Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Please note that item 23 AB 2418 Gonzales will be placed on consent. In order for us to complete our agenda, allow everyone equal time, the rules witness testimony that each side will be allowed two main witnesses each.

Testify in support of or opposition to the bill. Additional witnesses should should come up to the microphone, the standing microphone and only state their names.

Organization, if any, and their position on the bill. We will proceed as a subcommittee. Assembly Member of Papan, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, mister chair. Thank you so much. It's my pleasure to present AB 1557. This bill essentially does two things, and it relates to ebikes. It it really closes a loophole in current statute.

And the second thing that it does is it establishes tailored speed restrictions for class one and class two ebikes. Ebikes, as we all have seen, have become increasingly popular in California over the last decade as a form of recreation and transportation for people of all ages, particularly youth. And while ebikes offer tremendous environmental benefits, they also have resulted in concerning rise of public harm. Now you may be thinking bicycle app- accidents have been happening forever, and that is absolutely right.

But the accidents that are occurring on bicycles are really, ebikes, excuse me, have been much more severe.

And that severity really is related certainly to speed. Let's see. And this is not just a statewide issue. It's personal to my district, which has experienced two heartbreaking losses of young people. Those families and many others are looking to us for thoughtful and responsible action.

So when I began reviewing the the data last fall, one pattern became very clear. Ebike technology is directly contributing to the troubling statistics we're seeing today. And part of the problem lies in the current law as it's written. So what we see in the current law is it says they can't exceed 750 watts. But what's not clear is whether that meant 750 continuous watts or 750 peak watts of power.

And there is a big difference because right now, what we're seeing is and I have an ad here. This is 750 watts, and then right below it, it says 1,300 watts of peak power, which is a far faster vehicle than 750 watts, peak power. So this bill provides some clarity to the existing law by specifically stating that 70- that- that 750 watt limit applies to the maximum output capacity or peak of an ebike motor, closing the ambiguity in the current state.

In addition, the bill establishes a 250 watt continuous power limit, which is would be a maximum assisted speed of 16 miles per hour for class one and class two ebikes. And these standards will ensure that riders are traveling at reasonable, predictable speeds, while also, bringing California into closer alignment with the European Union, Japan, and Australia.

So I would like to turn it over to my witness, Jonathan Feldman, from the Police Chiefs Association representing Police Chiefs Association to tell us about what's kinda happening out there in the world.

Yeah. Good morning, mister chair, and I'd say members, but I think just you for now. So.

Thank you.

You have another member next to you who comes from the committee. And off so you have to you have to convince her as well.

Alright. Tough tough sell here. Tough sell here. But good morning. Thanks for having me.

Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. So I'll start by saying, I travel around the state during the fall and talk to police chiefs in every region. And everywhere I go, I ask them what are your major issues? Is it guns? Is it drugs?

Is it violence? And I get a mixed bag of reactions. When I ask, are you having issues with ebikes? Everybody raises their hand. It's remarkable.

It's one of the top issues that police chiefs are facing in their communities asking them to do something about. But to be honest, the police chiefs don't wanna be in a position to have to police ebikes. They don't wanna chase kids on bikes and enforce the standards themselves. What they want are standards that are safe.

They take this issue out of their hands, address it at its core, and that's really what Assembly Bill 1557 does is it goes at the the main issue, which is the speed and acceleration of the bikes that we're providing to young riders.

It's too fast and they can't handle it, and they don't know the rules of the road and they're getting severely injured or in some cases, unfortunately, they are dying. And so we have to address this problem. I'll make a couple quick points. It is the legal bikes that is part of the problem. It's not all the problem.

There are illegal mopeds and other bikes that are out there, but the legal bikes are still too fast for the youth riders that we're giving them to. I know there was a Mineta Institute report that said 80% of the bikes they studied at Moran and San Mateo County were illegal. That's Moran and San Mateo. I've talked to police chiefs in other parts of the state. That's not consistent.

Again, legal ebikes are part of the problem. Also, you know, we'll acknowledge that anytime we create a new standard, there is market disruption. That's a fact, but California has never, you know, followed the Federal Government's lead when they have a standard that they feel like we need to do better. When it comes to guns, ecigarettes, food, many other vehicles, California creates our own safety standards because it's important for us protect our people out here.

And at this time right now, it is objectively clear that the standard for ebikes is creating real public safety risks.

It's harming young riders, and we have to do something about it. And, you know, the the market disruption will happen, but, know, California being the largest the fourth largest economy in the nation, world sorry, world, I don't

fifth or fourth, you know, we always seem to, you know, ensure that the demand is still there, the viability of the market is retained. But we have to do something about the public safety risks here. And for that reason, we are in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1557?

Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments and the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the city's Redwood City, Carlsbad, Foster City, Mountain View, and the town of Hillsborough in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Yarelie Magallon with Political Solutions on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1557?

Sorry. Good morning. Slightly out of breath from walking the stairs. Good morning, chair and members.

You can you take a moment to catch your breath if you'd like.

I know. I'm, like, sweating up here. Sorry. Jeanie- Jeanie Ward-Waller representing People for Bikes. People for Bikes is a national advocate in the trade association for US manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of bicycle products, including low speed electric bicycles and including many California based small and large businesses. I'm here to respectfully urge you to reject AB 1557 in its current form.

This bill would redefine low speed electric bicycles in a way that conflicts with federal law and the three class framework adopted by 45 states at the worst possible time for the bicycle industry. In federal law, 15 USC twenty eighty five sets the 750 watt and 20 mile power standard and has been widely adopted across the country. Efforts by California to impose more restrictive definitions as an AB 1557 risk being preempted, creating legal uncertainty for the state.

Moving forward with a conflicting standard would not only disrupt interstate commerce, but also place California businesses in an untenable position caught between federal compliance and a patchwork of state requirements. The bicycle industry is already struggling to recover from a post pandemic roller coaster in demand and facing sharply rising costs due to new tariffs on bicycles and ebikes.

Legal low speed ebikes are the bright spot in our inventory and the only reliably growing- growing segment of the bike market, actually outselling electric cars in the past several years by a wide margin. They are the products that families, older adults, and everyday commuters are buying from reputable shops with service education and war- warranty support.

In this fragile time, AB 1557 would force companies to redesign and reengineer products that would be solely for California, carry separate inventories, and absorb major risk that would take several years during which many small shops could go out of business, lay off employees, and risk losing at least half their business, which is about what ebikes are these days. We share your goal of safety for ebike- ebike riders and particularly children. Urged you to reject 1557.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1557? Alright. Well, we'll bring it back to committee. I don't know if Senator Pacheco has any comments, but we're- we're- we're hearing a Senator Papan's bill on ebikes.

And I- I understand the concern from industry. I- I, you know, I think that to the point of the witness, you know, we do have to keep the public safety paramount, and I would just ask you to continue working with the author and if there's any ways that we can ease the pain on the industry while making sure that we create a safe environment for our community. I think that I know the author will try to find that balance. I would like to close.

And just thank you for the time and the accommodation, and we look forward to achieving that goal of safety.

Thank you. Next on the list is Garcia, AB 1770. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present on AB 1770. 1770 is attempting to make the process of binding arbitration in health care service plans fairer to patients. As of right now, California patients are forced into binding arbitration when they enroll in large health care plans like Kaiser. There's a lack of oversight, and the current system incentivizes arbitration companies to find in favor of the health care plans, stacking the cards against patients with nowhere to turn when, when they experience unfair practices.

AB 1770 will give the California Department of Justice oversight of large health care plans and clarifies that these plans must adhere to the California Arbitration Act, the first step in protecting consumers and ensuring fairness in arbitration. AB 1770 works to ensure the following: fairness and accountability in the health care arbitration process by placing oversight with the California Department of Justice and clarifying that health care plans must abide by the California Arbitration Act; ensure that Californians have a fair, transparent, and neutral way to resolve health care disputes and malpractice claims.

AB 1770 seeks to provide the following: attorney general oversight. This bill mandates that the Attorney General oversees health care service plans to ensure they comply with the California Arbitration Act and reporting. The Attorney General is authorized to request reports from health care plans providing the state with the data necessary to monitor how cases are handled. AB 1770 reiterates that all arbitration claims be conducted pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, closing any perceived loopholes that currently allow plans to bypass standard legal safeguards.

And by empowering the DOJ, the bill specifically targets financial bias and unethical practices to restore neutrality to the process. We expect AB 1770 to result in the following: increased transparency. Moving the process toward a regulated and enforceable system will improve public confidence. Neutrality.

The bill targets the built in incentives that currently undermine arbitrator neutrality and consistency. By standardizing the process, the bill ensures that all health care arbitration follows the California Arbitration Act consistently. And I'm honored to have Mr. Steven Martinez from Patient Equity Coalition and Mr. Javier Morales from Praxis Project with me to testify on AB 1770.

Thank you.

Hello, Chairman Kalra, members. I'm Steve Martinez, retired aerospace engineer, here today to explain why I think it's important for you to protect patients forced into privatized health care arbitration. Linda Lee's story is why I'm here. In 2010, she noticed a lump on her left breast. Naturally, she called for an appointment with her long-standing OB/GYN.

The HMO denied that appointment, instead sending her to a local HMO-run clinic. At the clinic, an unsupervised physician's assistant dismissed a breast lump in Linda Lee, a 55-year-old postmenopausal woman. Despite the 85% probability it was cancer, the PA prescribed warm compresses, a sports bra, and limited chocolate. We would later find that Linda Lee did have a breast cancer and had already spread beyond the breast. Despite the clear misdiagnosis, we were forced into private binding arbitration at great cost.

Surgeons who wrote the standard of care testified that the HMO had failed to follow its own documented procedures. The arbitration process was almost as bad as the cancer. The HMO argued that Linda Lee was to blame for her breast cancer. We thought this victim blaming could never carry the day, but when the verdict came in, the arbitrator ruled for the HMO. We later learned the arbitrator was being paid by the health plan and had a long standing financial relationship.

We also learned that the arbitrator rules against the HMO, the HMO simply declines that arbitrator in future cases, creating a powerful financial incentive to rule for the HMO every time. An important step to protecting patients is to empower the Attorney General to provide oversight. That's what we're asking for here. We believe doing this will help target the financial bias that is at the heart of the problem where HMOs are favored and patients like Linda Lee are left with no recourse.

Linda Lee has since passed away. She can't be here to ask you to pass this law. I am here. Please vote to help make the process more fair for California patients.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing your story.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair—Chair Kalra and members. I'm Javier Morales. I'm the Executive Director of the Praxis Project. We're a national nonprofit based in the Bay Area focused on health equity, and we're co—proud cosponsors of AB 1770.

My career—I'm a former Executive Director for Latino culture for Healthy California as well. My career has been dedicated to ensuring that people of color and low-income communities can access the healthy food, economic opportunity, and quality care too often missing from our neighborhoods. In that work, I've met countless families trying to make ends meet, especially when a medical emergency hits. Health insurance should be the door to care, and too often, it's the obstacle.

We've all heard stories from friends and family fighting their health plans over denied treatments and procedures.

I have my own story. I've watched my family struggle with theirs. And as you heard today from Steven, these stories can be tragic. When families channel—challenge—these denials, they're forced into binding arbitration. The justification is efficiency.

But when—but research on the employment context shows arbitrators tend to favor employers over workers compared to outcomes in court. There's every reason to believe that the same dynamic plays out in health care. AB 1770 brings key oversight to health plan arbitrators by applying the California Arbitration Act to these cases. It requires greater disclosure, helps reduce bias, and moves us towards more equitable outcomes.

If California—if Californians are going to be required to give up their day in court, the least we can do is ensure the process is fair and protects consumers.

Current law does not go far enough. AB 1770 is a meaningful step in a longer journey to protect people who pay for insurance or whose employers do and simply want the care they were promised. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here—else here—in support of AB 1770?

Good morning. Tony—Tony Chicotel, on behalf of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, in support.

Thank you. Come on up. Just your name and your position on the bill and organization, if any.

Rasheed Sadiq, and I represent advocates here in Sacramento, and we're voting yes on AB 1770.

Thank you.

Yes. I'm Thomas Martinez. I represent AB 177C—AB 1770—representing South Los Angeles. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Deborah Cagle, and I'm representing Yolo County. Please vote yes.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Jeff Clark, and I'm in full support of AB 1770. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Carla Blackson, and I support 17—AB 1770.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Eric Dates. I represent AB 1770, Silicon Valley.

Thank you.

Good morning. My—I am Mariela Herman...AB 1770.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Anna Santiago, and I am strong support for AB 1770.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Yolanda Moore, and I am in favor of AB 1770. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. I'm Anna Letig. I relate to what you, was the message you gave because it happened to my sister fifteen years ago. She passed two weeks ago because of misdiagnosis and had to be referred to another department, which they denied. And then years later.

Thank you, ma'am. Sorry, sorry for your loss. Thank you and your support of AB 1770. Yes.

I apologize.

No. No. No. Don't apologize. Thank you.

Hi. I'm in support of the AB 1770. My name is Billy Hughes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Suzanne Fox in strong support of AB 1770.

Thank you.

My name is Leslie Lewis from the East Bay to Oakland. I'm in strong support of AB 1770.

Thank you.

Hello. Thank you. My name is Katie Gilardi, and I'm in support of the AB 1770, and I know that you're gonna vote in our support.

Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1770?

Angelica Gonzalez with Kaiser Permanente. First, we wanna acknowledge Mr. Martinez and the loss of his wife. We recognize how deeply personal this is, and we appreciate you telling your story with the committee. Kaiser Permanente was opposed to a previous version of this bill. We are still reviewing the new language, but do not, and do not have an updated position at this time.

But we wanna thank the author, his staff, and the committee consultants for their work on this. And we appreciated the conversations we've had with the author's office thus far, and we would like to hope to continue to work with him on any clarification that may be needed, so.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We also had an opposed position. We're still evaluating last week's amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to committee. We can't do motions yet. Any questions or comments? I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward and, and certainly the, the witnesses and everyone that showed up here today in support.

My—I know that each of you probably has a personal story, and, and it made it important enough for you to be here. I also wanna thank the oppositions. It looks like there's some productive conversations going on. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I just wanna thank Mr. Martinez, Mr. Morales, and, and everybody that came in support. Like, like you said, they, they do have a personal story. I have a personal story. My wife has a personal story about, you know, this experience, and so, hope—hoping—to provide the much-needed oversight with, with my bill.

So, thank you, Mr. Chair. And when the time is right, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Up next, yes. Item 17, AB 2075. Senator Bennett.

Thank you, Mister chair. And in the interest of, the time of the committee and respect for, Assembly member Berman, my witness who flew up is willing to, not present testimony. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Like to I'm gonna for the record, before anyone gets here, Mister Berman will be next. So he does not have to worry about losing his spot. So, it's up to you. Yeah. If you want your witness to testify, he's not gonna lose his spot.

Yeah. It's up to you.

Alright. Thank you very much.

Yeah. The person came up here. They should also, you know I wanna make sure people are heard. I just wanna make sure that the grace of the Senator Berman is not lost on the committee.

Thank you very much.

I found out some timing on chair. I can do stuff like that. When I first started, I didn't realize that, you know, wait a second, you know. Anyway, whenever you're ready.

In October 2024, we had a fire. The tractor driver did fought valiantly to try to stop the wildfire from getting going, but the problem was the fire hydrant I mean, the fire extinguisher was not with the tractor. And so therefore, this is just saying, hey, the fire extinguisher can't be on the truck a long distance away. By then, the fire gets out of control, and so this simply changes that.

Our District Attorney in Ventura County worked hard with on this bill, and he has sent up a representative to testify, and he will testify briefly.

But Yes.

No. Please. Keep all the way up here. I wanna hear what you have to say.

Great. Great. This is Chuck Hughes from the Ventura County Special Assistant to the District Attorney.

Good morning, Chair Kalra, Members. I am Chuck Hughes with the Ventura County DA's office. I'm here on behalf of Ventura County District Attorney Eric Nazarenko. As Assembly member pardon me. As this bet as Assembly member Bennett just mentioned, this bill is designed to help prevent wildfires.

The Ventura County mountain fire that burned more than 20,000 acres and hundreds of structures pointed out some inconsistencies in the law that this bill is designed to fix by keeping fire equipment closer at hand when folks are working on brush. It establishes BrightLine rules that if you're on a motor vehicle like a tractor, the fire equipment must be in or attached to the tractor.

If you're on foot, it must be within 25 feet of you so that you can get to it if a fire does begin. It also standardizes responsibility across several public resources code sections to clarify that not just the individual working the land is responsible for compliance, but the company behind that individual is responsible for compliance. Because in reality, companies are better situated to make sure the correct equipment is nearby.

So those are the two purposes of this bill and I would appreciate your support. And thank you for your for your grace.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2075? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2075? Alright. Bring that to committee.

Any questions or comments from committee? Well, just thank you, Assemblymember Bennett. It's a very simple thing that can have major consequences. And so, I'm glad that you're following up on a real-life incident so that we can hopefully make sure this doesn't happen again. Would you like to close?

I'd like to thank your staff for working with us on the bill. I really appreciate you giving grace and recognition to Assembly member Berman for letting us be in here and saving a spot. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we'll take that up when we get an opportunity. Senator Berman. Because no one else showed up. So if I if I hadn't said that, there would have been, like, five authors that showed up.

What's that?

I said if I hadn't said that you're up next, there would have been, like, five other authors. Yeah. You know?

Don't worry. That's how- that's how that goes.

AB 1864 is file item 10.

Good morning, Chair and colleagues. AB 1864 would protect Californians against the threat of bioterrorism by establishing safeguards to prevent the misuse of gene synthesis technology.

California has long led the nation in biotechnology innovation, including gene synthesis, the process of using chemicals and specialized equipment to build artificial DNA or RNA sequences from scratch.

Unfortunately, today in California, a bad actor can order online the genetic sequence of a dangerous pathogen or toxin, such as smallpox or Ebola, and have it delivered through the mail without any verification.

While creating a live virus or engineered bacterium used to require specialized used to require specialized expertise, recent advancements in artificial intelligence have lowered the technical barriers to make and spread a dangerous pathogen, threatening the health and safety of all Californians.

Recognizing this threat to public health, in September 2024, the White House developed a framework for screening gene synthesis orders. However, this current framework is voluntary, and there is no way to verify that providers and manufacturers are in compliance.

AB 1864 would require providers of synthetic genes and manufacturers of gene synthesis equipment operating in California to screen orders for dangerous pathogen sequences and verify customer legitimacy.

To ensure compliance to ensure compliance, producers and manufacturers that violate the framework will be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation enforceable by the attorney general.

AB 1864 would also authorize the California Department of Public Health to update these regulations only if the Federal Government issues new guidelines that better protect Californians without overly burdening industry.

California cannot and should not wait for a public health crisis or bioterrorism attack. AB 1864 is a proactive and common sense approach to standard to standardize federally recognized best practices in order to keep Californians safe.

I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. And with me today are two witnesses who are far smarter than I am, Dr. Milana Trauntz, clinical professor in emergency medicine and Director of Biosecurity and Pandemic Resilience at Stanford University, and Ben Snyder, policy adviser for ENCODE. Thank you.

Chair Kalra and Members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. As mentioned, I am a doc, ER doc, and a professor of emergency medicine at Stanford, and I've spent my career preparing hospitals, governments,

and communities for the eventuality of a potential bioterrorism attack and other biological threats. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was part of The US mission that work to redirect biological weapons programs, the largest in history, toward peaceful research.

And there are so what foreseen what a determined adversary can do. Modern tools have democratized people's ability to genetically engineer organisms to be more infectious and more deadly, and it no longer requires a national program.

There is a growing DIY movement where people can experiment with biology in their garages and their maker spaces. And AI systems can now walk users through techniques that once required years of training. Synthesis is a critical vulnerability in our defenses against these actors.

Published protocols describe how synthetic DNA can reconstruct live viruses, including smallpox, and produce toxins. And if you can order the sequence, you can boot up the pathogen.

Screening is an effective, well tested solution. Responsible providers have done it voluntarily for more than a decade. And federal guidelines referenced in a in AB 1864 describe how. But voluntary compliance are is no longer enough.

More than 20% of California providers recently contacted by California universities did not attest to screening, and AB 1864 closes this gap.

It codifies practices that leading firms already follow under a federal framework developed with extensive input from industry and academia. It will not impede legitimate research, and it will ensure that bad actors cannot exploit the gaps in our bio in security defenses. I respectfully urge your Aye vote.

Look at that.

I think she's smarter than everybody in this room, honestly.

Thank you.

I don't wanna say that. But definitely me.

Thank you. Yeah. Please.

Good morning, Chair Kalra and Members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1864. My name is Ben Snyder, and I'm here with Encode AI, a cosponsor of the bill. Encode is a youth led advocacy organization focused on safe and responsible AI development.

Last year, we co sponsored Senator Wiener's SB 53, a first in the nation frontier AI transparency bill signed into law by governor Newsom. One key risk SB 53 addressed is the ability of AI systems to provide expert level advice on creating biological weapons.

The very companies building this technology warn that their systems, quoting OpenAI, are on the cusp of being able to meaningfully help novices create known biological threats. Guardrails on AI models are just one imperfect solution. That's why AB 1864's gene census screening requirements are so important.

AB 1864 codifies federal screening guidelines developed with extensive input from ministry and academia, a standard more than 20 leading gene synthesis companies already publicly attest to following.

It creates a clear legal floor to ensure those responsible providers and equipment manufacturers aren't disadvantaged while leaving legitimate customers free to pursue their work as they do today.

This reflects what the industry's own leaders have been calling for Doctor James Diggins, Chair of the International Gene Synthesis Consortium and a senior executive at California based Twist Bioscience, urged Congress last December to mandate screening.

Dario Amede, CEO of Anthropic, and David Baker, the Nobel winning biochemist, have likewise endorsed mandatory screening.

California has the opportunity to translate that emerging consensus into law and to lead in the face of federal inaction as it has so often before. I ask you to vote Aye on AB 1864. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1864?

Good morning, Mr. and Chair. And members, Doug Subers on behalf of the Secure AI project and strong support. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1864?

Chair and committee Members, Gilbert here on behalf of Biocom with an opposing list submitted.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Zoe Johnson here on behalf of California Life Sciences. We're in a tweener position. We've not taken a position on the bill. We're thankful to the author, the sponsor, and the staff are working with us on our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll bring it back to committee. Assemblymember of Papan.

Well, first of all, thank you for bringing the bill. We'll all sleep a little easier once it gets enacted. I just you know, I represent a lot of biotech. So I just would like to say and I'm not familiar terribly familiar with the federal standards.

But if there is along the way the idea that if you're an established biotech company or whatever it might be, that you can kinda almost, like, have the version of a TSA precheck.

You know what I mean? Like, you've already you're already a going concern, and and distributing these sorts of things to them wouldn't necessarily be. And and maybe the Fed already has that. I don't know. If I gotta confess, I don't know.

But if if those out there that end up implementing this could hear those words, I think, you know, might be helpful for the established industry.

Appreciate the point. And and, you know, both you and I, we spent a lot of time together recently. But definitely appreciate the I think and and we'll take a look at that idea. The we'd wanna make sure that the pre check people the the TSA pre check is doing a thorough job of the

pre checking and and not accidentally create a loophole that that folks can take advantage of. But totally appreciate the point.

And they're not not getting paid like Homeland Security People.

Yeah. Right. No furloughs and all that kind of thing.

Thank you. Thank you.

I don't know TSA is the best analogy, but I understand your point. Yeah. I understand you what you're going for there. Assembly Member Zbur.

Thank you for bringing the bill, and I plan on supporting today. I did have one question that came up with some of the comments that came in and wanted to just ask about, your views about the concern that was raised about whether the Department of Public Health actually has

the sort of expertise to regulate the r DNA RNA synthesis technologies from within that agency. I was wondering if you could speak to that.

Yeah. I appreciate the question. So, in the bill, DOJ has the enforcement role and CDPH, the California Department of Public Health's role is limited to evaluating and adopting new screening guidelines if the Federal Government chooses to replace the current

framework. The department will have no authority to create requirements, specific to California. So they're just implementing.

They're not they're not kinda coming up with their own, regulations. The provision is intended to allow California's framework to remain aligned with evolving federal standards without requiring new legislation for each update,

which would help avoid a patchwork of different requirements applying to gene synthesis companies. But having lots of conversations with with stakeholders, you know, about their concerns, on that point. So that that's a conversation in process.

What you're saying is that the the expertise is, like, resident in the federal regs, and, basically, they're sort of in a bit of an implementing role, but but you'll continue to have the conversations with them about that. That's right.

And I'll defer to my my expert witnesses, you know, if there's anything to flush out there. But

No. That that's exactly right. And I would say, you know, CDPH has, trained epidemiologists and public health experts and has some experience with regulating certain infectious disease laboratories.

And so we feel like for the small scope of role that they have in the bill that they have some of the expertise they would need.

Great. I just ask that you continue working with Biocom to address those concerns then. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other questions? Well, I wanna thank you. I do think that you're an appropriate member to bring this forward because I know you'll you'll take into account the importance of of industry as well.

But, you know, I think this issue is of utmost importance and as timely as it can be. So I appreciate you bringing this legislation forward. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. But when we get to that when we get to a quorum, we will do that. We'll take that up.

Which I know can be challenging, so I wouldn't go to that front.

We're gonna keep on moving along. So thank you. Assemblymember Lowenthal, item file item three. Okay.

Morning. Alright.

Good morning.

Good morning. Whenever whenever you're ready.

So good to see you. How's that? Thank you, mister chair and members. And for anybody watching at home that followed this in privacy committee, you will hear a lot of the same testimony. So hang in there with us for that.

Mr. Chair, Members, I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB 179, which would set a minimum age of 16 years old for users to create or maintain a social media account only on platforms that have determined to have harmful features for adolescents.

The bill also establishes knee safety commission. This is a long overdue oversight authority tasked with implementing this policy along with advising legislature on digital safety standards and initiatives going forward.

I wanna begin by acknowledging that this bill is not an effort I've taken alone. I wanna thank the bipartisan group of joint authors and co authors whose support and partnership have helped to make this effort possible.

I also want to acknowledge the very stakeholders representing different perspectives for the countless hours they spent meeting with my staff. This includes Esafety commissioner in Australia, leaders representing marginalized communities, education leaders,

experts in the field of pediatric medicine, science, psychology, and parents throughout this great state. And let's not forget the platforms themselves who I believe are full of conscientious and thoughtful people, so many of whom are parents as well.

While there are many areas 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 California that recognizes this is an issue that needs fixing.

The whole world with two dozen countries acting similarly in real time right now, Multiple states in The United States following suit and courtroom setting precedent identifying the individual and collective arms. What's interesting is that the conclusions are the same.

Regardless of the continent, regardless of religion, system of governance, race, socioeconomic level, even 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 actually 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 their 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 their brains have not yet developed the executive functioning skills necessary for impulse control, emotional regulation, for long term decision making.

So this bill recognizes a very simple truth.

If a product is intentionally engineered to capture and hold children's attention through compulsive design features, the legislature has a responsibility to step in and to 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 Metta, et al.

And in that case, the jury found that Meta with Instagram and Google with YouTube 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 just before the trial kicked off.

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

The plaintiff began using the platforms 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 the harmful posts. It was not about speech online.

It was about it was not about specific content, not about specific content.

Instead, it focused on product features like infinite scroll, on 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. These recent findings speak to First Amendment concerns brought by opposition to this effort.

If we focus on the features of the platform rather than the content, there is strong precedent that AB 179 will stand up against First Amendment challenges. The evidence of intent intentional design is overwhelming.

Internal TikTok documents state plainly that, quote, the product in itself has baked in compulsive use. Another TikTok executive acknowledged that children watch because, quote, the algorithm is really good, but warn what it means for sleep and eating and moving around the room and looking at

somebody in the 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, 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 team time spent. While another summarized the youth strategy even more bluntly, quote, the young ones are the best ones.

You want to bring people to your service young and early.

A senior meta data scientist warned 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 at reinforcing behaviors that are hard to extinguish even when they provide little value.

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 dopamine hit, called the system a 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 the 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 a scale large enough to produce population level changes in mental health and well-being.

In 2023, longitudinal fMRI study conducted by JAMA Pediatrics, following sixth and seventh grade students over three years, found that habitual checking of social media was associated with changes in brain development that increased sensitivity to social rewards. The mental health impacts are also clear.

Studies consistently associate problematic social media use with anxiety, with depression, with poor sleep, with psychological distress.

When sleep declines, attention weakens, academic performance drops, and anxiety rises. The consequences are not abstract. If these consequences show up in our classrooms, they show up in our homes, and our communities.

This bill establishes minimum age of 16 since 16 is a reasonable and evidence based safeguard as determined by the pediatric community. By age 16, adolescents have stronger executive functioning, better emotional regulation, and greater capacity to recognize manipulative systems than

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

Social media platforms built around compulsive engagement deserve similar common sense guardrails. Establishing minimum age requirements is not a new concept.

As a society, we have long recognized that certain products, activities, and responsibilities are not appropriate or safe for children and adolescents until they reach a certain age. That is why we set clear age based safeguards included.

Minors cannot gamble or purchase lottery tickets until age 18. Young people cannot purchase alcohol or enter bars until age 21. Tobacco products may not be purchased at age 21 only purchased at age 21 or older.

Minors are prohibited from purchasing firearms, from having firearms, from carrying firearms. Access to other weapons such as certain knives or BB guns also restricted for minors. These are constitutional rights, by the way, restricted for minors.

Access to explicit pornographic materials are restricted until age 18. Minors face limits on access to certain medications.

Individuals must be 18 years old to get a tattoo. Young people cannot operate a vehicle until they reach a certain age and demonstrate readiness by passing written and driving tests.

Children cannot begin working until they meet minimum age requirements, and their hours are restricted until they're 18. Young people are required to attend school from age six to 18, whether they like it or not. In addition, minors can't purchase spray paint, body branding devices, UV tanning, so on and so forth.

These examples reflect a principle we already accept. When it comes to children, age based guardrails are common, they're reasonable, and they're often necessary to protect health, safety, and development even when a parent may disagree with that.

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 that it is developed. That is why the bill carefully lays out what platforms are covered.

If a platform wants to change its features, Mr. Chair and Members, and implement age appropriate designs, transform the algorithms, they can do that. They can carve themselves out of this bill simply by changing the algorithm and harmful features.

The 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, but that is not age verification.

It shifts the burden on to children and on to parents while allowing billion dollar companies to continue profiting from underage users.

This legislation instead requires reasonable age assurance measures, prohibits the use of age verification data for advertising, profiling, and requires the deletion of underage accounts and associated personal information.

Importantly, the bill creates an Esafety advisory commission within the office of attorney general because technology changes faster than the law.

New platforms, new algorithms, new addictive design features emerge constantly, and California needs a standing expert body to evaluate age assurance technologies, to monitor compliance, to assess privacy impacts, to gather feedback from parents and youth, to study harmful design practices,

and to recommend future reforms. As consumers, we have no control over product development, no way to meaningfully weigh in. This is about the youngest group of Californians.

This is who we're talking about, and they're spending an extraordinary portion of their formative years online. The American Pediatric Association estimates that teenagers spend an average of five hours a day on social media. That is a conservative estimate.

Let's think about that for a quick second. If the average is five hours a day, that means there are millions of children in the state of California today that are spending more time on social media than in school.

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

When children are in school for similar hours, we demand credentialed teachers, 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 are spending as much, if not more, time?

If a school knowingly exposed students to an addictive product linked to serious mental health harms and thousands of preventable deaths each year, no parent would tolerate it for a moment. Its social media platforms operate with far less scrutiny.

Parents have very 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 on the line. This bill is not about speech. It is not about content. It is about product design and public health.

When companies admit they are engineering compulsion, targeting young users, and maximizing teen time spent, we cannot look the other way. Regarding the First Amendment concern, the primary issue this focused this committee is focused on analyzing.

Social media spaces are not places of absolute free speech. The First Amendment does not stop social media companies from removing your posts, suspending your account, or enforcing whatever content rules they wanna have.

As a matter of fact, the only First Amendment rights guaranteed are the rights of the platforms and their free speech.

Florida enacted a similar law to AB 179 requiring social media users to be 14 before they could open an account like this bill. That bill focused on addictive features such as infinite scroll, push notifications, algorithmic features, and autoplay.

The Eleventh Circuit of Court of Appeals upheld the Florida law, determining it to be content neutral because the definition of social media platform and addictive features made no reference to the type of content involved, which is why this bill, as it was amended last week,

deals with the features that make these social media platforms harmful. Before, Mr. Chair, I turn this over to my witness. I wanna, address concerns raised from organizations and advocates.

I wanna make sure that those advocates understand that I hear them. I've read their letters. I sincerely appreciate the feedback, the input, and the advocacy. I appreciate the countless conversations they've had with me and my staff.

I appreciate our long and thoughtful discussion in the assembly privacy committee last week.

I will continue to have those conversations. My door remains open. We are looking for collaboration. This bill is not about cutting young people off from the Internet. It is not about shutting anybody out.

It's not about denying access to critical resources. This bill 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.

This bill also creates a clear path for reforms to change. Again, 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 following the court rulings as well.

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

With that, I'd like to turn it over to Erin Cohen, high school board member for the Organization for Social Media Safety and Youth Social Media Safety Advocate, and Mr. Marc Berman, CEO of the Organization for Social Media Safety, who are here in, to testify in support of AB 179.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready. Yeah. Go ahead and move it over. You can you can pull you can pull the microphone closer.

Yeah. There you go.

Good morning, Chair and distinguished Members of the committee. My name is Erin Cohen, and I'm a high school junior and the host of Control It, a podcast dedicated to helping teens reclaim their lives from social media.

And I proudly serve on the board for the organization for social media safety. I am here as a teen voice in support of assembly bill 17 o nine. When I was 15, I became the target of a sustained cyberbullying campaign.

But started as a few cruel comments escalated into a coordinated effort to humiliate and isolate me. My name was attached to lies, screenshots were weaponized, and rumors spread instantly, and this was to over 200,000 people. I could not escape it.

Social media followed me into every space I once considered safe. I was not equipped to handle what these platforms put in front of me, and they were not designed to protect me.

They were designed to keep me engaged even when that engagement caused serious harm. That's why I'm here. AB 179 would prohibit addictive social media accounts for users 16.

The addictive social media platforms that young teens and tweens use today are not some digital versions of a town square where kids come to connect, as the industry tells us. They are rigged, exploitative systems that quiet our voices when we are most vulnerable.

They rob us of hours each day as we scroll through meaningless short form videos. They depress us, make us feel imperfect, and they amplify cyberbullying and harassment. Removing dangerous features from social media protects our voices. It does not silence them.

I urge you to vote yes on AB 1709 to give us the safe, positive platforms that teens need and deserve. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and distinguished Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in AB 179 as a proud cosponsor of the bill. My name is Marc Berkman.

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.

Social media is harming our children, harming them at a catastrophic scale. In addition to the overwhelming evidence finding substantial adverse adverse mental health impacts of adolescent use of addictive social media, we see acute harms that include cyberbullying,

harassment, predation, drug trafficking, human trafficking, sex distortion, violence, fraud, and dangerous challenges. These are not theoretical. They are real and impacting millions of California's children.

Notably, the industry standing in opposition to AB 1709 has disregarded these acute harms entirely.

Also, the industry itself in opposition cited research of 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. From our work on the ground with students on campuses nationwide, we are seeing children harmed year after year while the industry tells the public it is working on the problem.

Yet we have not seen meaningful improvement in the metrics, meaning ongoing acute injury to our children. I would note this bill is constitutional.

The most relevant recent appellate decision showed that carefully drafted youth social media safety laws tied to addictive features like AB 179 can withstand judicial scrutiny.

A B 179 is necessary to protect our children, and I respectfully urge your Aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 179?

It's a long hold on. Yeah. There we go. No? Yeah? Okay. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Medical Association as well as the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, both in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dr. Julian Schapiro, community pediatrician, in support.

Thank you.

Jenna Townon on the behalf of California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, cosponsor.

Thank you.

Crystal Strait representing Common Sense Media, proud cosponsor, and also representing mama, mothers against media addiction and support.

Thank you. Before we go to opposition, I'd ask as far as as madam secretary, if we can establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We have a quorum established. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 179?

Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members. I am reading testimony on behalf of Genevieve Chen. She says, my name is Genevieve. I'm a 22 year old from California, a member of the Advocates for Youth student organizing team.

I grew up with social media and used it to talk to classmates and explore my favorite hobby of sculpting clay. I rely on it to access resources that were not available to me as a young girl attending a title one school in an immigrant community.

If this type of legislation had been active, I wouldn't have had the educational economic opportunities that I benefited from. Those currently 16 rely on online platforms for social connection and a sense of belonging to things that are crucial to mental health.

As part of the first generation to grow up in our digital era, the scariest trend I see is is tech companies and our government partnering to advance mass surveillance on our communities, both online and offline, while calling it safety.

Passing this not only normalizes personal data capture, but the various age verification methods have time and time again been proven not to be accurate. We already live in a world where our digital privacy has been compromised. Let's not do more of that.

Couple of years ago, Instagram's new features got me predicted despite my years of healthy usage as a child. I was watching content for over five days and reading comments for rage bait.

I was 20 years old. This legislation shifts attention and resources away from holding tech companies accountable while giving them a reason to brag that they are supporting the safety of our children.

The same things that make platforms bad for children make them bad for people when they turn 16, when they turn 22, or when they turn 60.

We need measures that actually hold companies accountable instead of just giving them access to more data. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Aaron Mackey, and I'm the parent of two young Internet users aged 12 and 9. I'm also the deputy legal director and the free speech and transparency litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

EFF strongly opposes AB 1709 because it's an overbroad and unconstitutional restriction on young people's right to speak and to access information online. It also violates all adults users all adult Internet users First Amendment rights.

I also personally oppose AB 1709 because it disempowers parents from deciding when and how their children should use social media and the Internet, and I am here on behalf of any parent who believes that they and not the state of California should make decisions about their

children's Internet use. I'm also mystified that in the name of protecting children from harmful online surveillance, AB 1709 mandates the collection of even more personal information about my children and me,

exacerbating the same privacy and data security harms that we all experience. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that social media platforms are perhaps the most power powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make their

voices heard, that they are vast democratic forums with the potential to out alter how we think, how we express ourselves, and how we define who we want to be.

AB 1709 prevents people 16 from using social media to make their voices heard. It denies them access to these vast democratic forums.

Yet young people, including those 16, enjoy the same First Amendment rights as adults. There is no general kids exception to the First Amendment. California has previously tried and failed to create such exemptions in the context of violent video games.

Other states in the Federal Government have tried and failed to ban comics, novels, drive in movies, and indecent communications online, all in the name of protecting children. Please do not advance this bill that will suffer a similar fate.

1709's all out ban on social media access for children 16 is an overbroad restriction, and it's not narrowly tailored to California's legitimate compelling interest in protecting young people's safety. In short, AP 1709 seeks to burn the entire house down to cook dinner.

The First Amendment requires more precision than that. I respectfully ask that you vote no on AB 179.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1709.

Becca Kramer, I have been asked to voice opposition on behalf of Advocates for Youth, The Trevor Project, If/When,/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, Collage Children of Lesbian and Gays Everywhere, Educate Us, Fight for the Future,

Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Seek Us Sex Ed for Social Change, Secular Education Association, and Oakland Privacy. Thank you.

Thank you.

Annalie Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Symphoni Barbee on behalf of the ACLU, Cal Action in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Laura Bennett on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Thank you.

Morning. Austin Heyworth on behalf of Internet Works. We have an opposed unless amended position. We appreciate the direction of most recent amendments.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. Questions, comments, motions?

I'll move the bill. Alright.

We have a motion. Is is there a second? And a second. Yes. Assembly Member Pacheco.

So I understand the premise of this bill, but my question would be if there is an underage child who's traveling from outside of California and comes into California to visit family with that,

but what happened in that situation with their count have to be would they be banned only in California or Yeah.

I think that's a very appropriate question to ask. Thank you for asking that, Assemblymember. The goal of this legislation is not to be punitive on anybody.

As a matter of fact, we expect that children will try to go around just like I know I had drinks when I was underage or snuck into r r rated movies when I was underage. So it's not just about a child coming from out of state.

It could be a child that's in state that's using a VPN or otherwise to get online. The goal of the legislation is to stop the critical mass. It's to stop situations like miss Cohen spoke of where all children are meeting online because the social pressure is so

great for them to be there. And for the products to be designing excuse me, the platforms designing products that are geared towards addiction of that very same population.

This is really about the platforms and making sure that the platforms are compliant, and there's certainly best faith efforts when it comes to those things.

And if you have any suggestions in particular about strengthening that component of it, we're all open to those things.

The other thing is I have a I know a lot of parents that that do this where they just give their kids their phones. They just say, here, you know, we'll be at dinner and they'll give their kids their phone. What happens in those situations?

Yeah. Once again, I think that there are always gonna be a situation where in a parental community, you will see parents extend efforts to their children based on teaching them certain things.

In the Jewish faith, for example, we drink wine on Shabbat. It's very common for a parent to say, here, have a taste of the wine on Shabbat. Is that in full compliance with the law?

It's not, but that's not what this bill seeks to to address. So we certainly believe that there will be opportunities for children to still see what's happening online. And I'd like to level set something to make sure that everybody understands.

This bill is not about restricting children's access. As a matter of fact, the way I like to say it is the way that the Esafety commissioner in Australia says it, that this is not about restricting kids from accessing social media.

It's about restricting social media from accessing our children. And once you start seeing it through that lens, it makes this legislation make a lot more sense.

We have a predatory environment right now that is deliberately creating products to addict children, to have features that are having empirically awful results on their mental health, on their academic results.

In fact, this is the very first generation, the first one in recorded history that is performing worse academically, intellectually, IQ scores than the generation before it.

We have a declining birth rate right now. This is not the only reason, but it is certainly a contributing factor when we know that this is impacting socialization. And the easiest way to think of it is this.

When you are spending, on average, five hours a day online, what are you missing? What are you not doing during that period of time?

And reflect to your own childhood and imagine if forty hours of your week were no longer there.

Thank you. Assembly member Dixon?

Thank you, Assemblymember. I think this is really important, thoughtful, hard work to figure out how we approach this as a state legislature. You didn't mention I came in a few minutes late.

There is another insidious part of our Internet system that's really the dark web and maybe coming from places not in The United States targeting children. Have you heard of 764?

Talk to law enforcement about this. This is it's the intent is to groom children to do and this is what's responsible allegedly for a lot of some of the suicides that we hear about.

But it is the dark web, and we I think we all understand what that is. How do you stop the dark web?

I'll ask you to take this question. First of all, Assembly Member before I respond, or I'm gonna ask the Chair through the Chair if it's okay if Mr. Berkman responds to this question.

I just wanna say that your voice in protecting children has been so bedrock in the policies that we've been implementing the state of California, and your voice is is heard in this legislation here, and you're sorely missed on the privacy committee.

Mister Chair, if I could, I would like to ask if Mr. Berkman can answer that question.

Yeah. I appreciate the comment. Assembly Member 764 is horrifying, and it's one of many such groups that are out there kind of working on grooming, misogynistic violence, trafficking. We're seeing these pop up all over the Internet.

I would say that, AB 179 is a substantial intervention that is going to protect millions of California's children. It is not a complete intervention, and this legislature will need to continue working.

But I will say with this bill passed and in law, the propagation, a lot of websites on social media or groups are happening or a lot of websites on the Internet are happening through social media.

And so we are seeing social media through platforms like Telegram, Reddit, and others, are introducing young adults to these types of groups, and we are seeing incredible harm, both long term mental health impacts.

But as I mentioned in my opening remarks, severe acute harms, including harms that turn into very real life violence.

Well, they call it nihilistic. I mean, that that's the genre. Assembly member?

Assembly Member, that is precisely why we need our Esafety Commission, to be monitoring those things, to be reporting and advising to the legislature on on specific policy initiatives that we can take to crack down on this. And I said this in privacy.

I wanna say it here and make sure that level set this conversation. This bill is not the eighth or ninth inning. It's the first inning.

We have to have humility. We've never engaged in anything like this in our state's history, in our nation's history. We are in a crisis right now. The crisis and the data speaks for itself in this crisis.

And so we have to start on this process, and we're going to need the safety commission to advise us on on steps forward because they're going to evolve all the time.

Well and I appreciate that, and I certainly agree, and I support that. I had a presentation by our Orange County sheriff about two months ago about nihilistic behavior and how pervasive it is among young people.

And nobody, adults don't even realize what's going on and how the grooming, just as you said, sir. And so it's beyond Instagram. It's beyond Facebook. It's beyond the the acceptable social media platforms.

This is something that we aren't even seeing, but they're getting access through Instagram and Facebook and other social media platforms to develop their relationships and the grooming of and then prey on disaffected youth and, insecure whatever.

But this is a very real criminal problem in our society. So I don't know if we could wait until this bill passes through the legislature and then get signed into law and then effective January 1.

I almost think it's an urgency measure because this is so pervasive beyond anything we have ever thought about.

And I'll send you this presentation that was just given to me by the sheriff. And I'll we can bring in the California Sheriffs Association. They're all dealing with this right now. So, I appreciate what you're doing. I know everybody's trying to find holes.

I mean, everybody in the technology world, I we all use it. I'm not against those companies. We just have to find a way to protect children and adults and people who thrive in this kind of dark world and protect society.

I did talk with somebody unrelated to this subjects, but some of the online gambling, fantasy football type sites do restrict age. They have the technology that restricts children 16.

I don't know if you've talked with them. I understand that's how they exist because they do not they go through some age verification process just to make sure we load this up with whatever necessary protections that are out there.

Yep. But, you know, thank you for your advocacy. Thank you for this. I agree with you that all of these things need to be taken on. Age verification does work, as does restricting children to harmful features.

You know where we see that right now? In China. Yeah. In China, they absolutely don't allow children to access the same features that adults can. They don't have addictive algorithms.

They don't have infinite scroll. There are time limits that are set up. The Internet itself shuts off for young people. We can't buy

ourselves after China, but I'm disappointed.

Well, we all That is it. We, you know no. That is not a beacon of democracy.

But at the same time, you know, all of us need to look around the world at what's happening right now, and it is very clear that despite what corner of the world you're in, we're arriving at the very same conclusions that these harmful features are not good for our kids,

and we have to do something about it immediately, even if it's draconian action to stop the bleeding.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Stefani.

Thank you, Chair. And I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I am the mother of two children, a 21 year old son and a 16 year old daughter, and to the witness, thank you for sharing your story.

I am sorry you had to go through with that. And if anyone doesn't see the harm that social media is doing to our children, just isn't paying attention or just doesn't care.

And quite frankly, that makes me angry. And I am so tired of companies placing, profits over people, especially our children, that it is time we do something about it.

And you noted in your opening and it's in the bill that this we wouldn't even have to be here or we wouldn't even have to keep children off social media if they didn't engage in addictive features.

And so I just have a question around what would that look like, if companies would be willing to change their business model, to change how they do business so that their product is not assessable of hate and their product actually could bring joy and

positivity into the world. Because if I had that type of power, I mean, how much money is enough?

I mean, what could they do to make this product in a way that we didn't have to sit here today and look at some of the smug reactions of people who don't think this is necessary?

Thank you for for conveying the emotion that we're all feeling right now. When you're out there speaking to parents and communities to children on this topic, there is a overall sense of relief that something is being done. So I think, so many share your feelings.

There are examples of what you're speaking of. One would be Discord as some social platform that doesn't have those features. Another would be the Trevor Project as those things building community doesn't have those addictive features.

We are hopeful that especially with the court rulings that just took place, which means that there is precedent for negligence for for these platforms for doing these things specifically on how this bill is written, that they will change and remove those features.

And then they're welcome to continue to have children age 13, 14, 15, to be on to build community, to get information, to avoid any social isolation. This is a business decision.

That's what we're contending with, a business decision to utilize those harmful features.

And it's awful because I find myself in this debate on opposite sides with natural allies who are deeply concerned about the isolation of of marginalized kids, but really truthfully of any kid.

If anybody feels isolation, we wanna do everything that we can to make sure that they have community, that they have help, that they feel better about themselves.

Right now, social media is a mechanism to access and avoid that isolation, and they're being harmed in the process. And that's a false choice.

And similarly, those who don't want anything to happen because they want to avoid that social isolate isolation is willing to risk the harm of millions of others who aren't feeling that way.

You know, there are many parents, I in my world of LGBTQ youth who are well supported in their homes, well supported, who are deeply concerned about the harm that's taking place to their children.

It's unfair for all of us that any harm should happen to any child while they're seeking community.

And it's my belief, and I would love to explore this with with leaders of this legislature and advocates elsewhere, that Esafety should also make sure, should guarantee that there are safe places for any community,

for all children to be able to avoid isolation, to seek information, to find others, to be able to grow and flourish confidently even if they're in a repressed environment.

Thank you. And I just wanna say something to you on that because the concerns from the LGBTQ community definitely resonate with me. I'm the oldest of six children. I have a gay sister and a trans brother.

And these are they do find communities online, but they also find find a lot of hate and a lot of bullying online as well.

And in my talking points here, it seems you got interesting. It says, I encourage the author to continue working with those groups and our other stakeholders to address those concerns, of course. But you know what I really encourage?

Is these companies to do something about it, to come to the table with with concern and care and empathy about what is happening in our society. And I encourage them.

My encouragement is to them, of course, to you to continue to work on it because I believe in this bill. And I don't want those communities, especially the LGBTQ plus, I don't want them hurting because of it.

But I also see the harm that con comes to them from social media as well. So there is definitely a solution that we still need to find, but I think the solution comes from the companies. They need to bring more to the table.

They need to do more around this. It is so obvious. And I think I'll just stop there. But, yes, of course, you can tell I'll be supporting this bill today, and I really can encourage people to be to look around and see where we are at this point in our society and try to do better.

Pope Leo's in the news a lot today. And you know what he says? Blessed are the peacemakers. And I hope these companies someday get that. Thank you.

May I respond very briefly? I just I just wanna say the joint authors on this bill, bipartisan joint authors on this bill are, committed to complete engagement not just through the course of the policy making process with this bill, on the other side of this bill,

on creating an Esafety Commission whose mandate is to make sure that marginalized communities are represented. I I'm glad you brought out the LGBTQ plus community.

It is, fundamental to my values to be, not just considerate, but, thinking first of mind, top of pile for any children that feel marginalized. I wanna bring I wanna mention other groups.

I wanna mention the disabled communities where children may feel worse about their offline life than their online life. I wanna bring up rural community kids that just don't have a lot of options because where they physically live and don't wanna be cut off from others.

We are thinking about all of those. We are welcome, and the door is open for collaboration. I'm trying to meet with everybody and everybody to build a stronger bill, including the opposition.

And I wanna say one final thing about the companies.

The companies are also in a very tough place. Every quarter, the street puts so much pressure on them to have returns that were better than the quarter before compared to the year before, and returning shareholder value is what their- their boards mandate them to do. So they're in a cycle as well. In- In all of my conversations, not just with executives of those companies, but for their representatives here and the advocates, they all agree that something needs to be done.

They're looking for collaboration. I feel that there's a tipping point that's happening right now. For me, it's not about clubbing them over the head. It's about bringing them to the table to do what's reasonable, to pay attention to what everyone is doing globally on this topic right now.

Assemblymember Papan.

So just real briefly, I'm gonna dovetail on two points. Number one, much of the damage is very subtle and very insidious. It doesn't take 200,000. I'm the mother of a 20 year old who survived COVID and social media, and it was not easy. We night white knuckled it many a day, and I think I'm in pretty good command running the asylum in my own home.

But- But, you know, it- it was difficult. So it- it doesn't have to be on a mass scale. I appreciate what your witness went through. I really do. But it- it- it can be very, very subtle.

So I appreciate all that the author is trying to do with the bill. And then I wanted to dovetail a little bit on the companies themselves. You know, their product, if you will. What- What how do they make their money? They make their money by selling ads.

So I want I want us to just think about that because those aren't taxed. Do you ask how much money is enough? I don't know. But I will say something in that model needs to be looked at even if it were to be voluntary. You know, when you got Zuckerberg at a US Senate hearing apologizing, we're in trouble. So I kinda feel like we need to be looking at not only are we changing algorithms and and not making them addictive and and all of these things, all good.

But I would like to see because the effects are still out there, and we're still dealing with it. I would like to see somehow in this model how we come up with something financially to help our kids at this point.

I- I agree with you. They got answers to shareholders. That's nothing new, and I don't begrudge anybody that. But I think at some point, somewhere along the line, there needs to be something financial to come into the equation. Doesn't have a lot to do with the bill.

Thank you, chair, for indulging me, but that's kind of where I am. Love to support the bill. I like this new organization, MAMA, Mothers Against Media Addiction. I think the title says a lot. And we're all with you at this point.

You know, assembly member, thank you for your vulnerability on camera. Like miss Cohen here, I don't know if families that don't have a story to tell about this, including my own, including the governor, who has been also very vulnerable about his family's tough time. I- I really don't know a single family that I've come across in the state of California that's not contending with this issue.

And pursuant to- to your- your- your- your issue about how we need to do more, we're going to need to do more. This legislature is going to have to get serious about filling our chilled up children up with alternatives, investing in outside learning, in the arts, in music, in other things that children can spend their time in to replace the thirty five to forty hours that they're spending right now harming them.

And so we need to be intentional about that. We got have to have our eyes wide open what the next decade's gonna bring here.

Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, mister chair and members. And, obviously, everyone knows how I'm gonna vote because this moved out of my committee last week. But I did wanna make a few comments, and I wanna thank the author for his steadfast I mean, since I think the day he walked into this building, this has been your number one priority, protecting not just your own girls, but all of our children. And you have done it with a whole heart and with a moral clarity that I think few could emulate.

So thank you for that.

It really is incredible. Thank you. I know I wasn't in the room when you testified, but I actually was listening remotely. Thank you for bringing your voice into this room. I think it's so, so important.

Often, you know, there are people here who try to lobby for the children, but they don't have the most the highest paid lobbyists like all the companies do. And so it is so important that we listen to all of our adolescents and what they're experiencing online. And since, the opposition wanted to speak for parents, I guess I will start by speaking as a parent. I'm a parent of teens, and I add me to the list of parents on this diet who have struggled with this.

And I actually as I've said publicly, I'm one of the parents who has been incredibly strict.

My children are not on Instagram. They are not on a lot of social media, but it has been virtually impossible to keep them off YouTube. And YouTube is incredibly addictive. And then they introduce Shorts, which is very much like TikTok and honestly has all the content of TikTok on it. And it is even for parents who are trying every day, who spend their their life's work is trying to deal with this, we are struggling.

And to your point, there are so many spaces where we as public policymakers step in. We step in. And part of the reason we step in is exactly what was talked about here today. I'm a former regulatory lawyer, and part of what I truly believe in my core having done that work is that, yes, the companies, their obligation is to their shareholders. That is the marketplace.

And so the only thing that will change the fiscal determinations they make is regulation, is making it part of their accounting, is when the liability is larger than the benefit, they will change their behavior. And that's why this is so important. But on that, I will also note to the credit of Pinterest, because not all companies are created equal, Pinterest made a choice. They said, we wanna lead with kids first. We wanna lead with kids' safety.

We're gonna make a privacy forward, protective platform, and the whole Wall- Wall Street community said, this is the end of Pinterest. And you know what happened? They became more profitable. And so I also think we need to talk about how there is a business case to be made for protecting children here in California and outside, and I wanna thank Pinterest for their leadership improving that point to us and to everyone. But I- I couldn't agree more with my colleague from San Francisco that enough is enough.

They're making so much money. Like, I just am at the point where I'm like, my child's attention is not where you should be getting your profit, and I don't know when they will decide enough is enough, but I think the answer is never, which is why this regulation is so important. I want to address the first amendment concerns because that is what we're supposed to be

here talking about in this committee. The, you know, the opposition made the point that we are clearly violating the first amendment, and I wanna just cite the analysis, which very, eloquently deals with the first amendment. I'm on the electronic version, but it's on page 10. And it talks about the scrutiny. The intermediate scrutiny that the court would most likely use here would look at whether this is grounded in substantial governmental interest, and the incidental restriction is no broader than necessary to further our interest.

I guess, like, number one, what is our governmental interest? No one could have laid that out better than you can. Protecting California's children is a governmental interest that I believe is above all others. They are some of our most vulnerable, and they deserve the mental well-being that we can give them through this legislation. And so our governmental interest is so clear.

And I actually believe through the amendments that were taken last week, we have narrowly construed this in a way that is, frankly, elegant and allows for companies to continue to be in the space of providing information and grounding spaces and connecting spaces for our children as long as they don't try to harm them and addict them. And so I really, really want to hone that. We have not made an exhaustive list of who is included and who is not.

Meta can choose to create spaces that do not have these addictive features, and they will be allowed to have under 16 in them. And I think that what this will do is not only keep our kids safe.

I think it will create an environment where we have better innovation in California, where we have people working to create safe online spaces for our children. And, hopefully, honestly, you know, I have spent much of my life's work helping to support the LGBTQ community in their fight for civil rights. It is something I'm incredibly passionate about.

And I believe that having non addictive spaces for LGBTQ plus youth is a positive thing and that this actually moves us in that direction instead of having them on those spaces. And lastly, I'll say I just learned that at least at my public high school where my daughter will go, we do not have a Bell to Bell ban because they believe that communicating with our children through Instagram is how they should get their sports and other information.

My children don't have Instagram, and I'm now being told that my 15 year old will have to go on it if she wants to be on a sports team. That is crazy. It is an addictive harmful platform that I should not be told my child has to be on, and this will change that dynamic. And so we have to be better, and we have to get our kids into spaces that are safe.

There are well, I showed up to swimming on time and water polo every day without a cell phone, so I'm pretty sure they could do it too.

But I also think that we can have communication spaces that are not trying to keep our children on all day and all night. And so with that, I am proud to be a coauthor. I wanna thank you for your hard work. I look forward to seeing both this bill come into fruition, but also the Esafety Commission because I do think it is a future for California to lead in a consumer facing way that allows online spaces to be as safe as some of our other spaces.

You're a joint author, not a co author. You are the most amazing joint author. And how lucky are we in the state to have a- a- a regulatory attorney overseeing the privacy commission that is specifically looking at, that intersection and how, legislation like this can be more, you know, more meaningful. I wanna speak very briefly to a few things that you talked about. This is a business decision by companies that are already creating children's platforms.

TikTok has a youth version. Meta has teens version. YouTube has YouTube Kids. As a matter of fact, in Australia, where they have in bucket and out of bucket determined by their e safety commission, YouTube for adults is in bucket. YouTube for kids is not.

And so kids are still able to access those things very easily on the platforms that Instagram has already set up for their teen version, that TikTok has set up for their teen version. They could take these features out. Problem solved.

Thank you. Assemblymember Zbur.

Thank you. I wanna first thank the author. I know that he has been energetic in reaching out to me about this bill, and, you know, we wanna thank him for the engagement on this. As I've mentioned him before, I will be supporting the bill today, but I do have some concerns about it. And I just wanted to sort of lay those out a bit.

You know, I as someone who is also the parent of two 17 year olds now, and I, you know, I concur that the you know, what our kids are- are- are experiencing, all kids, is harmful. And so, you know, I applaud you for really taking this very difficult and complex issue on. I will say that the thing that- that I'm voting today because I do trust you and I that you're gonna continue engaging with- with the major LGBTQ organizations on this issue.

They have not- The major issue the the mainstream groups have not come on opposition in part because of their trust in you to continue engaging with them. But the one thing I will say is that in the age group of 13 to 16, that has always been an area in addition to 16 to 18 that the LGBTQ organizations have always focused on to make sure that the sources of community for those kids are maintained.

And so, you know, obviously, understand why you've chosen 16 as the demarcation in this bill, but asking you to look at whether or not there are things you can do to assure that there are actually community resources available for these kids in the 13 16 age group age group. The privacy committee had because of the because the focus was different, had a longer analysis, and I read every page of that. I think there was 27 pages of analysis there.

And one of the things that I noted in that analysis was they- they laid out really a lot of the research on this issue, and there was one study that basically showed that kids are experience worse outcomes if they have no social media engagement, and worse outcomes if they have high amounts of social media engagement. And they talked about this u, you know, this u curve where kids that have moderate amounts of engagement are actually the ones that are doing the best.

Now I know this bill, we, you know, we can't appropriately talk about content, so this is focused on sort of the the features of the- of the bill. But- But the- that 13 to 16 year old age group, I'm just wondering whether are things you can do. It's limiting the amount of time.