Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection

Welcome to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection hearing. Before we welcome our first author to present, I wanna announce, that Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry will be joining the committee today in the absence of Assembly Member Pellerin.

Who is here to present her bill but will not be able to stay. So you'll be confused when she gets up to present. We and I will also add that AB 2027 award has been pulled by the author.

We have 18 bills on the agenda today with seven bills on the consent calendar. So thank you to the amazing staff, both of the committee and the Republican caucus who works together, get seven bills on the consent calendar.

Those are AB 1954 by Assemblymember Ward, which is due past due to appropriations. AB 2025 Pellerin due to appropriations. AB 2043 Calderon due to past due to appropriations. 2278 Ávila Farías due to past due to appropriations.

2545 by Schiavo due past appropriations. And 2583 by Hoover due past appropriations. So when we get a quorum, we can move the consent calendar.

To effectively manage our time today, we'll be limiting testimony two minutes for witnesses in support and two minutes in opposition on each bill. Each witness, can figure out hopefully how to navigate that, although I can help if necessary.

After the support witnesses and the opposition witnesses, we will, of course, allow anybody in the room to express their name, position, and, organization.

And also adding that on our, website, you can provide lengthy input to the bills, which all of us review, so we invite you to do so. So we will get started. We will take up miss Pellerin's bill first, which is AB 1988.

I did not call other Members. You were here waiting. When you're ready,

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'd like to thank the chair and committee staff for working diligently on the amendments that were recently processed for this bill.

AI companion chatbots are rapidly becoming a place where people turn to for emotional support including during moments when they are experiencing acute mental distress.

What often starts as an innocuous conversation as the chatbot helps with the user's daily tasks turns into conversations where users confide in the chatbots about their own mental health struggles.

For a society in which loneliness is recognized as a public health crisis, emotional support from chatbots is an easy answer.

Chatbots are available around the clock. They are immediate responders and can be a safe space for intimate expression without judgment. But artificial intelligence is not emotional intelligence.

Far from being therapists, AI chatbots are incident language simulators susceptible to producing false information and are often designed to agree with users rather than challenge them.

The committee analysis lists several instances in which chatbots were contributing factor in a user's suicide or act of violence against others. Since 2023, dozens of cases have been documented in which a chatbot encouraged the user to isolate themselves from others.

Validated suicidal ideation, gave detailed advice to the user on methods of suicide, drafted suicide notes, and even encouraged the user to kill themselves.

In other cases, chatbots reinforce the user's paranoia or a psychosis justified the user's decision to harm or kill others and help plan the user's attack. These cases have proven that even with an AI company establishes safety protocols, those safeguards are easily circumvented.

As people turn to chatbots for advice on acts of violence, it's paramount that we do not expect AI systems to regulate themselves.

This bill titled the preventing AI user self endangerment PAWS Act requires chatbot operators to establish minimum standards for addressing safety threats by users and ensures that prompts requesting dangerous advice are flagged for human review.

As part of those minimum standards when the user expresses harmful intent, the bill requires the chatbot display the 988 and crisis lifeline and a notice that the chat will pause if prompted again for this harmful advice.

If the system detects a second crisis expression from the user, AB 1988 requires that the chatbot display the 988 line and pause the chat until a human moderator reviews the content of the crisis expression and determines the appropriate course of action.

In doing so, AB 988 breaks the pattern of dependency, encourages users to call 988, and prevents the worst outcomes of AI use from occurring. With me testifying in support is Katrina Baker, a crisis counselor with the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline.

Chair Bauer-Kahan and Members of the committee, my name is Katrina Baker. I work in technology, AI, and adult learning. My dad, Mark Baker, died by suicide. And for the past five years, I volunteered as a 988 crisis counselor with Didi Hirsch to honor his memory.

I'm here today in support of AB 1988, a bill I drafted to address a gap I've seen both in technology and in crisis work. More people are turning to AI for emotional support.

A recent nationally representative study found that about one in eight adolescents and young adults use chat AI chatbots for mental health advice and among 18 to 21 year olds, that rises to about one in five.

At the same time, the research is clear that these tools are not equipped to handle crisis safely.

Stanford reported that AI mental health tools can introduce failures with dangerous consequences, And Brown researchers found that chatbots can systematically violate core mental health ethics standards, including in crisis situations. AB 1988 is a measured response.

Under the bill, when a companion chatbot detects a credible crisis expression, it must encourage immediate human support and other limited intervention requirements triggered only in high risk moments.

These rely on capabilities companies already use today, including contextual detection, rate limiting, and session controls. These bill this bill does not ban companion chatbots. It creates a basic safety standard for foreseeable preventable harm.

In moments of suicidal crisis, minutes matter and human connection matters. AB 1988 helps redirect vulnerable users away from prolonged chatbot engagement and toward real human support. I respectfully ask for your A vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in here in support of this bill, please come up name, organization, and position. Hold on, sir. I'm not sure that mic is on. Let's make sure it's on. There we go.

You got it. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Tom Renfrie on behalf of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Vanessa Kahina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Thank you. Anyone here in primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, anyone who wants to register opposition to this bill? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the dais. Okay.

Seeing no comments or questions, I wanna thank the author for her work on this. I know this is deeply personal to you and the world has changed and continues to change and focusing on how we can protect people from dying by suicide.

And frankly, the mental health crisis that surrounds it, I think is a passion for you. It is your life's work and it is so critically important. So I wanna thank you for your leadership in this space beyond just this bill because it will change the world.

As you know, I really struggled with this because I don't believe that I mean, there's a reason we have licensed professionals who are the ones who are supposed to be providing mental health care. Right?

We don't just let anyone put themselves out as a therapist and provide that service here in California. And so I don't believe the chatbot should be providing service a licensed professional is intended to provide in the first place.

And then you get into these horrific, horrific stories that both of you referenced where not only are they seeking mental health guidance, but then the chatbots as they are want to do start to hallucinate and provide advice and content that is just beyond the

pale of what should be safe. It's interesting. A few years ago on this committee, we were hearing testimony about a website that was guiding people to die by suicide. And now we're seeing it happen in these chat bots.

And any of that should be absolutely our duty to stop because our highest duty is to protect Californians, and especially our most vulnerable. And so I don't want them to even do this.

Right? I was like, they should be designed to never have these conversations. But we are at a place where those safety guardrails are not in place.

They are not foolproof and we are, you know, we have children in our own state like Adam Rain who have taken their lives as a result of these chatbots.

And so, I think that the model you have here that really starts to shut down the chatbot, which will force individuals into real relationship with humans who can help them, I think, is a first step.

But we have so much work to do in this space and we should be putting products in front of Californians that are safe by design and I think that is ultimately an additional piece that this need is needed here, but this is really important and I think will save lives.

So I thank you. With that, would you like to close?

I'm grateful to you for all your work in this space as well as the drafter of the nine eight eight originally. It's really changing lives every day and saving lives, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

We do not have a quorum yet, so we will take a motion as soon as we do, but thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Mr. Lowenthal is here. Mr. Lowenthal, you are next. Are you ready? Perfect.

So we will hear AB 1709. Mister Lowenthal , when you're ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 179, which would set a minimum age of 16 years old for users to create or to maintain a social media account on platforms that have been determined to have had to have

harmful features for adolescents. This bill also establishes an Esafety Commission, a long overdue oversight authority tasked with implementing this policy along with advising the legislature on digital safety standards and initiatives going forward.

I wanna begin by acknowledging that this bill is not an effort I've undertaken alone.

I would like to thank the bipartisan group of joint authors and coauthors whose support and partnership have helped make this effort possible, and I would like to speak, more about this special coalition in my close.

I also want to acknowledge the various stakeholders representing different perspectives for the countless hours that they have spent meeting with me and my staff, and that includes the Esafety commissioner in Australia, leaders representing marginalized

communities, education leaders, experts in the field of pediatric medicine, science, psychology, and parents throughout the state.

And let's not forget the platforms themselves who are full of conscientious and thoughtful people, so many of whom are parents as well.

While there are many areas where we find where we struggle to find precise alignment, everyone claims that we need to do significantly more to protect kids online immediately. And I'm confident that through the year, we can find common ground on that.

It's not just us in California that recognizes that this is an issue that needs fixing. The whole world with two dozen countries acting similarly in real time, multiple states in The United States following suit and courtroom setting precedent identifying the individual and

collective harms. What's interesting is that the conclusions are the same regardless of continent, regardless of religion, system of governance, race, socioeconomic level, population size.

It's rare that nations as diverse as Australia, Spain, Indonesia, Denmark, and Brazil align on breakthrough policy, and yet here we are. We can learn together, and we can learn from each other to keep up with the rapidly changing online world.

So how did we get here? I cannot think of any other trillion dollar industry that we would allow to knowingly design products that exploit the developmental vulnerabilities of children, profit from compulsive use, and then claim no responsibility for the harm.

Yet that is exactly what has happened with social media. A substantial and growing body of research shows that children 16 are especially vulnerable to addictive digital environments given that their brains have not yet developed the executive functioning skills

necessary for impulse control, for emotional regulation, and long term decision making. So this bill recognizes a very simple truth. If a product is intentionally engineered to capture and hold a children's attention through compulsive design features, the legislature has a

responsibility to step in and protect young people. Recent court decisions have helped to support this claim in a big way. One of the most groundbreaking cases was just a few weeks ago, 2026 Los Angeles Superior Court decision, KGM versus Meta et al.

In that case, a jury found that Meta and Google could be held legally responsible for designing platforms in ways that addict children and contribute to mental health harms.

Of note TikTok and Snap, both defendants in the case reached settlements with the plaintiff before the trial kicked off.

For the companies that didn't settle, the jury concluded that they were negligent in how their products were designed and that these design choices were a major factor in causing depression, anxiety, and compulsive use.

The plaintiff began using platform at age six and described being on social media, quote, all day long. What makes this case especially significant is that it was not about harmful posts or speech online. It was not about specific content.

Instead, it focused on product features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithms specifically designed to keep children engaged as long as possible.

The ruling determined that social media companies may be held accountable for addictive product design even when the content itself is protected.

The evidence of intentional design is overwhelming. Internal TikTok documents state plainly that, quote, the product in itself has baked into it compulsive use.

Another TikTok executive acknowledged that children watch because, quote, the algorithm is really good, but warned that what it means for sleep and eating and moving around the room and looking at somebody's eyes.

TikTok's own internal research group, TikTank, reported that compulsive usage correlates with, quote, loss of analytical skills, memory formation, contextual thinking, conversational depth, empathy, and increased anxiety, while also interfering with essential

responsibilities like sleep, like schoolwork, and connecting with loved ones. These are not outside critics making accusations. These are the company's own internal findings describing the harms their products create. Meta's internal communications tell the same story.

One internal email stated that the company's, quote, overall goal remains total teen time spent, end quote. While another summarized that youth strategy even more bluntly, quote, the young ones are the best ones.

You want to bring people to your service young and early. Senior metadata scientists warned that colleagues that, quote, some of our users are addicted to our products and compared engagement tactics to slot machines because, quote, intermittent rewards are the

most effective. And report enforcing behaviors excuse me, reinforcing behaviors that are hard to extinguish when they provide little value. And in another internal researcher chat, employees describe Instagram, quote, as a drug.

Quote, we're basically pushers and warn that many users were trapped in, quote, mindless scrolling and ads. Again, these are not political talking points. These are admissions from the people who built these systems.

Even Facebook's founding president, Sean Parker, publicly acknowledged, the business model years ago. He explained that the design philosophy behind these applications was to ask, quote, how do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as

possible? He described the use of likes and comments as a, quote, dopamine hit and called the system a, quote, social validation feedback loop that exploits vulnerabilities in human psychology.

He further stated that the creators understood this consciously and did it anyway. That should alarm every policymaker responsible for protecting children.

The science confirms what internal documents reveal. A 2026 chapter in the World Happiness Report by Jonathan Haidt and Zach Rausch concluded that social media is harming adolescents at its large a scale

large enough to produce population level changes in mental health and well-being.

A 2023 longitudinal MRI study published in JAMA Pediatrics following sixth and seventh grade students over three years found that the habitual checking of social media was associated with changes in brain development that increased sensitivity to social rewards.

In other words, repeated checking behavior may train the adolescent brain to become more reactive to reward clues over time. Additional neurological studies are equally concerning.

One study found the problematic Internet use was associated with structural alterations in the brain reward system, particularly among young females.

Other students have found cognitive similarities between Internet addiction and smartphone addiction, particularly in areas involving cognitive control.

A 2025 study further examined the neuropsychological impact of social media algorithms on teen addiction and raised significant ethical concerns about platforms that optimize engagement at the expense of adolescent well-being.

These findings reinforce that this is not simply a matter of preference. It's not simply a matter of parenting style. It is a matter of brain development and public health.

The mental health impacts are also clear. Studies consistently associate problematic social media use with anxiety, depression, poor sleep, and psychological distress.

A study published in the internal, Inter International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found that problematic social media was linked to poor sleep quality and psychological distress.

2025 study published in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction found that a fear of missing out and psychological distress can mediate problematic social media and smartphone use.

Research also found that describe problematic Internet use as a growing concern for adolescent health in the digital era. When sleep declines, attention weakens, academic performance drops, and anxiety rises.

The consequences are just not abstract. These consequences show up in our classrooms. They show up in our homes. They show up in our communities.

So this bill establishes a minimum age of 16 because 16 is a reasonable and evidence based safeguard is determined by the pediatric community.

By age 16, adolescents have stronger executive functioning, better emotional regulation, and a greater capacity to recognize manipulative systems than younger children.

We already set age thresholds for products and environments that pose developmental risks. We do so not to punish youth, but to protect them during vulnerable stages of growth.

Social media platforms built around compulsive engagement deserve similar common sense guardrails. Establishing a minimum age requirement is not a new concept. In fact, there's a long list of products that we determine are not safe for use by young people.

We do not let minors gamble. We prohibit young people from buying alcohol or going to the bar until they're 21. We do not let minors buy an extensive list of other products or go certain places alone or operate a vehicle until they hit a certain age and can pass multiple

tests proving they are ready. Notably, for this committee, we do not let minors vote. Kids do not have the ability to determine what is appropriate or safe for them to use.

Social media has demonstrated to have inherent harms the way it is developed. That is why the bill carefully lays out what platforms are covered. If a platform wants to change its features and implement age appropriate designs and transform their algorithms, they can.

They can carve themselves out of this bill by changing their algorithm and harmful features. This is a business decision. They may continue to serve under 16 if they carve out harmful features. Very simple.

This bill also recognizes that current age restrictions have failed. Today, many platforms rely on self attestation, asking a child to click a button and claim that they are at least 13 years old. That's not age verification.

It shifts the burden onto children and parents while allowing billion dollar companies to continue profiting from underage use. This legislation instead requires reasonable age assurance measures, prohibits the use of age verification data for advertising or profiling,

and requires deletion of underage accounts and associated personal information. Importantly, the bill creates an Esafety Advisory Commission within the office of the attorney general because technology changes faster than the law.

New platforms, new algorithms, new addictive design features emerge constantly.

California needs a standing expert body to evaluate age assurance technologies, to monitor compliance, to assess privacy impacts, to gather feedbacks from parents and youth, to study harmful design practices, and to recommend future reforms.

As consumers, we just have no control over product development, no way to meaningfully weigh in. This is the youngest group of Californians that we're talking about, and they are spending an extraordinary portion of their formative years online.

The American Pediatric Association estimates that teenagers spend on average five hours a day on social media. That number is a conservative estimate. Other studies point to closer to eight to nine hours.

This means even if we take the number of five hours a day, there are millions of children in California spending eight, nine, ten hours a day on social media that is more than school. I'm gonna say that again.

There are millions of children in California that are spending more time on social media than they're spending in school. Millions. There is no other unsupervised environment where children spend that much time with so little accountability.

When children are in school for those same hours, we demand train results. We demand safety standards, curriculum review, parental involvement, and public oversight. We rightly insist on rules because we know prolonged exposure shapes development.

So why would we accept less protection in the digital spaces where our children spend just as much time if not more time?

If a school knowingly expose students to an addict an addictive product linked to serious mental health harms and thousands of preventable deaths each year, no parent would tolerate it for a moment.

Yet social media platforms operate with far less scrutiny. Parents have limited visibility, policymakers are always playing catch up, and no expert body is charged with keeping pace.

Without a dedicated commission, enforcement will always lag behind innovation, and our children will continue to bear the cost. California has led the nation before on privacy and consumer protection. We now have the opportunity to lead on protecting children online.

This bill is not about speech. It is not about content. It is about product design, and it's about public health. When companies admit they are engineering compulsion, targeting young users, and maximizing team time spent, we cannot look the other way.

Before I turn this over to my witnesses, Madam Chair, I want to address concerns rain from organizations and advocates.

I want to say that I hear you. I've read your letters and sincerely appreciate the feedback input, and I appreciate your advocacy. I appreciate the countless conversations you've had with me and my staff.

These perspectives matter to me, and I validate the imaginable spread stress of young people living in oppressive or isolating environments who may rely on online spaces to find support, to find identity, to find community.

It's fundamentally important to me that all young people are able to find connection, find their people, and be recognized and supported.

So I share your concerns unequivocally. This bill is not about cutting young people off from the Internet. It's not about shutting them out or denying them access to critical resources.

This legislation is meant to protect, not to exclude. It targets specific high risk platform designs that rely on addictive features and compulsive use patterns that are proven to harm young people.

We should not accept a false choice between connection and exploitation. Young people deserve the ability to find community online, including all marginalized groups, but not in environments where harm is built into the business model.

Kids cannot be harmed in the process of seeking support, and this is one of the reasons the Esafety Advisory Commission is such an essential part of this bill.

The commission is intended to help ensure there are safe digital spaces where youth and marginalized communities can connect, can avoid social isolation, and access healthy resources.

It will provide expert guidance, study harms, identify safe alternatives so vulnerable youth are supported.

This bill also creates a clear path for platforms to change. If companies redesign their products so that they no longer have these addictive features that harm kids, they can remove themselves from the scope of this policy.

We invite platforms to innovate and create safer products. California can protect children while preserving access to meaningful connection and community.

With that, Madam Chair, I would like to turn it over to Dr. Eri1ca Kristoff Felsenthal, a licensed psychologist, critical and neuropsychology based in Los Angeles who specializes in brain health, stress, and the intersection of social media mental health.

Her work integrates neuroscience, cognitive behavioral therapy, and mindfulness to help individuals and their families better understand and manage the psychological impact of today's digital world.

And I also have Mr. Mark Berkman, the CEO of the organization for social media safety. They're both here to testify in support of AB 179.

Thank you. Before we turn it over to you, we have a quorum. So before anybody leaves, I'm gonna establish a quorum, madam secretary.

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

Perfect. Now two minutes each.

Good afternoon, Chair Bauer-Kahan, Vice Chair Macedo, and distinguished members of the committee. I'm Dr. Erica Kristoff Felsenthal, and I'm a clinical neuropsychologist and also serve on the board of the organization for social media safety.

I'm also the parent of teenagers. In these roles, I see directly what social media is doing to our children. Cyberbullying, harassment, sextortion, fraud, middle schoolers describing exposure to extreme pornography, grooming attempts.

I sat with a 13 year old who didn't understand why a strange adult was asking her for photos. Beeps and pills offered directly to teens through social media. I've seen teen after teen begin with typical content, fitness, lifestyle, fashion.

Without awareness, the algorithm refines her feed, more idealized body content, more comparison, reinforcing dissatisfaction. She intends to scroll briefly, but she stays for hours.

Her sleep fragments. She reports anxiety and persistent self comparison. When she tries to stop, she feels irritable and restless. She's not using social media to connect. She's using it to cope.

These patterns are echoed globally by mental health professionals and reflected in advisories from The US surgeon general and the American Psychological Association, as well as research linking social media use to increased anxiety, depression, self harm,

compulsive use, educational deficits, and eating disorders in adolescents. Social media platforms are not neutral. They're engineered to maximize engagement using variable reward systems similar to slot machines that keep the brain anticipating

the next rewarding piece of content. That anticipation is driven by dopamine based learning systems, which are especially active in adolescence. This design conflicts with healthy development.

AB 179 creates a necessary pause on addictive social media use until the age of 16 when adolescents are better equipped to engage in a safer way.

I ask for your Aye vote today, not only as a psychologist, but as a mother who wants better for her children and for yours. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm the CEO of the Organization for Social Media Safety, a national consumer protection organization safeguarding the public from the harms of social media. The reason for AB 179 must be explicitly clear.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and distinguished members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 179. My name is Marc Berkman.

Social media is harming our children, harming them at catastrophic scale. Nearly all teens use social media and millions of California's younger children are already on these platforms in our research with UCLA involving more than 16,000 teens, half report using

social media for more than five hours a day. The harms are real. In addition to the overwhelming evidence finding substantial adverse mental health outcomes of adolescent use for addictive social media, We see acute harms that include cyberbullying,

harassment, predation, drug trafficking, human trafficking, sextortion, violence, fraud, and dangerous challenges. These are not theoretical.

They are real and impacting millions of California's children. From our work on the ground with students nationwide, we are seeing children harmed year after year while the industry tells this committee it is working on the problem.

We have not seen meaningful improvement in the metrics, meaning ongoing acute injury to our children. Notably, the industry standing in opposition to AB 179 has disregarded these acute harms entirely.

I would emphasize that the industry itself in its opposition cited research finding statistically significant links between adolescent social media use and adverse mental health outcomes and stronger associations when use becomes compulsive,

which is exactly why we need this bill to protect our children from addictive forms of social media.

AB 1709 is necessary to protect our children, and I respectfully urge your Aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. That was impressive. Right on the clock. Anyone else here in support of this bill? Come on up.

Name, organization, and position.

John Bennett with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy in support.

Jordan Curley on behalf of Common Sense Media and strong support.

Crystal Quinns, behalf of the California Commission on Status of Women and Girls, cosponsor of this bill.

Thank you so much. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? If so, please join us.

There are plenty of chairs. I'm enjoying this large room. You all have seats. It's also warmer in here. And you're ready two minutes each.

Hello? Alright. Good morning, Chair and committee Members. My name is Rindala Alijaji, and I'm here on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation voicing our respectful opposition to AB 1709.

Alongside a coalition of LGBTQ advocacy groups, reproductive rights, and youth youth groups EFF has submitted a detailed letter analyzing the constitutional and policy failures of this bill.

AB 1709 jeopardizes the privacy of all users and and substitutes meaningful Internet safety possibilities with an over broadband that carries foreseeable harmful consequences. Chief among them, the silencing of the very voices this bill claims to protect.

I witnessed this dynamic early in my career in legislative advocacy in Florida lobbying against HB 1557, what you may recognize as the Don't Say Gay bill.

The reason that bill faced such fierce resistance is because of the young LGBT Floridians that use social media to organize, find community, and flood the halls of Tallahassee in protest.

Had AB 1709 been law then, those students would have been silenced and would not have reached the masses the way that they did.

Their movement would have lost its pulse way before it had even began. We have seen this power time and time again from the Parkland students who mobilized the March for Our Lives to teenage activists like Greta Thunberg who turned a solitary strike into a global movement.

They all reached me and you through the the very social media platforms this bill aims to platforms are not merely entertainment apps. They are the modern day assembly grounds for the next generation of leaders.

Research consistently shows that online safe spaces are vital lifelines, especially for marginalized youth.

A 2021 national survey found that 70% of LGBTQ adolescents have had access to affirming communities online compared to just 50% at school and 34% at home. By cutting off access to the digital public square, we don't quote unquote protect youth.

We isolate them and dismantle their ability to organize, form community, and participate in our democracy. As federal judges have already warned, banning young people from social media, quote, directly burdens those youth's rights to engage in access speech.

If you wanna wrap up. Thank you.

California should lead the way by by empowering youth through digital literacy and civic engagement, not by following Florida's lead in restricting their voices. A blanket ban is not protection. It is a silencing of youth voices.

Based on the concerns letter and the lived experiences of the young advocates, we urge you to vote no on seventeen o nine. Thank you.

Go ahead. Alicia did take a lot of your time.

Thank you. Can everyone hear me? Yep. This thing's on. Okay. My name is Kate Sim, and I'm the Director of Program for COSPR, which stands for Children's Online Safety and Privacy Research.

We were incubated at the University of Western Australia at the height of the social media band debate. So I'd like to share some learnings from Australia about what has been widely called a failed experiment.

All of the stakeholders agree that tech companies need to be held accountable for the harms they're causing to young people. There are plenty of research about that.

But the thing about the ban is that it is not fit for purpose. Age restrictions prohibit children's access to social life and information, place blame on already overburdened parents, allow age verification companies to craft public policy, and let social media corporations off

the hook. Early outcomes from the Australia's Esafety Commission's own report, which was published in March, from the seven in ten parents say that their kids are still on restricted platforms. In fact, parents are happy to support their kids being on it.

Kids say that the age checks are ridiculously easy to circumvent. And most importantly, Esafety Commission says that they have not observed a notable change in the number of cyberbullying and image based abuse complaints involving age restricted accounts.

It's too early to tell if it's a totally failed experiment, but what's abundantly clear is that the ban has had a negligible benefit at best, leaving behind a trail of damages, including tropes of sensitive public data personal data about children that are now vulnerable to

breaches as we saw with Discord. Most marginalized and vulnerable children without a lifeline, and the elderly, non English speaking adults, adults without documentation who have barriers to their digital lives.

If you could wrap up.

Yes. Please. This is a heated topic because everybody cares deeply about our children's digital futures. Our young people deserve the highest rigor and impact in what we do.

I urge you to take these lessons from Australia so that California can be an actual leader in implementing online safety measures that regulate tech, not children.

Thank you so much. Anyone else here in opposition to this bill? Name, position, and organization?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We do appreciate the, amendments taken prior to this hearing, but we are, for the moment, still in opposition.

Thank you.

Becca Kramer. I've been asked to express respectful opposition on behalf of Advocates for Youth, The Trevor Project, If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, Educate Us, Fight for the Future, Woodhull Freedom Foundation,

Seek Us Sex Ed for Social Change, and Secular Education Association.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Robert Boykin with TechNet and respectful opposition.

Good morning. Symphoni Barbee on behalf of the ACLU Cal Action in opposition.

Morning, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. Austin Hayward on behalf of Internet Works. We had an oppose and less amended position. We're really encouraged by the scoping amendments that move the bill in a much better direction. So thank you.

Thank you.

Robert Singleton, Chamber of Progress, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Seeing and hearing no further opposition, we'll bring it back to the dais. Okay. We'll start with miss Petrie-Norris on the end and work our way over.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanna start by thanking the author for your passionate commitment to protecting California children in the real and the virtual world.

I know how much this means to you, and I know, how hard you have worked on this issue, in your time here. And as a a parent of two teenage boys, I share so many of the concerns that you articulated in your your presentation today.

And I guess if if we could wave a magic wand and pass a ban and just keep kids off this stuff, I actually would be pretty happy about that.

I do have some concerns about whether or not this is in fact going to be an effective way to keep kids off the platforms that we're we're concerned about. So I think the opposition witness, walked through some of the early findings in Australia.

I think that there's been some concern expressed by, advocates that this could backfire and actually lead kids into places that are less safe.

So I've been really, proud to support and help coauthor some of, the the measures we've advanced to forward age appropriate design.

So I guess my question to you is, how do we make sure that if we're passing this ban, that we're actually encouraging companies to design their products more safely?

Because I'm concerned that if kids are smarter than we are. They're gonna get around this, and they're gonna be on these platforms anyway.

Wonderful question. I'm I your earlier comments are really meaningful to me, so thank you very much to Assemblymember. And, look, a couple of things. First of all, I don't use the word ban. I don't like the word ban.

This is not a ban. This is a delay. It is a delay until the pediatric and scientific communities has say that brain development is at a place where it is appropriate for kids to be able to process these things.

We do that in a lot of spaces where kids still continue to find their way around it. For example, movies. Right? I certainly went into RAV movies when I was 11 and 12 years old.

Love to hear

it. Right. It well, that happens in in many cases. And we really have to assess what are the goals of this legislation. The first way to do that easily is to acknowledge that there are two buckets of kids.

The first bucket are the kids who are probably under age 11 that are not addicts right now, that have not had struggling with the situation that we have right now, that once we implement this and as we're seeing in Australia, which is not spoken about,

that will be very effective for that group of kids. So about half the pool right now that we're speaking of. What we're talking about are the kids that are aged 13 to 16 right now. Right? That are that are addicts right now.

And there's a lot there's a lot there. First of all, parents don't know what to do right now, and they're looking for a more rigid structure. I can tell you for somebody, and I appreciate the compliments has been working on this forever.

I have three daughters. I don't know what to do. It's so challenging because I have at at my kids' school sports teams and clubs organized over Instagram.

We worry about having our kids left be left behind, and whether or not it's socially acceptable to keep them off the platforms and what that does to them. And so parents are asking for a more rigid structure that they can follow.

You know, in terms of, like, pushing kids onto other platforms, I don't find that to be a a a dangerous situation because we're not shutting off the Internet. This doesn't apply to gaming. It doesn't apply to messaging.

It's not going to apply to many of the platforms even I know there was somebody speaking in opposition for the Trevor Project. Trevor Project has its own platforms, would not be subjected, for example, to this. Discord would not be subjected to this.

It is really about the design features themselves, which we have now seen the scientific community, the legal community, now in court. It has been proven over and over again that this is harmful.

We know from education leaders, I'm sure we're going to hear from colleagues on the dais on this topic as well, that is so harmful for our education system.

And empirically empirically, this is the very first generation, first time in recorded history that is not performing better than the generation before it, academically, intellectually, IQ scores.

So the question that you have is what's gonna happen to that second pool that are addicts right now? And we are have to approach this law with humility.

The opposition spoke about what's happened in Australia with literally two months of data. When we pass this bill, assuming that this bill gets signed by the governor, we're gonna be in the first inning.

It's not the eighth or ninth inning as most of the legislation that we pass here is. We have to have humility and understand the concerns that you're having.

We need our Esafety Commission to be able to track and monitor not just when they're leaving platforms, where are they going, and what's their behavior after that, and what are the mental health outcomes to that, and what adjustments do we need to make?

Because the status quo is untenable. And if you speak with with children right now on the by and large, they will say that that social media is worse for their mental health, particularly for girls.

How it's 70% percent of girls say it's affecting their body image, body dysmorphia. In Australia, one of the major data points for whether or not to go with the social media delay was that seventy percent of girls over age 14 were stopped playing organized sports.

We are we are not gonna get everything that we need from this legislation.

It is a starting point. And we're gonna have to continue to do other things in this state to make sure that our young people are healthy, like investing in outdoor education, like making sure that kids who now are spending 35 to 40 hours a week on these

harmful platforms have other options. Anecdotally, I hear very different things out of Australia. I hear how there's now an e bike problem in the streets of Sydney because so many kids are have moved to offline activities.

We see that many kids have gravitated back towards, the platforms getting around, facial recognition and getting around some of the age verification, and that is a failure of the platforms.

We should expect kids to be kids. We should never be punitive to kids. The platforms have the obligation to follow the law, and and we need to hold them accountable to that. So thank you for your questions.

Thank you.

And as I If I may quickly respond

No. It's the Assembly Member's time.

And yes. So and I appreciate that that thoughtful response. And I think particularly, I think your recognition that, you know, perhaps this is is a first step and work that we will need to continue to do together to ensure it's successful. So I will be supporting the the bill to

Thank you, Assembly. I didn't mean to cut you off. I I just wanted to to underscore it. That is why we need this commission. You know, we're voting on 5,000 things in a year.

We have skeletal staffs. Even those of us that are engaged in privacy and oversight issues, it is impossible for us to keep up with the dizzying pace of technology, the products that are introduced.

We all know in this committee that the toys out in Christmas for kids this past year were completely different than the year before with chatbots baked into stuffed animals.

It is incredibly challenging for us to be able to keep up. And that's precisely what the oversight entity would do.

Thank you so much. Miss Wilson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the author, I actually would echo the sentiment of my colleague in regard to your character as it relates as a as a legislature and how she characterized your position on these type of bills and your passion for keeping children safe

online and, you know, and especially you as a father saying like, hey, I'm in this position to be impactful. Let me use my time well to be impactful for other parents. So agree.

As I look at it, my own I'm, you know, a mom of adults. Right? And so all of this was burgeoning when my kids were young and thankful that I didn't have to deal with this issue when they were that age, that it was a burgeoning thing and there were still a lot

more protections and people still didn't didn't go online as much. It was all new. We were trying to figure out which every app every week there was a different app and they hadn't taken off like the way that they have now entrenched communities online.

But I also recognize I have a grandchild who is, going to be three very soon. And and if I leave my phone around, he can operate it very, very well. It's surprising to me how well a two and a half year old can get to the app that he wants to get, can call mom

and dad, you know, can engage in ways that that is just astonishing to me. So I recognize protections can be need to be in place.

And so I struggle with this bill in terms of effectiveness and it's mirroring after Australia that doesn't have a first amendment right. Like, we have a first amendment right.

And so that is a distinct difference, I think, between us and Australia. Another thing I dis distinct between the testimony hearing is you noted, you discounted the testimony from opposition because it only had been in place in two months,

but yet noted as ebike revolution, which we're seeing all over, that only been two months. And so I'd be careful, you know, kind of around that comparison when we only have two months of data. We can't discount and, you know, elevate at the same time.

And so my question to you is then how do you address because you say it's not a ban, it's a delay.

Can you talk a little bit more about why you believe it's not a ban when 16, they can't be on these platforms, and how do you then differentiate that addictive piece from other so other platforms that have a social media context and they because

just liking liking people to like your things is addictive. Right? So can you explain a little bit more how you're piggybacking off of another bill and incorporating in here? Am I am I asking a wrong question? Yes.

You're asking a great question. You're asking you're asking a wonderful question. Be before you do, Madam Chair, I just wanna thank you for your comments, Assembly Member. They're Yeah. Truly meaningful to me. And, Madam Chair.

Yeah. I just wanted to, clarify that we we did not frankly, I haven't looked at Australia's legislation because I don't think we are Australia. So this bill is really built for California, and so I don't think we should be I mean, obviously, it is always helpful when

other places lead on policy to look at the research, and I don't wanna discount that. On the other hand, we have designed this bill really to work within the code here in California and work within the way California functions.

So, it is not intended to mirror or be exactly like Australia. It is not.

Chair, I didn't ask. I didn't.

No, no. I just wanted to no. You were the second person to reference it, so I was just trying to address that before it becomes the whole conversation.

This is not actually but and and so I just wanted to say that first, that I appreciate that we have Australia out here, but it's not exactly like what we've done here.

But the second thing is, to answer your question, the bill, used the uses the definition from a former Senator Skinner's age it wasn't called the age appropriate design code.

That was Buffy's bill, but her bill on social media addictive algorithms, to get at the addictive algorithms themselves.

And so what this does is it says children cannot be on apps that fall under those addictive features, and allows for anything that does not have those addictive features to absolutely be available to children.

And it doesn't, you know, say that Meta, for example, is necessarily in that bucket. They may not be, and they could provide a different, tool for children that doesn't have addictive algorithms.

And if you're asking what that looks like, I would, anyone my age remind you what Facebook looked like when it first started. It didn't have the algorithms.

It was it you did not stay on it long because you were just seeing people's plates, and it was boring. Let's be real. Right? So it was not addictive in the same way. It has evolved over time.

And so if they were to want to go back to a non addictive model like they had in the early days, that would be available to children. And you could maintain the current model for adults. This doesn't speak to adults.

But, it does allow for online spaces to be available, and it does use that algorithm, the addictive algorithm as the basis for that definition.

And then to the author's point, one of the important things that the bill does is it it also doesn't lock that in place because we know that the algorithms today are not what it's gonna look like in ten years.

So we have been very clear that is what we believe to be addictive, and it will be the age assurant it will be the Esafety Commission's role to then evolve with those definitions as technology evolves.

And so, it is meant to be evergreen in that way, but we've been really restrictive in what we think addiction is so that we're not giving and actually used the language from, the age assurance regulations that the AG did, that really limited his authority and

how he could do that, to to limit the scope of how they can expand. And, really, it's about who's in and who's out under the definition of addiction.

But that is how we dealt with it, and I think that is different in my mind from what I understand Australia has done because it really is focused on how do we get kids out of addictive spaces, not how do we get them off what we define as social media.

Because I think as the author said, online spaces to connect, especially, frankly, amongst our LGBTQ youth, is not necessarily a bad thing.

What is bad are the addictive features, I think, is where we have landed.

And with respect to the Chair, opining on my opining, going back to the legislature, I mean, to the legislator and the author of this bill to, like, my actual question.

I did a lot of opining, and I appreciate the authority of the the the role of the Chair to opine on my opining. But I really would like the author to answer the actual question that I asked after all my opinions was, how do you reconcile I was reconciling your testimony.

I said, could you go a little deeper on how you're saying it's not a ban and but a delay based on piggybacking that you're that you're just taking language from another bill, that you're referencing another previous bill around addictive.

And so you noted that you don't consider it a ban, you consider it a delay. And so I was asking as we reconcile that to that you're not changing definitions, you're ref you're referencing the definition that exists already in your bill.

I wanted to understand that more because what people have talked about is it being a ban. And you specifically said, it's not a ban, it's a delay, and then you moved on. And so I wanted you to spend a little bit more time on how on that on on understanding that.

There's a difference between a 13 year old child and a 16 year old child. In, and and maybe, actually, we could ask our expert witness.

So I'll clarify. So you are so you do admit that it is banning under the age of 16. You where you're being more nuanced is is you're you're not we're not banning under the age of 16.

We're delaying for under age 16 until they reach 16. That's not a ban. We're delaying.

You're saying that I think it's just nuance. But

Well, just to be clear.

I mean, I just wanna be clear. Because I wanna I wanna be intellectually intellectually honest for the public. You're under the age of 16, and your platform that has been identified as being on here because you have this addictive, you cannot use it.

It is banned for under age 16.

We are saying that with the addictive features that are identified in the scope of this bill, the harmful features that

You are not allowed to use it.

That they would

So that's a bad now you might be saying that you're delaying the use of a product until you're 16. But if you are 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, go all the way down, my three year old or almost three year old grandson,

you are not allowed to use this product if it's on this list, if it's been identified as harmful. Right? Which is okay.

I just wanna you used the word delay and I wanted to understand that.

And it sounds like you're you're being nuanced in a way that's not intellectually honest. And I wanna just clarify that. And so we don't have to belabor that point with everybody here. But that I mean, I think that's an actual statement.

And so I don't think there's anything that people can say that would convince otherwise that if you're a 15 year old and it's on this list that you can't use that product, that you're against it's against the law.

And the and the issue would be to the tech company, not the child. And that would be accurate.

I think that the goal of this legislation is not to be punitive to anyone. The goal of this legislation is to follow the scientific and pediatric guidelines, which are very clear about what is appropriate at a given age.

And we're simply saying that with the data points that are, overwhelming on what's happening to children at a specific age and what the scientific community is very clear about of what they're able to handle at that given age that is inappropriate for

them to be subjected to, the harm that's taking place. And that once you reach a certain age that you have the cognitive abilities to discern, a lot more what's good for you and what's not, and how to be judicious about what you're investing in.

And that's something that we do when we allow 16 year olds to drive. We start them with a permit when they're 15. Are we banning them when they're 15? We're saying that we're delaying their full ability to drive.

When they're 14, and we're banning them from driving without a permit.

Can I just continue, please? Let me continue my answer, please.

But it I think the floor is mine. I wanna ask one I wanna note one last thing, and then I'm good. I think that there are is opportunity to continue to to to continue with this legislation and do some adjustments to scoping, to ensure that we're not,

being onerous or creating more bureaucratic mess with this bill. And so I would continue I would urge the author to continue in that. Thank you for the dialogue.

Thank you.

We will move to miss Irwin.

Thank you. And and I want to echo what my colleagues have said. I really appreciate your, passion on this issue. Obviously, you have the lived experience of of seeing what has happened with your, with your children.

And so I and today today, I will be voting for the bill because I think this is a conversation that needs to continue. In in this privacy committee, we have been talking for years about the harms of of social media.

It happened that on Friday, I was at Simi Valley High School speaking to some a group of seniors, a large group of seniors, and I mentioned that this bill was coming forward and was asking asking them what they what they thought.

And so they brought up a lot of things that I that have been mentioned by the opposition, issues of being able to get around the controls. Parents might might just use their phones to allow children to access social media.

A lot of them and we heard this today about, communication for isolated teens. I think that's that's really important. I know you're saying that there are still spaces that they would be able to go that are non, non addictive,

but I think it's important that we make sure that those their those faces are there. What they also mentioned is they get their news from social media. So where is it?

Like, where would it be that you that they would go for information if not Facebook or Instagram or, I know, some some of the other platforms.

There's concerns about and which were mentioned again by the privacy groups that if you are doing age assurance, how do you make sure it's not anti privacy and their information doesn't get get out?

And then, of course, there's First Amendment issues. So you've heard all those who don't necessarily I know you're trying to address them.

The thing that I that I really wanna understand better is you're saying that these platforms like Facebook and Instagram, that if they are able to change the platform to become not addictive, that they would that teens can use them again.

How do you how is that really measured? Who would be proving that the platform has become nonaddictive? How often would that happen?

Are these media companies going to be once a year, once every six months, be able to show the the efforts that they've made on making their platforms nonaddictive?

And so does it become a situation where for 14 year olds, you know, for six months, they can use Facebook, and then it's addictive, and then they can't? So I'm just how do you envision that?

Precisely why we need any safety commission to be assessing that on a real time basis, to be analyzing what's happening on the evolution of the platforms, to be having direct dialogue with the platforms themselves and talking about those product changes,

to have the ability to request or demand data, not just from a specific platform, but from all platforms to understand where there's behavioral changes along those lines, to make recommendations, and to advise the legislature so that we can create broader rules.

And do we have with the definition that we have for addictive platforms, which platforms would be considered right now addictive, or is there or have we not analyzed them?

Have have we not analyzed those things?

No. I'm talking about I'm talking about you you you referenced the Skinner bill has a definition of addictive, but which which of the current social media platforms would this apply to right now if they.

Well, I cannot give you an exhaustive list. This this policy does not reference size or scope of the platforms. But in terms of what children are using in mass right now and remember, this legislation is about breaking a critical mass.

Social media is really popular and certainly with children because all the other kids are there, and that's where they're going to meet to their detriment. So there are smaller platforms that I may not mention now, but I would say TikTok, Instagram, Snap.

You didn't mention Facebook? What was that? Oh oh, I see. Okay. Alright. So I

Again, not an exhaustive list. And and and, you know, first of all, you're asking wonderful questions, and this is a very healthy dialogue. So I appreciate your questions. You know, each of those platforms have teen versions.

Those teen versions in those teen versions, they claim to be providing platforms that are less harm.

But they're not really coming to and we don't have right now any sort of oversight authority where they could effectively say we would like to get a buy in from regulators effectively what qualifies as not providing harm and what doesn't.

That's what this bill seek seeks to do. And as I said in my opening statement, and I wanna stand by this, this is their option.

A platform that wouldn't that I mentioned before is like a Discord that does not have an infinite scroll addictive feeds, the chat bots, the things associated with that. Any one of the kids versions of these platforms could adopt that, and I hope that they do.

You know, the goal here is for us to find alignment with the platforms, is for the platforms to hear what concerns parents, what concerns the medical community, psychological community, education community,

and to change those designs so that they can be healthier for our kids. It's really that straightforward.

Have you talked to the platforms to see if they are willing to have like, how difficult would it be for them to have a Instagram safe teen version? Have you have you asked them?

Yeah. We're in constant dialogue with the platform's assembly member, and we would love to be able to talk to them about this. Those are gonna be internal business discussions that they have.

This bill defines very clearly, what what qualifies, under those those matters. We do not address content whatsoever.

This bill is very mindful of section two thirty, is very mindful of of the court case that just took place. As a matter of fact, that we're we're strictly about design features, and we're not about First Amendment rights.

Okay. And then, I guess, just for the opposition, if maybe you you talked about areas where youth can communicate in safe spaces. What what are those type of apps, and and would they, in your mind, have addictive features?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. The thing is, you know, young people participate in various social spaces as much as adults do, and there isn't a clear line that delineates between what is a youth specific space and what isn't.

And the thing about young people's use of social media is that they are using it for things like news. So for example, last year in The UK when they passed age verification, what they found is that various, news related,

information was banned from young people's access, including things like reproductive health information, information, sexual health information, political news, and so on.

So it isn't just about keeping young people away, but it's going to, A, keep them away from accessing information about the world that they're participating in, and B, it's gonna have detrimental repercussions for adults and other people,

who are now going to be limited in their ability to access their digital and public lives as well. And it seems like there's a lot of, attention being put into these the possibility of youth specific, products that tech companies are proposing.

I think it's quite telling that tech companies are very happy to comply with the possibility of a youth specific product that's additional product and revenue opportunities for them and that beckons a question of whether this policy really is effective in

curtailing their harmful predatory business practices. In fact, just a few weeks ago, I was consulted by WhatsApp, which was which announced their development of a 13 WhatsApp product, where anything on 13 app gets, it would be sent to a parent's account.

And, while that does give some parents a peace of mind, it does raise serious questions about young people's privacy rights.

And crucially, Meta said that while they would allow they would mitigate some safety features for 13 accounts, that Meta AI chatbot would still be an available feature.

So once again, we've just expanded the problem of tech companies, not actually being held to account, and now they are able to decide what is and isn't addictive. And I think that's that's the core thing.

No one is disagreeing that we need to regulate tech companies that are actively harming young people. We're banning young people is just simply not fit for purpose.

It's allowing tech companies to carve out exceptions. It's allowing them to set the terms for what is and isn't addictive rather than this public interest body setting the standards for what actually should be regulated.

And I think we can learn a lot from the Brazil example of ECA Digital, which was just, put into law last month, and they and they specify things like requiring platforms to remove infinite scroll, disable autoplay video, stop manipulative push notifications,

and stop targeted advertising for children. So it's that level of rigor and specificity that I think young people will really benefit from that puts the onus on the tech companies.

So I guess I would refer you to the language that that mentions addictive feeds, end of school, alt autoplay, and many of the things you notice. So it's here in the language what you're saying. Are you done, mister Warren? Okay. Thank you.

Mister Ward.

Thank you. I wanna thank the author for months of research and dedicated focus to this topic. The passion that you bring to it, I think, comes through several hats that I align with as well too.

We're both dads of kids that actually would be impacted by this bill. We represent a number of constituents, probably more or less, 70 to 80,000 of our constituents are under the age 16 and care very deeply about their, their environment, their well-being.

And I wanna talk a little bit more about issues specific to my community being a member of the LGBTQ community and our youth.

So I wanna start globally and just also commend you as well for, I think, you know, whether it's it may some probably would have noted it was an exceptionally long introduction, but a necessary one, because of the entire framing of the wealth research and

information that you've been able to piece together to be able to bring a bill of this magnitude and impact here for debate and the legislative process. So thank you for that.

You know, when you cover areas of making sure that some that the policy work that we're doing is evidence based, that's there. That you're thinking about linking it to other areas where we're looking at this as a potential solution because of this youth

specific harms that can come from using other products, driving a car, what have you. That's there. You're not dismissive or agnostic to some of the other concerns that I think also on their face are righteous that our opposition is bringing up too and

thinking through this balance of what are we know the negative effects and what are the positive effects. Right?

And how do we make sure that something's and what I like most about this bill, is that establishment of the Esafety Commission that should this become a law going forward, that is something that will continue to be a mechanism for ongoing review and

update of how this bill implements or how a law would implement over time, what comes on, what comes off. I think not to belabor. I'm not gonna try to repeat as long as this is going.

Many of the other comments that I do agree with here, but this is a mechanism for ongoing and, a sort of a iterative study, going forward. I wanted to focus in on issues that are particularly important to our caucus and and and myself as well,

my many in my home community. You know, we recognize for LGBTQ youth, it's a very scary time of transition, of unknowns for many who don't have a very supportive environment around them.

This is not unlike other communities too, those students who are living in rural communities or come from other marginalized communities as well.

And the positive, I guess, aspects of, you know, social media opportunities, well, providing them meaningful connection with others like them, providing inspiration or insight to acceptance, being able to find a sense of belonging.

All of those issues, right, are are certainly not lost on me us, and I know we're not lost on you.

And I'm wondering if you had a chance to review the opposition's letter as well and really recite for us as well what you appreciate about the perspectives that we're bringing here to be able to make sure that something is not lost for the benefit side of LGBTQ youth.

You know, thank you, Assembly Member, and thank you for the time that you have spent with me. I wanna thank all the LGBTQ advocates, leaders in this state, outside of this state.

I know that this legislation is tailored for The United States, but I was in Australia during the implementation. And I made a point of meeting with LGBTQ leaders while I was there as well to understand what the impacts are.

I have read the letters, and I appreciate the feedback on this bill. This is we have received an immense amount of feedback from LGBTQ plus organizations.

While online spaces can provide support, AB 179 does not eliminate access to the Internet broadly or to critical resources. It's it targets high risk platform designs, that amplify compulsive use and and harm.

And the concerns that are raised regarding LGBTQ plus youth and other marginalized groups and others, they deserve serious consideration.

They many young people just do not many young people do find support online, but we should not accept this false choice between support and exploitation.

As I mentioned before, vulnerable youth deserve safe digital spaces. They deserve moderated communities, education networks, mental health resources, not algorithmic systems designed to maximize time online platforms.

That is one reason why youth safety commission provisions originally proposed in AB 1700 were incorporated into this bill. California needs an expert body that studies the harms, identify safer alternatives.

That is gonna be one of the mandates of that commission, is to identify those safer areas that marginalized communities can coalesce.

California needs an expert body to study those harms, recommend best practices, and ensure that vulnerable youth continue to have access to healthy online resources.

And my commitment to you, assembly member, is that we will just continue to have dialogue until we can get to a place where everybody feels heard and everyone feels that no marginalized youth feel isolated or do not have options for finding community information and so forth.

Thank you. And I know that that commitment is sincere. In fact, I'd, you know, evidence here. You've already taken amendments as well, and I to be able to address, some opposition concerns are out there.

And this is, even should it go forward, gonna continue to be able to have that same spirit of, you know, keeping people at the table, finding other ways to be able to, address those specific issues.

I would note this, and I'm looking at some, both from the Trevor Project's research as well, because we are focusing a lot of some, I guess, opposition concern on the positive benefits, which I echo. I share.

I'm fully aware of those as well too, that, LGBTQ youth and young people, well, first of all, they're also youth. Right? So they have the exact same underlying challenges as, youth generally do.

But for those for this community in the survey, 96% of those you said social media, positively impacted their well-being. So that's not should be lost on us. But it also said the same study, 88% said it negatively impacted their well-being.

So there's something there. And just because we can isolate some of the positive benefits that are important for marginalized communities does not negate should not negate our appreciation for the negative impacts as well that that that that are coming at them at the same time.

And we've we've gotta vet through that. So I you know, our our author is incredibly attuned to this issue, and I have full faith that, you know, we'll continue to keep everybody at the dialogue table to be able to address those issues.

The last comment that I would sort of note as well is that, you know, it's been been mentioned before that, you know, oh, well, other other companies are starting to be able to have a youth safe version of what they're doing.

And that's that's great, and that probably continue to, you know, observe improvements. But if, a bill like this, whether it's in motion as a bill or or something that, you know, hopefully would become law in in in in a better form, compels that to happen.

That's often what we do is to really sort of, like, hold those standards and really try to compel and and and hasten, the ability for industry to be able to meet the standards for which we set for our youth, then then, you know, it's an accomplishment, well achieved.

And that's why I hope it would be the, ultimate goal of this is is working closely with those so the Esafety Commission can review that and could be able to make sure that,

the positive aspects of these lines of communication aren't lost while minimizing or fully abating the negative consequences that are clearly documented for me to be able to support the bill here today. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member. And and I would just say that those discussions need to continue to happen in this committee as we continue to receive that data, receive that feedback as this is implemented over time.

We need to understand the impacts. The technology is gonna continue to evolve. The products are gonna continue to evolve.

It's going to not only affect the LGBTQ plus community, but other different communities in ways that we're not imagining right now. And that is the point. We need to be ready. We need to have that infrastructure set up.

We we need to listen to the experts in this field, and we need to be mindful that we're not shutting anybody out under any circumstances at any time whatsoever.

Thank you, Mr. Ward. Miss McKinnor.

Yes. Good afternoon. Is it up? Yes. Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill up.

I think it's extremely important for our young people to be protected. I also commend the the young people for coming in and testify. It's good to hear your voices, and see your activism.

A little bit about me, my I have two kids that are adults, but I also have a three year old grandson. Well, he'll almost be three year old grandson.

My son is in tech. He he's talking about AI. He's calls himself a tech pro, but he won't let my grandson unlike Assembly Member Wilson, my grandson never touches a cell phone. He never touches this thing. My son will not if I even, like, have it around him, he gets upset.

He doesn't want my grandson seeing us constantly on this the social media, and we don't around him. And so you see a guy that he spent his whole career in tech and in this industry, but he doesn't want his child doing this at such an early age.

Another comment comment is that social media is the only place where adults we're feeling comfortable and safe to have adults in the same space with kids being unsupervised.

There's nowhere in this country where parents allow their children to be in a place unsupervised with adults that they don't know. Nowhere in the world.

Right? And so we have to think about that, and I think that's why we need this type of legislation. When you look at PEP, the public health policy often asks acts on risk, not certainty.

Why should social media be treated differently than tobacco, alcohol, or any unsafe any other unsafe products? Because when you think about it, you have movies, PG 13 can't see them before 13.

Even though kids get around some, not all. Driving until you're 16, cigarettes until you're 18, alcohol until you're 21. What makes social media with its harmful, addictive products, what makes them different? And I'm asking this to the opposition than these products.

I think one thing that I wanna highlight from my testimony is that social media is is unlike the other thing the other substances, frankly, that you mentioned is is a place where speech is shared.

And like Member Wilson mentioned, we do have the first amendment in this country that we respect folks ability to provide their opinions regardless of how old they are.

And I think that is a value of social media that should not be overlooked in this in this conversation as well, and where where social media set apart from from the substances that you mentioned.

Yeah. And I would actually argue that there are lots of spaces where very similar to online spaces where young people interact with with older people and older adults, and those interactions are not always predatory. And in fact, often they are not.

And this idea that talk, that there are these strangers who do not have the best interest of young people online and always characterizing online spaces as a dangerous space, I think ultimately sends a really harmful and disempowering message to young people.

In fact, we know that the greatest sexual harm that young people experience happen in the in the family system.

Ninety percent of young people who experience child sexual abuse are experiencing it through somebody that's already known to them. So the dangerous environments that we're worried about are actually happening inside.

So I think that is an an unfit analogy to be applying to the online spaces. If we are really worried about, young people having access to accurate information, again, that's why we're imploring, everyone to think about, how to make this proposal fit for purpose.

The kind of misinformation that young people are receiving, the kind of harmful interaction that young people are having, these require feature level design changes that put the onus on the tech companies instead of getting young people off the platform.

In fact, a 16 year old, social media and youth advocate in Australia, her name is Abby Jane, 16 year old, about three months out into the Australian social media ban. She wrote, I'm not sure that the ban has made young people safer.

It may have simply made the problem harder for adults to see. So we are delaying confronting the real issue, which again is with the social media company's predatory business practices, and not about regulating kids.

Just and and I want you to answer this, but I would never, as a parent, have my 10 year old unsupervised and with a with a group of adults, like, in a social space setting. My unsupervised 10 year old or eight year old would never be in a group setting. Yes.

In a classroom with a teacher that's that's in an adult or a teacher's aide, but I'm saying just like strangers in a socialized space, my eight or 10 year old would not be anywhere with. And and I'll just and I wanna hear from the author.

I just wanna say, you know, it's incredibly important for us all to remember that this is being framed as a public health issue, and public health issues supersede first amendment rights when it comes to safety initiatives.

We don't allow children at age 15 to determine whether or not they should wear a helmet when they're on a bicycle. We do not, say that that younger kids have the ability to not be in a car seat when they're in a car.

We have not determined that they have the ability to go buy cigarettes so that they can smoke even if that's their expression. We have not given them the ability to not go to school.

That is not their choice. So public health is a critical important here. We have heard from the medical experts. We all know that this is happening globally real time, which is why two dozen countries are acting on this simultaneously in the exact same fashion.

Thank you. The bill focuses on platform design and safety, not risk restricting speech. So how exactly does this violate their first amendment rights?

Well, by nature of the young people not being having access to those platforms, they are not able to share information or access information as efficiently as any other person is. So thus they are cut off from from that speech in our perspective.

I also wanna add a lot of your a lot of the analogies that you were just bringing up bring bring the question of parenting.

I think this bill also takes a lot of that responsibility and empowerment that parents have to direct the upbringing of their children to decide when is an appropriate time for them to be on social media.

Should be around adults.

This bill does take that away from them because some parents might decide that their young person is.

Well, their young people have different levels of of maturity and might have different levels of being able to be on social media. There might there might be a parent who might not want their 18 year old on social media still.

But the this our our point is that the government shouldn't be making those decisions for parents.

So we okay. Last question I had for you guys. Give me one minute, please. Sorry. I wrote my questions down.

I the bill doesn't silence young people. It protects them while they speak. And this is just my statement. Youth shouldn't have to risk their mental health just to practice in civil civic life.

They should be able to practice civic engagement and not be be in in but have a risk to their their mental health.

We can empower young voices and demand safer platform. That's not a contradiction. It's leadership protecting our youth. The question isn't whether youth can organize. It's whether we're willing to make sure that they can do it safely.

And so we I was an activist since I was 10 years old. There was no Internet then. And I used to organize my high school. We've organized things. They closed they used to have the west side of our building bathrooms closed, and we we stood up.

We went to the library, and we did a sit in. There were things you could do before the Internet was there and so or before social media was there. I think it's it's more important for us to protect the mental health of of young people, especially 16.

And I think 16 years old is a great a great age for this. And so you could you could still there are ways we could still organize.

There are platforms. Maybe you guys are gonna come up with some youth platforms where adults can't even get on there, and it's just you guys, would love to see that where we can make our youth safe. And with that, I will be supporting this bill.

Thank you, miss Mckinnor. And, if I may just on the first amendment question, nobody's put me on the bench, and I'm no longer litigating, so I don't get to, weigh in the judicial branch.

But I'm so confused by the jurisprudence that says that social media platforms are the public square because as I learned in constitutional law, if it is the public square and it is a free speech space, then they cannot use an algorithm to suppress certain speech.

That would be a violation of the first amendment. So I hope some lawyers out there listening to this and go make goes make that argument because these are not First Amendment free speech spaces.

They are spaces where companies are deciding what speech is heard and what speech is not, which fundamentally would be a violation of the First Amendment if they were truly the town square.

So I just every time I hear this argument, I need to make that point. And with that, miss Ortega.

Thank you to the Chair, author of this bill. I for one, am supporting it. I think talking about this issue in a as a public health crisis is spot on.

As we learn more and more, from experts and research about the harms that a lot of these companies are purposely creating in these spaces, you know, I am, you know, more and more appalled actually that we've allowed this to go as far as it has.

So I'm gonna just go back to the question on this issue of access versus banning.

So 1709, your bill, focuses on account creation, not access to content. So can you explain to that explain that to me a little bit more How it would work?

There will be a age verification process that the platforms are accountable to. This this bill actually references the the Buffy Wicks Assembly Member Wicks, bill that establishes age verification mechanisms.

And the platforms will be accountable to making sure that anybody that is on that platform, if it is designated to have these harmful features by the safety commission, to be to ensuring that, there are nobody that falls beneath the age of 16 on those platforms.

So they so if you were under age 16, you would not be able to create such a platform. If you were determined to already have an account, that you would have to you know, that that account would be lost.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega. Well, Mr. DeMaio, I think was next, but I don't know. Okay. Mr. Hoover, Mr. Patterson, just one of you wanna speak? Mr. Patterson.

Thanks. Well, unlike our Chair who's been in constitutional law, I have not been. So, you know, I mean, I say that with, you know, I expect the courts and things like that to make those determinations over time. You know, that's why we have litigation. That's why we have court system.

But I have always kinda struggled with this, like, First Amendment argument. You know, I think about some of the features and some of these apps.

I've you know, the first instance, and I mentioned this yesterday, in which I even had consumed the idea that social media could be an atrocious place for everybody, but also in some cases, but especially children, was when a neighbor of mine, Zach Didier,

received fentanyl on Snapchat, which was which was intentionally designed to delete messages and intentionally designed to have a map feature in which predators could seek out children.