourse. A slightly less pressing concern, but one this committee should be aware of is how the bill conflicts with federal law.

Senate bill eleven forty two appears to conflict with section two thirty of the Communications Act by forcing platforms to act as arbiters of truth and identity under the threat of state sanctioned civil penalties. The bill risks federal preemption.

We look forward to continuing our work with the author to ensure that any new protections fit within existing frameworks and fill the correct gap in the current digital replica landscape. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there witnesses in opposition that we should come forward to provide your name and organization for the record?

Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce join our colleagues at CCIA. Opposition unless amended.

Annalee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California also oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Robert Boykin with TechNet. Also oppose unless amended position. Thank you.

Alright. Well, thanks you thanks for the testimony. We're now gonna turn to the committee for questions or comments, Senator Umberg?

As I was saying, Senator Becker has anticipated my concerns with respect to the First Amendment. We certainly, in this day and age, do not want to, in essence, make parity political parity illegal. And so, while I'm gonna support the bill today, as you mentioned, it is coming to Judiciary Committee and and we wanna work with you to make sure that that we are not suppressing what would be protected speech under the first amendment. I realize that that's gonna take some challenge, some work.

I'm hopeful that we will get there.

And by the way, just looking around speaking of judiciary committee, I have committee hearing room envy. For seven years, I've been asking for a larger committee hearing room. And congratulations to your chief consultant for making it happen here. So I know he's been sandbagging me for the last several years. But but having said that, I look forward to to working with you.

Well, thank you. Yeah. I mean, there are carve outs specifically for for parity and satire right now. But I agree with you, I hear you on on some of the broader First Amendment and and our and the opposition on on some of the, you know, broader first amendment concerns. So we definitely have my commitment to to work with you on those in in the next week or that was so that we have.

Yes. Alright. And and we do carve out section two thirty as well, by the

way, just for the record. Can we can we explore a little bit the the the the time the time frame that we're talking Yeah. Here? Those seem very quick. So I wanna you know, we often think about these as, you know, I I'm going to file a complaint to Grok if I had an account or, you know, or to to Facebook or to Instagram or what have you.

And that they that that mere filing of my my my complaint, my notification that this this exists and it's a it's in some form of digital replica of me, that is that that is an that is obvious that I that I am me and not the digital replica. In the absence of me personally appearing though, given the amount of data that has not yet been deleted about me until the delete act is full of in full effect.

Most of the things that I would use to validate that I am who I say I am are also available through brokers to the large to the social media platforms and to others. You know, my all of my basic personal information, my shopping habits, the name of my first dog, all of those elements. Perhaps my DNA test, who knows what else, my voice print.

And, you know, these are folks that are capable of making a digital replica of me in the first place. So the if if I'm a social media company and I have to validate, yes, I I received a one a request under this from Senator Becker saying that there's a digital replica about it. How in that period of time can I actually validate that you are who you are especially if there's a counter a counter saying no no I'm Josh Becker?

I'm Senator Becker and and that is that, you know, I did consent. Like how how do you how do you as the technology gets better to to to to to deep fake our own privacy, our private information, how do you accomplish that in in forty eight hours?

Yeah. Well, let me, well, I do know the the forty eight hour front time frame is consistent with the federal take it down act, which has been a bipartisan piece of proposed legislation. But if I could ask my witness to address a little bit more details. Is that okay?

Yeah. Yeah. It does require a court finding before the forty eight hour clock before you can ask for a taken down provision. So you have to get a court finding that that a claim of, you know, false impersonation or fraud is valid, then you can ask for things to be taken down.

So it's

not you can't just make the claim without without a court finding.

Yeah. That's our reason. That was our intention, that you have that the forty eight hour clock starts after that.

It's a pretty narrow, because it requires you getting that court finding. It's not open season on on social media.

And we can clarify that if if needed. Okay.

Alright. That's out. Senator Reyes.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think that there's so much more that we need to do to protect Californians as a whole. I do want to appreciate the opposition and I appreciate that you've already had the, you've already agreed to the first two amendments offered by the Motion Picture Association. The two concerns that I had and I know that I'll be seeing this in judiciary along with Senator Omberg, our chair, are due process and free speech.

Those are my biggest concerns and I know that that is going to be addressed through further communication. So I look forward to to seeing that. I will be supporting it today and look forward to seeing it in judiciary.

Great. Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments, Senator Becker, you may close.

Excellent. I was just checking my text to see if I had a text for Senator Chobot because she's she'd stay in human services as my vice chair, but I know she had some things she wanted to discuss, but I'll I'll make sure I discuss with her afterwards. I wanna thank, our witnesses and, you know, of course, all the all the companies, particularly Motion Picture Association is, you know, folks where where, you know, where we they're, you know, obviously important role in all this.

I mean, there's part of the the goal of this is, there's a separate build center. Ashby has this really more about the commercial side of it, but we we wanna be aligned with with these folks.

So, I appreciate the discussion and, look forward to the work ahead and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Terrific. I'm I'm also gonna be supporting the bill today that I have some of the some of the same questions and concerns, but they those are all within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and not ours. And so, is there a motion? So motion.

It's been moved by Senator Reyes. Committee system, please. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Right. The, vote is six to zero and the bill will be placed on call. Thank you, Senator Becker. Before we move to our next, bill, we do have the committee rules on our agenda for for today. So I I know everyone just read them very, very carefully.

We've been discussing them all during the recess. So is there are there any questions? If not, is there a motion on the committee rules?

We need to adopt.

Moved by Senator Padilla.

We can just adopt them.

Then we could just adopting them.

Without objection.

Without objection, we are adopting the committee rules. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Alright. Next step. We are gonna be turning to the committee member authors, but just a reminder for those within the sound of our voice that if you those members who have bills up that are not on the committee, to please join us in Room 1200.

So we will move next to Senator Padilla for SB 867 and SB 1247.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm pleased to present SB 867. As we are well aware, artificial intelligence has quietly embedded itself into nearly every corner of modern life and has made its way into our work places, our school, healthcare, and homes.

Recently AI has found it's way as well into children's toys.

Recently, the market has been flooded with toys such as teddy bears that are powered by the same technology that powers chat bots such as Grok. Researchers testing these products have found some alarming outcomes. Various toys marketed to children have found to speak in-depth about sexually explicit topics, give kids advice on where to find dangerous objects such as matches or knives, promote increased uses through addictive features in the algorithms, impose data privacy risks. We are in a cycle.

Technology moves faster than regulation as always and we are not fully aware of the harm until it is often too late.

This bill breaks that cycle by imposing a pause on the sale of manufacturing of AI chatbot powered toys to allow us the proper time to craft appropriate regulations and a testing framework for which these products should follow. In California, we have some of the strictest toy safety laws that protect children from a myriad of physical harm and hazards such as exposure to toxic substances and choking hazards. We need to

update these regulations to address regulations to address the psychological harms these products can, present as well. This bill would place a four year moratorium on the sale and manufacturing of such products and toys aimed at children with these AI chatbot capabilities and provide an opportunity for lawmakers to modernize these protections to fidget fit, excuse me, the digital age. Innovation without guardrails, especially when it comes to children, is not boldness, it's recklessness.

We need time to get this right because it's our children's lives and well-being and no less which is at stake. I'm happy to say that here with me today to testify is Nichole Rocha from Children Now and Fiona Hines from CalPIRG who can provide further context on the research they've conducted.

Thank you.

Thank you chair and committee. My name is Fiona Hines. I'm a legislative advocate with CalPIRG. We're a statewide consumer protection group and proud supporters of SB 867. As you probably know, the AI toy market is new and, the rapid integration of this technology into toys Thus poses several risks for our kids.

Our recent research revealed several of these risks. Our researchers looked at three AI chat toys including a teddy bear with a chatbot embedded in it. And they found risks with all three of them. All three were able to tell the researchers where to find dangerous objects like matches and knives as well as to even include step by step instructions about how to light those matches.

That same toy, the Fullo Toy Kuma was able to talk at length about sexually explicit topics including providing advice on BDSM, talking about sex positions, describing role playing scenarios between teachers and students.

And we also found that these toys have limited to no parental controls and can threaten children's privacy. They can collect the children's voices as well as, collect other sensitive data from facial recognition scans or other methods. In fact, just this year, several AI companion chat bots were found to have some pretty serious security weaknesses. In one example, the AI toy, Bondu, exposed 50,000 lines of dialogue between kids and the toy in an unsecure database.

These AI toys are marketed to kids age three, but they're largely built on the same technology that powers our adult chat bots like the large language model technology.

And the Caesar systems that the companies themselves have currently not recommended for children. And so, we think action is needed now since this market is growing so rapidly. We don't wanna risk our kids safety, just to rush toys into the market. And so for all these reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Hi. I'm here on behalf of Children Now. Is this working? Children Now takes a whole child approach to improving the lives of California kids and works across health, education, early childhood, and foster care to ensure all kids have the supports that they need to thrive. For years, young people have been sharing how their mental health is being affected negative negatively by their online interactions. And after many years of fighting for legislation, and many of you on this dais have, we are finally seeing some improvements.

Just last week, there were nearly hundreds of millions of dollars awarded by a jury when they found that social media had intentionally addicted children, lied about the safety of their platforms, and failed to protect children from unknown from known harm. In addition, the age appropriate design code, which was unanimously passed by this body in 2022, was largely affirmed by the ninth circuit last month. And this is wonderful news, but we can't stop there.

Last year, Senator Padilla authored a first in the country bill to regulate how companion AI interacts with children and created fundamental safeguards. And this bill would build on top of that important legislation.

After all of these historic wins, the work is far from over. As AI pours into every aspect of our lives, it's important to learn from our experience with social media. If the legislature does not take timely action, we could once again be dealing with the aftermath of decades of harm in kids that could have been prevented. No one here is saying that the harm stemming from AI are the same as the harm stemming from social media use.

And we're certainly not claiming that AI used by children has no benefit.

Rather, we are asking that until the harms and equally important the benefits are researched and documented, young people should not be used as guinea pigs for these powerful new products. This bill would not prevent youth from using companion AI in other aspects such as a music tutoring app. Those uses are governed by SB 243 from last year.

What the bill would do is hit the pause button on the use of companion AI in non essential and recreational products designed specifically for play in children until we know how the technology is going to affect their developing minds. AB 8 sorry.

SB 867 is a sensible measure that will make space for thoughtful consideration before young people are exposed to potentially harmful technology. Kids deserve a digital world that supports their healthy mental development. I urge your aye vote.

Alright. Are there witnesses who would like to testify and support? Please provide your name and organization, if any.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute of the University of San Diego School of Law in enthusiastic support. Thank you.

Ken Lueng on behalf of the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy in support. Thank you.

Hi again. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We did not get a letter in by the deadline, but we did want to let the author know that we will be coming on in support.

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

Jai Jaisminha, on behalf of Transparency Coalition and support.

Alright. Thank you. Are there witness lead witnesses in opposition to the bill? Now come up to the table. Okay.

So we'll do the mix. Yes. Oh, you'll have two minutes.

It'll be very brief. Ryan Alain with California Retailers Association. We've been working with your office a lot. We have an opposing unless amended to add the knowingly standard into the for retailer liability protection. And we're also working with the author's office on the definition of toy as well.

So we owe some feedback. We're working on that still. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Alright. Are there other witnesses in opposition simply to provide your name and organization? If any?

Thank you. Annalie Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California echoing the concerns with the definition of liability concerns. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. So turning to the committee, are there questions or comments? Vice Chair Jones?

Thank you, Mr. chair. Senator Padilla, thank you for, bringing this forward. I'm gonna be supporting it today. I know there's still some concerns on the, you know, blanket, prohibition still lacking some precision. But I think, when it comes to children, we can on the side of being too prohibitive rather than less prohibitive.

I also appreciate the, deadline or the, lifespan of the bill having an expiration date so that we can reconsider this in a couple years and and see how it's going. And so I'll be supporting today.

Senator Umberg? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. chair. Thank you, Senator Padilla. I I certainly agree with the vision of the bill. A question for the witnesses, who makes the determination as to what a toy is? Is that a jury finding?

Is that a judge finding? Is it a question of law? Is it a question of fact? Is it a mixed question?

Yes. Proceed.

So the the definition of toy is limited also by the definition of companion AI, which was established in February year. And actually mirrors, existing definition that we have in the health and safety code. As far as who would make that determination, it depends on how the claim was filed. But whether or not it was intended for use by designed and intended for use, for play by a child, it has to be intended by the manufacturer, not intended by, like, the seller or reseller or anyone.

It's the manufacturer that has to intend it for that use.

Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I would just add briefly if I might, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I think that with respect to the deployer of the technology and manufacturing, those are housed in HNS and PNP as Mr. Chairman well knows. And I would argue it is depending on the filing, a mix question. Most likely question of fact for a jury potentially, but if that's helpful, I yield back to the chair.

So I don't think this is coming to judiciary. So what we would do is we we try to do at least is try to make sure that when a court gets this that the judge can interpret it and knows exactly who's responsible for what kind of finding and what standards are used. So I would encourage as the bill moves forward that that be clarified. What is a toy? Who makes the decision as to what a toy is?

What does the jury when the jury is instructed, if it is a question simply a fact, you know, how is the jury instructed as to what criteria it should use when determining whether it's it's a toy or not? Because while we all well, I I think we all agree as to the thrust of the bill and the vision of the bill, because we wanna make sure that that it's clear enough so that it doesn't become infirm.

So I I would simply encourage that we we drill down on both those issues. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Well, I certainly hope the author will will follow-up and that's also what the opposition had to say about the the toy definition. This is an important similar question but we should be working this through, you know, I I have to say when I first saw saw the bill and said, oh my gosh, are we gonna somebody else gonna have a bill on appliances and companion chatbots? Are we gonna just, you know, regulate every place that companion chatbots might be found?

Shouldn't we figure out companion shop bots themselves in the first place? But obviously, Senator Priti, as you know and as the author of the the other measure that that work is also under is also underway and which is why I I appreciate the the time limited nature of this.

We we do need to figure out the the base case of of of companion chatbots as as they relate to children in whatever domain that they are in and that work is proceeding and so a but a but a pause at the moment while that work while we're figuring that out, while the adults are are trying to figure out what the safeguards and the definitions are makes sense.

So I'm prepared to support the, the bill today and then knowing that our our bigger work is the is the other bill that we will be seeing maybe in this committee soon as well.

Alright. Is there a motion then on this bill? Oh, sorry. Sorry. Senator Padilla, you may close.

It's more inaugural, Mr. Chairman. You do it fabulously, by the way. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. I would just say I would just only add just that and know that the technology here and as it's deployed in these products, I would argue is uniquely situated and is one of such broad impact that it demands a pause so that we can get a regulatory framework appropriately fashioned.

I take the observations and critique, of the opposition very seriously with respect to the definitional issues and certainly with the question of standards for like secondary liability. I think in light of California scheme around product liability, which I I think many of you know is pretty stringent. I I don't know that this is will be a typical question but one that must be addressed and I'm willing to continue working that with respect to the bill. So I appreciate that critique and I hear it.

And with that, I would, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do you wanna get the motion? No. Alright. Then is there a motion? Thank you, Senator Padilla.

I'll move. Okay. It's moved by Senator Jones. Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call] Seven to zero.

That bill is seven to zero. We'll place it on call. Senator Padilla moving on to, SB 1247.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm, thank you for your work and the committee staff's work with respect to this bill. Pleased to present s p twelve forty seven, the child influence or right to dilution. This bill gives children who were, images and likenesses were prominently featured and social media content, content often produced and directed by vloggers who are their parents or legal guardians many times in a way that was monetized, an option to control their images and their privacy.

As was referenced a couple of years ago, I introduced SB 764 which the governor signed which built on California's Coogan Act and provided financial protections for minors whose likenesses were prominently featured and monetized in blogging and online content, giving them financial protections and rights.

This bill, that bill, excuse me, was a key step toward protecting children and creating privacy protections. This bill gives children whose images were featured prominently along those same standards the a pathway and an opportunity to request that those likenesses and imaging, be deleted or modified.

Children of family influencers may not have a choice in participating in videos, having their lives being available for public consumption, and more child influencers have spoken up about the difficulties of growing up in the public light with some experiencing stalking and threats due to their public presence. A New York Times investigation also found many of these children posted online through audiences of adults who sought explicit content and parents continued posting their children's likenesses because sadly, it often meant a more lucrative outcome.

Allison Stoner, a champion of this bill, experienced stalking and identity theft as a child performer and states these sorts of threats were the norm in her experience.

With the rise of these tools, these images are now often used for child sexual abuse material. Similar legislation has been proposed and passed in other states such as Utah where Sherry Franke, daughter of Ruby Franke, a family vlogger, was convicted of child abuse, championed a civil or bill after her and her siblings grew up with their lives being continuously and overly documented.

This bill would give children control of their images once they reach the age of majority, giving them a way to regain that control and to continue on an appropriate path of development and healing. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Are there, lead witnesses in support? Does anyone else wish to testify in support? How about opposition? Are there lead witnesses opposed to the bill?

Does anyone wish to provide testimony in opposition?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, very respectfully opposed for the creation of a new private right of action. Thank you.

Alright. Let's turn into the to the members of the committee. Questions or comments? No worries.

It's been moved by Senator Reyes. Senator Padilla, you may close.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright.

[Roll Call]

The vote seven to zero will place that bill on call. Moving on next to the consent calendar, we have one item on consent today and that's SB 930 by Senator Reyes. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? So moved. Mine's been appropriately moved.

Please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

The vote is seven to zero on the consent calendar. We'll leave that in on call as well. We are still waiting for Senator Ashby, the who's not on the committee but has a bill to present and Senator Gonzales, as well who'll be returning shortly. And so vice chair Jones, if you don't mind, I'm gonna hand you the gavel again. Continue to present.

Okay. We'll take up file item nine, Senate Bill 1114 by Senator Cabaldon. File nine SB 1114. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, mister chair and members. Privacy is fundamental to dignity, safety, and inequality and S.B eleven fourteen helps to ensure that those protections remain strong for LGBTQ plus communities in Californians. California leads the nation in our use of data to strengthen services rights for LGBTQ Californians. We have led the way and designed and personalized safety and protection and services for LGBTQ Californians using data.

However, the current federal administration is making data requests to various states that threaten the integrity of that data and it is essential that we protect that data from from abuse and so, while we know that inclusive data collection is essential for the state agencies that serve a diverse range of Californians, we also know that it is absolutely critical that we prevent the misuse of that data.

So this, SP eleven fourteen simply, provides that state agencies may not share state level data related to, essentially to LGBTQ Californians, in the absence of an enforceable order. The Federal Government has had the opportunity and has previously done some data collection in this space through the Department of Health Services. They have ceased collecting all data.

So they're if to the extent we get requests, they're not interested in using the data for improving services. If if so, they would not have ceased collecting it themselves, but this is an important measure today in order to assure that that Californians are protected and have their their data secured. I wanna emphasize the data itself is not, we're not returning to two generations ago when this information was being it was secret or not collected because it was shameful. The data itself is not critical.

It's not it's there's nothing special about the data. It is who people in our communities are. What is it what is the critical risk is the current climate of the abuse of that data to target individuals around the country. This bill, continues to use the data here in California while assuring that it won't be shared with federal agencies, that may be seeking to use it for malicious purposes.

And I'd ask for an aye vote and ask, and invite, Craig Pulsipher from Equality California, the sponsor of the bill, to provide testimony and support.

Thanks, sir. Witnesses in support.

Good afternoon, Craig Polsher on behalf of Equality California, proud cosponsor. Equality California has long championed efforts to collect comprehensive data about LGBTQ people. In 2015, we sponsored the LGBT Disparities Reduction Act which requires several state agencies to collect voluntary data on sexual orientation and gender identity when gathering other demographic information.

That law was later expanded to include additional state agencies and to incorporate data collection on intersex people. Members of our community share personal information with state programs because they need access to essential services such as food assistance or health coverage and they trust that their data will be used only to administer or improve those programs.

However, as we've seen over the past year, numerous instances in which the Federal Government has sought expanded access to say a state held data often done under the guise of reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. Just a few recent examples, the Federal Government has sought detailed immigration data from food assistance programs, shared Medicaid data with the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement, and sent subpoenas to multiple hospitals seeking confidential information related to transgender patients.

These actions are not only deeply concerning, they also undermine trust in the in the government's ability to collect and use data responsibly, which makes members of our community less likely to participate in these routine data collection efforts.

So SB 1114 is a straightforward measure to restore that trust and establish clear guardrails for the sharing of state collected data about LGBTQ people. It simply ensures that data related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status cannot be shared outside of the state except in very limited circumstances. And also importantly clarifies the information that could be used to infer that a person is trans or intersex is also protected.

So at a time when our community is increasingly being targeted, by the Federal Government and out of state actors, it's a common sense measure to ensure that data collected to support our community cannot later be used to cause harm and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Great. Just almost right on the money. Two minutes. Any other witnesses?

Me too, Witnesses, name and association, please. In support. Witnesses in support.

Yes. Hi again, Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy, in support of the bill.

Good afternoon, Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support.

Good afternoon, Angie Minetti on behalf of Planned Parenthood in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? In opposition to 1114? Seeing nobody coming forward, discussion from the dais on SB 1114. There's a motion to approve the bill from Senator Padilla.

No discussion. Senator Kambalda, would you like to close?

Just simply ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do passed through appropriations. Senators Cabaldon?

Cabaldin, aye. Jones?

Aye.

Not voting.

Gonzales? McNearney?

Aye.

McNearney, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Padilla?

Aye.

Padilla, aye. Reyes?

Aye.

Reyes, aye. Umberg?

Aye.

Umberg, aye. Weiner?

Weiner, aye. Six two zero one call.

Aye.

That bill has six affirmative votes. It's on call for the remaining of the members of the committee. We are gonna move to the last member bill, Senate bill eleven fifty nine. We're still waiting for two authors, I believe, to come present. Senator Ashby, Senator Gonzales.

Senator Cabaldon's last bill is Senate Bill 1159. Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you, mister chair. Last fall, an outfit in The United Kingdom released a new product called Objector AI. And it was founded on the principle that the UK government was just approving too many infrastructure and housing projects and somebody needed to put a stop to it. So Objector AI purports to automate the system of civic engagement so far that you don't even have to pay any attention to it to yourself. So you can tell the system, hey, I don't like apartments.

Too many people live here already. We don't need any more of those kinds of people. And Objector AI will then spider through every single meeting, meeting agenda, development agreement, and contract that's before the Rialto City Council and San Diego Board of Supervisors and automatically generate and the promises will also automatically submit comments, without you ever knowing that this has been happening.

And it points out it it's caused quite a stir in Europe and in The UK for a good reason that, local governments and citizens are concerned that the governments cannot process that many automated machine generated, robot generated comments, but also, actual human beings can no longer be heard because there's so much slop in the civic engagement process. Since that time here in California, we've seen a related example.

The South Coast Air District Board was taking up a regulation, an environmental justice regulation up. And in that case, the board received over 20,000 comment letters in opposition. About 20,000 of which were generated by artificial intelligence systems. Your guess, it was as good as mine, as how anybody in the twenty four hours before the hearing was able to figure out which one are the handful of actual human beings that participated.

So we have a challenge on our hands, which is that our systems, we beg folks to participate. That's the nature of participation in democracy.

And some malicious actors are using these artificial intelligence systems then to exploit that openness in order to flood the zone, to swamp local governments so that they are misled. But most often, in order to cause the actual public, the actual human beings to be a needle in a haystack that the local government can't see.

And so, SB 1159 merely says that local governments are not required that they don't have to treat AI bots and agents as a person with respect to the rights that a person has for the Brown Act and public records and other things. And so they're not required to be responsive to those. They can focus on people themselves.

Now, as part of our discussion probably will be, well, how do you know? How do you know which is which? Well, there are some technological answers that are emerging, some of which this legislature has helped to induce so that the extent to which video and photographic evidence is being submitted that may attach to it at a digital provenance that tells gives you information about its potential generation by AI.

But it may also be that after the 800th public records act request from a particular email address that you maybe you follow-up. You try to call the phone number.

You try to verify is this a human being or not. That under this bill, that will be the determination of the local government. It will be on them to validate. Yes. We have a a system that reliably can detect human beings.

Whether they can do that today or not, I don't know. But they are but the technology is advancing and if local governments know that they will be able to, assure that they're gonna be able to protect citizen input by doing so, that they will be highly motivated to accomplish this. So for those reasons, SB1159 seeks to fix that gap.

It has broad support be it by local governments and local community, but also the environmental community and many, many others who've seen the impacts when we allow robots and agents to pretend to be us and to silence our voices in the one process that is supposed to uplift them and elevate them. So with that, I would ask for an aye vote on SB 1159 and introduce our witnesses beginning with supervisors. You want to go first?

I think I'll go first. Okay. Do you wanna go first? Good afternoon.

We have two witnesses in support. You will each have two minutes to testify and convince us to vote for this bill.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, vice chair. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Gabriela Fazio, senior policy strategist at Sierra Club California.

Sierra Club and our environmental justice partners spent years advocating for clean air standards at the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Standards that would reduce smog forming pollution from gas powered furnaces and water heaters, preventing thousands of premature deaths and asthma cases. We organized the community, submitted comments, and engaged the process exactly as California's transparency and public participation laws intended. Then that work was wiped out by a consulting firm that used an AI platform to generate over 20,000 comments opposing those standards.

The voices of our communities and the years of work behind them were buried under a flood of artificial noise.

Similarly, at the Bay Area Air District, a consulting firm used AI to generate false public comments opposing clean air rules, many of which were submitted under real residents' names without their knowledge or consent. These campaigns were coordinated and deliberate. Someone hired a firm, signed a contract, and directed the effort. That is deeply troubling, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Today, autonomous AI agents can be created and deployed by anyone without a consulting firm, without a contract, and without an immediately responsible party.

No coordination required, no paper trail, a single bad actor or no identifiable actor at all can flood a state agency or a local government with thousands of AI-generated comments, petitions, or public record requests in minutes. If California does not act now while the problem is still identifiable and the perpetrators still traceable, we risk losing the ability to respond at all. The integrity of every public participation process in this state, every environmental review, every rule making, every local planning decision is at stake.

SB 1159 draws a clear and necessary line. California's public participation laws were written for people, and this bill ensures that they stay that way.

We urge your Aye vote.

Thank you very much for sticking right to the time limit. And next, two minutes.

Very good. Thank you.

First of all, congratulations on your inaugural committee meeting. The irony of the fact that Artemis two is currently taking human beings further than they've ever been from Earth. We're here trying to clarify the definition of humans as we contemplate this issue. My name is Oscar Villegas, Yolo County Supervisor. Our county submitted a letter of support on March 23 and I'm simply here to briefly underscore the purpose of our support.

We believe local government is where government is most pronounced in the daily lives of our constituents. We believe it is our collective responsibility to ensure the pillars of our government remain of and for the people and that our government not only be accessible but that we proactively, as this committee is currently doing, proactively protect this access as we believe this bill does.

As elected officials, I don't need to remind you the very fabric of our governing institutions and the core functions of our governing systems is under a microscope as evident by, the last few years in the public discourse. The last thing we need at this time, is bad actors using AI to overwhelm our already fragile government systems, and drown out the very public access that we all cherish.

As AI evolves, we must remain vigilant, with any of the any bad actors who may use autonomous engagement, which can easily overwhelm our governing systems and crowd out the public access.

So with that, we are in support and we urge you to continue to support this effort. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses, as add ons for Me Too's with your name and association, please?

Thank you, mister chair and members. Jennifer Fearing here today in support of SB 1159 on behalf of the California Association of Nonprofits. Thank you.

Justin Paddock on behalf of Contra Costa, the supervisor already covered yellow in support. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Municipal Clerks Association in support.

Good afternoon. Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities and also on behalf of the California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Nick Gromer on behalf of the city of San Jose in support.

Eric Lerry on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Chair member, Alicia Priego on behalf of the Chamber of Progress in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Sarah DeCann on behalf of the Rural County representatives of California in support.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California in support.

Madison Vanner Clay on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition wishing to come forward?

Yes. Over here.

If you have, comments in opposition, yes, you may come to the table. You'll have two minutes also.

Alright. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We submitted and opposed unless commended Letter on this bill. We are a statewide coalition that focuses on safeguards and guardrails in the interest of privacy protections, civil rights, and community consent. And more to the point, we do an awful lot of public records work.

The motivating factor for this bill as we understand it is the Southern California carb episode. What we wanna emphasize is that was a problem with fraud. It was a problem with fraudulent complaints. It was not per se a problem with AI. For example, in 2017 before gen AI, there were not, 20,000 but over 12,000,000 comments submitted fraudulent fraudulently to the FCC network neutrality hearing.

So fraud is not necessarily caused by or requires AI and we would like to see the bill refocused if this is really the motivation for the bill to address fraudulent public comments. With regards to the other concerns on the bill, which I think affect mostly the Brown Act and the Public Records Act, there are already pretty sufficient tools to crack down on problems. For example, with public comment, people can be given only one minute to comment. They can be given thirty seconds to comment.

And public comment can be turned off after thirty minutes in total in terms of local government and the Brown Act.

When it comes to public records, I can tell you I probably only get what I am asking for as a requester about 50% of the time at best with all of the exceptions and exemptions that are present in the Public Records Act. And as I said and as you saw in the analysis, I'm not real eager for my next public records request to be saying.

Wrap up with a couple sentences, please.

Yeah. I'm not really eager to have my next CIPR request return me saying, we think you're an AI. So no go. There are better ways to solve these problems.

Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you for just sending a letter in as well that will outline your points. Appreciate that. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Becca Cramer with Kaiser Advocacy. First Amendment Coalition apologizes that they did not get their letter in time. They will be getting their letter in, but they do respectfully align their comments. They're in the position with Oakland privacy.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we'll close, public comment on this item. Comments from the dais. Senator Reyes.

Without a doubt, we need to figure out a way to to put the guardrails on non humans. I absolutely agree. But I also know that when we work, especially with advocacy groups, often times everybody gets a postcard and you just put who you're directing it to and you sign your name and address. It is a human being but most everything was provided to them. How do we determine what is AI and what is not?

Thank you, Senator. I mean, this is this is has been the crux. I I wanna emphasize that we've we've we've crafted the bill and are open to further improvements all at all times about that. This is not about it's not about automated. Automation by itself, is, you know, in the in the right context has been a feature of petition drives and postcard drives and organizing drives for decades.

So it isn't it isn't the fact that and and those may generate thousands or more of comments. So it isn't about volume and it's not about is it automated in some way or is because every communication doesn't in a democracy, it doesn't have to be me showing up at a hearing and speaking it on Wednesday evening for four minute for three minutes.

Instead, it is the use of of artificial intelligence where there is not a connection to a human where the human being is not directing the the advocacy. So if I sign the postcard, that is that that is regardless if it goes to somebody else and then they put them together and they bring them and they dump them on the floor in front of the school board, that's still me doing it. Right?

So that is not that is not an an artificial agent that is engaged in that and I am a human. That's I think that's pretty clear under under the under the law and in reality. So I think that's that's part of what we're trying to do.

What we wanna do is, but but I think the key structure of the bill here is that it will be on a local government if they come if they if they have a mechanism, if they wanna rely on the digital provenance rules under the AI transparency act, for example, Or some of the AI labs are themselves developing protocols and that sort of thing to mark pure AI or partially AI, but pure AI efforts. Or as we know, because I think is it linked?

One of the platforms just recently sort of banned posting by agents altogether, AI agents. Those are agents that that may work for for me. I may have an agent and I say, hey, like, take care of my day.

Okay? So and and it just it it starts doing things. It's reschedules, like, makes deposit in the bank account or whatever. But I'm not actually directing it in any way. I don't know what's happening.

Some people, that's not my I'm not for that. But some for some people, that's their that's their jam. But if the agent is offering independently and the AI agent is the one actually generating the comments or the thousands or the millions of comments, that's when that's when the problem occurs. So it will in this in this period where the technology is changing, it'll be on a local government and having been a mayor for twenty years, city attorneys will be very, very, very conservative.

Like, they will say to the city clerk and to the mayor, like, don't bother, you know, it it it can't just be we think you're AI because you're gonna put the city general fund at at tremendous litigation risk if you do that.

So this puts the onus on the local government. We I think we will have more and more tools to be able to identify that. But it's definitely not just automated or mass engagement. Those are both not only appropriate, but a storied treasure part of our of our system of civic engagement in the state.

And my second question is the opposition talks primarily about fraud. Is that something that we're trying to stop? Is that what we're we're aiming at or just non human beings?

Yeah. We're really focused on the non non human beings. So I just wanna point out the bill was introduced before the South Coast issue. The South Coast issue just has has become, you know, probably probably the principal example here, but it is about the human being. So what we what we saw in the Bay Area case that was mentioned was and to some extent in the South Coast was the was AI pretending to be a specific an actual person.

Not just being a human being, but a but a an identifiable real person who they were not and had no connection to. That is fraudulent and, you know, the the the the courts will hopefully be here be hearing this specific case in that instance. But it isn't just about that.

In fact, it's that that the the mere fact that you have even, like, synthetic people that is not real people, but that a a AI has created and pretending to be a random person living in a address that may or may not exist in in in in in Ukayba, for example, that that the bill would gets to that as well. You don't have to pretend to be a specific human being.

It is the fact that it it is a independent autonomous robot for whom the task, the actual feedback is not generated at any point down the agentic chain by a human being. So simply dealing with fraud is is insufficient. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Any other comments from the dias?

I just thought that you were voice

Okay. We're we're on Senator Cabaldon's S P eleven fifty nine file item number 10. Any other comments from the dais? I'll make a quick comment. You know, while I certainly disagree with the policy that the South Coast Air District was trying to pass And, I'm glad that that failed.

You know, understanding that the science today certainly doesn't support that natural gas fired, residential stoves and hot water heaters are gonna end the planet. I do agree that the the process in which it died was inappropriate and I'll be supporting the bill today. And I know that there will be some issues that you'll be working on going forward.

But I've I've been amazed in talking to my colleagues on my city council, where I used to serve on how much of this is actually taking place and they're being inundated. And I think we've seen it in our emails here.

You know, there's there's been a couple of issues where in one day, I've received 1,400 emails on one specific issue on a committee that I'm not even on. And, you know, understanding that those are generated machine generated. So I'll be supporting your bill. Sarah Tobel.

I I'm not sure whether or not we've had a motion, but I'm I'm a proud co author of the bill and we'll be happy to move the bill if it hasn't been moved already.

We'll take that as the motion. Any other comments from the dias before we turn it over to the close? Senator Cobalt, you may close.

Thank you. And thanks and thank you for the for the rich discussion. I just I wanted to just close on the on the one other suggestions about how to grapple with the problem from from the opposition. Because I think it it it it it misunderstands the scale of what we're talking about.

So, so for example, if you if you're on on a city council or a school board and and and you have an AI generated that is synthetic human being on a Zoom, that is not not pretending to be somebody else.

It's just an an AI an AI agent or set of agents have generated a thousand people to appear on Zoom to testify under under public comment. Yes, you could theoretically I mean, I I as mayor, I never could have got I got away with a lot, but thirty seconds was not one of those things. But you could or you can make it twenty seconds or ten seconds. But this is the point. Right.

Because then real people do not get to be heard. Right? But the the the actions that you must take in order to grapple with the threat of AI means that you have to also take those same actions against the human beings that are the foundation of your community and your democracy. So that that solution just doesn't work when you're talking about thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of of of engagements.

And it's why we have to we have to get at the root issue here, which is that our our California's nation leading, laws about transparency and engagement are for humans.

And that's all this bill seeks to do is to make that clear. And we and local and state government and local governments will continue to work through and the tools will continue to get better and better to make that promise real, but the principle must be established and I or ask for

an I vote. Thank you, Senator Caballon. We have a motion from Senator Ochoa Vogue. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

9 to zero. That goes out.

So honored to be at your inaugural meeting. I see you roped in half of West Sac on the last item, so we got that going for us.

Your bill is gonna be a collector's item.

Oh, someday. Great. Great. That's what we're going for here. Cherry, okay?

Alright. I am here and have some witnesses with me to present SB 1050. First of all, thank your staff chairman who they have been excellent. We will continue working with them as we go here. This, bill, we call it the advertisement integrity act, requires advertisements that use AI generated performers to include a disclosure if the performer is synthetic.

Advancements in artificial intelligence have led to the creation of synthetic performers. These synthetics are human like digital figures that both intentionally and convincingly appear, speak, move, and act like real people. The use of synthetics in advertisements is not only misleading to consumers in that they believe that they are hearing from a real person endorsing a product or demonstrating use of a product, but it also threatens California's creative economy.

Without a disclosure requirement, the risk of consumer deception increases, while at the same time, severely jeopardizing opportunities for real workers. With the evolution of AI and its impact on commercial media, we must ensure that our advertising laws are updated to both protect workers and consumers as new technology continues to advance, which is the point of this committee that we find that balance.

SB 1050 does this by requiring both reasonable and appropriate disclosures when a synthetic person is depicted as a real person in an advertisement. This bill is sponsored by SAG AFTRA and supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, Tech Equity Action, and the National AI Youth Council, amongst others. And with me as witnesses today, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow, here to testify is Michelle Hurd, an actress and secretary treasurer of SAG AFTRA, as well as Shane Guzman who's representing SAG AFTRA and the Teamsters.

Welcome. You'll you'll each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Michelle Hurd. I am an actor and secretary treasurer of screen of SAG AFTRA. And I'm here on behalf of the 160,000 human beings who make their living with their real human faces and human voices.

I've spent my life in the media business, so I know how persuasive a human face can be. And my colleagues and I take it seriously whether we will agree to take a role, say a certain line, or sell a certain product. We won't agree to say or do things that are contrary to our values or promote harmful products. But in the age of deepfakes and hyper realistic digital clones, anyone has access to technology that can produce realistic looking human faces, voices, and performances. And anyone can

make those very real looking human anyone can make those very real looking humans say or do things that a real person might not ever agree to say or do. And because what's being leveraged is that ultra powerful persuasive tool, a human face. With these synthetics have that potential to cause real harm to individuals, to families, and to communities. Californians deserve to be protected from deception. If you're being sold something by a machine, you should know about it.

We must mandate disclaimers when synthetic performers are used in advertisements. And we must continue to acknowledge and defend the value of real human expertise and artistry in all media and creative work. Thank you, Senator Ashby, for the your leadership into introducing Senate bill 1050. The AI Advertisement Integrity Act updates existing laws to reflect new realities. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Shane Guzman here with really two purposes. One, I'm here on behalf of SAG AFTRA to answer any, technical questions if if there are any. But also here on behalf of Teamsters California. We have thousands of members here in California and across The United States in the entertainment industry. And just happy to be here to support, our brothers and sisters in SAG AFTRA.

To you know really build in appropriate guardrails around you know emerging technology that's gonna affect members in the workplace. And we think this particular bill is appropriate for that. Doesn't outlaw technology but certainly puts appropriate guardrails on it. And with that, we want your vote.

And thank you both. Other witnesses in support, and they would like to identify themselves for the record.

Mister chair, member Sarah Flock, California Federation of Labour Unions in support. Thank you.

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

Alright. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Please come forward to the table and you'll both have two minutes as well.

Chair Cabaldon, members of the committee, Melissa Ptak with the Motion Picture Association on behalf of our member companies, the leading producers and distributors of motion pictures, television, and streaming programs. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. And for the meetings we've had with committee staff, with the author staff, and with the sponsors of the bill. We have a long, and productive history of working with the Screen Actors Guild AFTRA on a series, a number of these kinds of issues.

Including digital replicas a couple of years ago.

And, we look forward to continuing that conversation and that dialogue and resolving, those issues, optimistically. Let me just highlight our concerns. SP 1050 imposes a disclosure requirement on any ad that uses a synthetic performer. The obligation is required for anyone who creates or disseminates such an ad. As such, broadcasters, whether national or local, or an operator of a streaming platform that is ad supported, could be liable under this bill.

It is important to note that California's existing false advertising law recognizes that publishers and broadcasters can't be responsible for policing all the ads that are placed on their services and on their networks, and provides an exemption for them at BNP code section one seven five zero two. This bill should be consistent with and not in conflict with existing law, either by including this provision in the existing false advertising law or providing a similar exemption.

We also believe the bill is overbroad in that it requires that any ad that uses any synthetic performer be subject to the disclosure requirement, whether or not it is misleading. MPA shares the author and co sponsor's concern about the use of synthetic performers that might deceive or mislead the consumer. But the failure to label an ad that uses a synthetic performer and doesn't mislead shouldn't lead to the punishment, as would happen under SB 1050.

MPAs requested amendments including others that, we submitted in our memo, track a similar bill enacted in 2025 in New York. California doesn't need a different standard and we would urge that this bill align with the law in New York. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify and we look forward to con continuing to work with, the sponsors and the author.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet, and respectful opposing list amended position on SB 1050. We appreciate the author's goal of promoting transparency and agree consumers should not be misled. Our concerns are about ensuring the bill is targeted, workable, and aligned with existing law.

The definition of synthetic performer synthetic performer is very broad and could capture routine tools like CGI and centered editing. That would require disclosures even when there's no realistic risk of consumer confusion leading to over labeling. When everything is labeled, disclosures can become less meaningful. This bill requires disclosure regardless whether, reasonable consumer might be misled, that departs from long standing advertising law and risk regulating, clearly fictional or incidental content. A material a materiality standard would improve, focus on disclosures that matter the most.

Sorry. So we thank the author and our office for their time and commitment to this issue and look forward to working with our office and this committee as the bill moves forward today. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Are there and does anyone else wish to identify themselves for the record if you're in opposition to your name and organization if any?

Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce. I'm opposing if amended.

Aidan Downey with the Computer Communications Industry Association in opposition. Thank you.

Jonathan Aaron on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers in opposition.

Alright. Then we'll return it to the committee. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Senator Ochoa, both?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when I read the bill summary "requires advertisements to use an artificial intelligence generated person who is not real to clearly disclose that the person is synthetic," I thought, "great." This sounds like a great idea. But then of course, it's the nuances that go into it that make the bill a little more merit to look into the details.

So here are the concerns that I have. First of all, I think one of the concerns was mentioned the fact that I'm all for disclosure of using somebody that's synthetic. You know, you should be. I kind of liken that when I read it to, you know, the disclaimers that we have on on commercials currently that says, doctor portrayals, you know, not an actual patient or discloses that, you know, basically they they turn actor, not an actual doctor in in the commercial.

That's what I likened it to and I thought, "yeah, it makes it makes sense to do it that way." And that's that was my initial concern.

But then, as we went a little further, the concern was, you know, why not limiting the requirement to cases where the synthetic performer is a primary feature of the advertisement or used to promote the product and not just every single portrayer. And I'm just trying to figure out why a little more narrow. Because it seems overly broad. And I think a good point was made by the opposition as far as narrowing it down. And I forget what the the narrowed point was though.

How did you define that? Through the chair. Sorry. I apologize. Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Is that okay? Thank you.

Just to to align it with existing California law on false advertising, which exempts the dissemination, you know, by broadcasters who receive an ad and and don't have the ability to investigate. So to align it that way.

And I thought the center

And the deception. Yes.

Materiality or or

I didn't address material but I did address only those ads that were deceptive or misleading. Was it your Yeah.

I didn't Okay. Drive.

Yeah. Okay.

So the determines if omitted, the misstated information could influence decisions users, make a significant enough to require correction or disclosure. So we're asking that the standard be such that it doesn't include all instances of AI, where a reasonable person may not be misled or harmed by it.

So that was one question. And then my second half and, would was the other concern as aligning it with current law already in place.

Okay. So first of all, this bill is modeled after as it one of them said, I think, actually, opposition stated after a New York 2025 bill, which is slightly different than ours. We'll continue to work on it with the opposition. I think there are a couple areas in there where we can work together on a few little changes. But where I would draw the line is this.

The idea here is to protect the end user. So while I appreciate everyone at the table, they're not my audience. My audience is my constituency. And I'll use myself as an example here. If you're gonna put together an ad that targets me and has a bunch of people who look like me and I think, hey, there's a bunch of 50 year old moms.

I totally relate with this group. And then I later find out none of them were real people. They were all computer generated. But I was supposed to believe that they were people just like me on that TV screen telling me, hey, this product will really help you at this point in your life with something that you're dealing with. And we know because we're just like you.

And that's not what's really happening. That's a manipulation. That's AI. And so I will not narrow the bill beyond that piece because I'm trying to deal with deception. And I'm trying to deal with truth in advertising.

And I came into this space as sort of my second or third AI. Christian's probably bored of me at this point, on these bills. When I met an actress who was a voice over actress for a Disney movie, whose voice had been simulated and used. So somebody took her voice and then made an ad with it instead of paying her for her voice, which I'm sure she's spent a lifetime tuning and training and working on and then had God given talent on top of that.

So there are two components to this.

The deception piece and then protecting people who this is their craft. You can't just take it from you can't make somebody that looks like her so that I believe that it's her talking to me and it's not her. It's a pretend faker. It's not Christopher Cabaldon's really, it's just his voice. That's deception.

So this bill seeks to address that deceptive component. There are components I think we can continue to work on this as our first committee stop. I'm sure Christian will is willing to stay with me as we go. We probably will make some author amends as we move forward. I think we will address some of the issues that I have heard today, particularly in compliance with the New York bill.

And I have some familiarity with BPED law, as you know. And I will use my former BPED chair hat to make sure that we're we're in compliance. But I won't step beyond addressing the deception and protecting people's talents, skills, and and and employment.

And I don't know what the current law is in place as far as using somebody else's voice or imagery without the consent, or at least without compensation. I I really don't know what the law is. I'm just currently looking at this particular law. Yeah. And as I mentioned, I'm all about the consumer protections.

I think we should be protecting against false advertising. And and like I said, the disclosure part makes absolute sense to me. But I was just thinking that maybe just narrowing it down a bit for me to be comfortable to support the bill would be to to narrow it down perhaps to the actors, the AI actors generated that are advertising the use say of a skin product and they AI generated person with the perfect flawless skin. Right? And it's AI generated.

So having a disclosure in that component because it would be false advertising saying that," hey, this is what your face is gonna look like if you use this cream." Right? Kind of narrowing it down to those specific AI generated product advertising.

I think the commitment I can make to you, Senator, is that I will continue to work on that piece. As I stand here right now, I'm not willing to make an amendment really specific.

No. No. No. Yes. Yes. Yes.

But I think you're not far off on the same page as me.

I just wanna be.. I want there to be truth in evidence. Actually, your description of the disclaimer sort of like a person who's dressed like a doctor, but they aren't really a doctor. And you have to tell people that's not a real doctor. It's not a real dentist.

Doctor portrayal.

Yeah. Three out of five dentists agree, but this guy isn't actually a dentist. That's that's how I vision this bill too. And so we we I think there's still some room for some movement and some conversation with these groups and that we're happy to have and some of the groups who who also aren't at the table but had some concerns. We're we're in conversations with them.

But I'm just letting you know on the front and kinda where my stop point is.

Yeah. No. No. No. And then the current law, of course, modeling what we the protections that we currently have In place would be great. So I will not be able to support the bill today, but I look forward to seeing the the your future, amendments and how you progress with the bill. And I hope that I'm able to support it at the at the very end.

But I do absolutely completely agree with you as far as making sure that the disclosure because even at this point, I have to look at anything that's generated right now with AI and ask myself, is that AI generated or is that a real person? My kids can tell better than I can.

And so it might be a generational thing. I don't know. But technology is so advanced and so amazing. I mean people look real. There's absolutely no.

So I think the protections are absolutely needed. At least the disclosures

Yeah.

Are absolutely needed. So I look forward to seeing the bill as it moves forward.

Senator Reyes.

Thank you. This is a really important bill. Trying to get ahead of the problems and the threats of AI is extremely important and I think that as was noted in the analysis, the threats to create to the creative workforce. This is really important if we're if our job is to protect people, then we need to protect people. And it's their image, it's their voice, it's who they are.

They've created an image if if they're in a movie. They created this particular image then when they advertise, it's their image. It doesn't belong to somebody else. Also protecting, as you mentioned earlier, the deception of the consumer. Because AI goes so far, they know exactly what it is the consumer wants to see and they create what that consumer wants to see.

They don't care oftentimes, whose image and whose voice they're going to use. I think this is extremely important. I think that, as was noted by my colleague, of course, we're going to hear the opposition. And I think the opposition helps us to to to reign in whatever problems there might be in in a particular bill. Sometimes I don't like the opposition.

But sometimes they really do help, you know, iron sharpens iron. And and if you're able to use that opposition to try to figure out what needs to to be done to make it a better bill. I think that's always good and you're an author who who does that. You work hard on your bills. So with that, I would move the bill.

Thank you. Alright.

Thank you, Senator Reyes. Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank the author for bringing the bill. It's an important and timely bill. I've done a lot of work in this space as you some of my colleagues may have noticed. And I certainly have worked in the past with the opposition to some great extent.

But I would note, I think it's important with respect to this particular piece of proposed legislation that circumstances have changed substantially. I mean, when we look at the statutory exemption on disseminators and broadcasters, some of which goes back quite a ways with respect to what we used to call false advertising, quote unquote. And I think even the legal definition of that has evolved a little bit today in a contemporary sense. It's very different.

The nature and scope of the perpetration of false information and the impact that it may have is at a whole new level as we like to say and I think is the the author pointed out.

And at some point with respect to looking at what's the duty of care we wanna impose on people who are providing the platform or technology to disseminate, to move, distribute, to air in the old the old term. Is there such a thing anymore? I don't even know but it has changed and has evolved. So the scope here is very different because of the nature of the technology and how prolific it is. And so the degree I would argue of deception here is something altogether new.

And I think the author recognizes that. And so I hope there's a way to come to that. I mean just being fair. I think it may be something, we call it a case of first impression ultimately here. These circumstances are new and unique and impactful.

And I think that that's an important thing that should not be lost here, as we move forward and and I will be supporting the bill. Thank you, mister chairman.

What else? Alright. I I am also gonna be supporting the bill today. I I I to the maximum extent we can, we try to reach consonants with at least some other states that that share our common values. So I Aye, you know, I appreciate the author's commitment to to take a look at New York even further and determine where there are areas where we can send common signals to to the industry and and and that and I'm happy that's those are are great.

And I I personally, you know, I'm I'm not looking forward to ads that if there are 50 people in the background in the, you know, that would that are not material to the actual thing that's happening. I don't I don't wanna see, you know, a marker on each, you know, each, you know, two millimeter person. I'm not looking forward to that, but I also understand that part of part of the point of the bill is to try to discourage that from happening in the first place.

And that's how that that like so many other issues that are that are and will be before this committee, that those are tough tough tough issues to balance as we're trying to get ahead, catch up, manage the transition. And so we may be in a different place on this in two years from now.

But as as an as an initial step forward, this seems well well reasoned and the author definitely has made all the all the right commitments in order to continue to work on the on those elements that that are that are missing. But I think that New York, this question about materiality, those those deserve your continued your continued attention as you as you go forward from here. So we have a motion from Senator Reyes. But first, Senator Ashley, would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you so much. And I think I know, would just like to say I really appreciate, Senator Reyes' comments in particular because I do try very hard to work with opposition. I I agree with you. Opus maybe it's our law background.

But listening to the opposition can always make your argument and your bill stronger and more applicable. And I think, often helps with implementation later because these are the same people we're gonna ask to help us make sure this happens. That being said, I just wanna be clear about my intentions. We wanna protect people here, both the actors and the receivers of advertising. So I respectfully, request an aye vote today.

Alright. Committee assistant, please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to judiciary. Senators Cabaldon?

Aye.

Cabaldon, aye. Jones? Aye. Gonzales? Gonzales, Aye.

McNerney? Okay. McNerney, Aye. Ocho Bogues? Me.

Padilla? Aye. Padilla, Aye. Reyes? Aye.

Reyes, Aye. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, Aye. Weiner?

Aye. Weiner, aye. Two seven to zero.

I'm gonna vote. Alright. Seven to zero. The vote's seven to zero, so we'll put that bill on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thanks, colleagues. That.

Are we not gonna have to put him on call or Sorry.

Are we not gonna have to put him on call or Sorry.

It's seven to zero but the bill is out. We're we're not going on call on that one. Thank you very much. Alright.

Our final bill, batting Colina for this inaugural hearing of the committee. Congratulations. Senator Gonzalez with SB 1146.

Thank you, mister chair members. I'm here to present SB 1146, which will protect Californians from the deceptive AI generated health advertisements. Very similar from the former bill we we heard, by Senator Ashby. This rapid advancement of AI and generative AI technology has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish, as we know, between real and fake content. We do not want medical scams happening.

We don't want people thinking that dietary supplements by a fake doctor will somehow, make them, you know, a lot, you know, skinnier or what have you. Whatever whatever these, this generative AI doctor says. And s p eleven forty six is a critical step toward protecting, consumers from these deceptive practices. Testifying in support, I have doctor Anna Yap, the vice speaker of the California Medical Association, and George Sorey from SCMA for technical assistance. And I respectfully ask for nigh vote.

Welcome. You all have two minutes.

Great. Thanks. Sorry. Great. Thank you so much. On the truth on the topic of truth and advertising, I am a real doctor. Doctor Anna Yap.

I'm an emergency physician here in Sacramento. And I'm here on behalf of the California Medical Association, proud sponsor of SB 1146 by Senator Lina Gonzalez. Thank you so much, for your leadership on this very important issue, and thank you so much to the committee and the staff for your thoughtful work on this important issue.

SB 1146 seeks to crack down on the growing use of artificial intelligence to create fraudulent advertisements for health related products that use a physician's image without their knowledge or consent. Across the Internet today, we are seeing a rise of highly realistic deep fake doctors used in advertisements.

These are videos that appear to show trusted physicians endorsing medical products are entirely fabricated by AI. National reporting has documented how widespread and convincing these scams have become. In a documented case, a physician discovered that an AI generated version of her was promoting supplements online, and the video was so realistic that her own mother believed it was her. If a pea if a physician's own family cannot tell the difference, how can we expect our patients to? This is how convincing this technology has become.

Patients, especially older adults and those with chronic conditions, are being targeted and misled. They are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on effective and unsafe products. Worse, some are delaying or avoiding legitimate medical care because they believe they found a miracle solution online. As an emergency physician, I can tell you that patients do present later and sicker after relying on misinformation they believed was credible. These scams are particularly dangerous because they exploit one of the most powerful tools in medicine, which is trust.

As physicians, our recommendations carry weight. Patients rely on us to guide decisions about their health, their medications, and sometimes even life or death choices. When bad actors use AI to put words in our mouths, they are weaponizing that trust for profit. SB 1146 is a common sense targeted response to the problem.

If an advertisement uses AI to generate or significantly alter a physician's likeness, including using their image or their voice, It must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure informing consumers that the content was created using AI.

The bill also empowers the attorney general to take enforcement action against fraudulent actors and gives physicians the ability to defend themselves when their identity is used without consent. Importantly, this bill does not restrict legitimate uses of AI in health care. It focuses specifically on transparency in advertising and consumer protection. At its core, this bill is about protecting patients and preserving trust in health information. Thank you.

Thank you. Doctor. Moses and Mr Sores.

Just here for questions. Thank

you. Alright. Are there witnesses in support? I would like to identify your name and organization, if any.

Thank you, mister chair and members. MJDS on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in support.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, the California Podiatric Medical Association, and the California Society of Pathologists all in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

Lawrence Gaiden on behalf of the California Dental Association in support. Thank you.