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?

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?

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.

Because when you're talking about the addictive features, what I understand is what you're doing since we're not focusing on content, I mean, I'd love to be able to focus on content, frankly, because I think content has been, you know some of the content that's directed at kids is really problematic, and, obviously, we can't do that given the constitutional issues.

But- But if- if it's- if it's the addictive features, which is kids being on for long periods of time, which is part of what we're trying to address, are there ways in which we can actually limit this so that it's actually limited amounts of time, one or two hours a day, so that we're actually not cutting off, especially on this 13 to 16 year old age group, all access to this.

Now I know that, you know, the response is social media companies can can change the features in order to sort of give access to that. But I worry about a situation in which they don't.

And so for you know, one of the things that one of the reasons why the LGBTQ- LGBTQ community groups are so focused on this is that, you know, if you are coming from an area and a community where basically there is significant, disapproval, discrimination, sometimes within kids' own families, that's that ability to connect is incredibly, incredibly important. And being able to connect to the Trevor Project is not enough. I mean, most kids in Fresno or Modesto have no idea who the Trevor Project is.

What they're doing is they're going online and finding community through, probably, in some cases, the addictive feature, which is pushing things out to them where they can actually find some community online.

So, you know, obviously, saying all of that, you know, I worry about my own kids and what they're seeing online and the fact that, you know, we have to be engaged with them every day on the amount of time you're on social media and trying to pull them off and all of the things that the harms that you're trying to focus on.

I will be supporting the bill today, and I just wanna thank you for all the engagement, but asking you to continue working with the major LGBT organizations because they are really grappling with this now. The reason why there's not letters of opposition in is because they're trying to figure out how to achieve the goals that you are trying to achieve, which are legitimate and important.

In fact, among the most important things that we can be doing, but at the same time, making sure that the sense of community that these LGBTQ kids, which is so crucial to them, has preserved.

And I don't really wanna just leave it to the companies to basically say, and trust them that there's gonna be some- that there's gonna be some aspect of what's happening on social media that is gonna conform to the bill. So I just wanna lay all that out. Obviously, would welcome a response.

I will be voting for the bill today, but it's in part because Aye, you know, I know how important all kids are to you, including the LGBTQ community and that, you know, you've made such a an energetic, effort to reach out to the community and to me and to other members of the LGBTQ caucus.

You know, assembly member, there's literally nothing that you have said that I'm not just fully aligned with and share the exact same priorities on. So because of that, I have to continue to engage with key stakeholders that have, you know, really changed the culture of California for all children and all families.

And I am committed to continuing to work with anyone and everyone, but particularly with LGBTQ, leaders who who, share a deep concern that this could put any children in a worse place than they are right now. It it is vitally important. That's why we don't approach this bill with simple thumbs up or a thumbs down.

We need- We need collaboration. We need to have those conversations. As you were speaking, I shared the same goals. We want moderate use. We don't want nothing.

We don't want extreme. We want that level in a in a moderate place. And why? Because a 13 year old brain, a 14 year old brain, 15 year old brain doesn't have the prefrontal cortex development to ascertain what they're doing and what the impacts are on themselves the way that we do. And that's a scary place for young people to be without oversight.

So I- I think we have to really maybe hone in on the mandate, the legal mandate that we're setting up for the Esafety Commission to require that safety also includes the mental health of young kids from marginalized communities that need connection. And- And that is a component of safety. It's a component of safety to me. And so we need to think about how we can immortalize that in a meaningful way. But I do wanna also offer something else.

We're in a situation right now as the assembly member from Orinda pointed out where parents don't know what to do. And that means they're kinda letting their kids online in certain ways, maybe a limit time, maybe maybe just weekends, maybe we'll kinda figure that out. But we have a collective action problem because these safe places for LGBTQ, for for disabled youth, for kids from rural communities, they don't know where to go because right now, everybody is on the addictive ones.

It's incumbent upon the legislature to help make sure that there are safe ones and do what it takes to make sure that kids are finding communities in those safe places. That is my commitment to you, mister Zbur..

And we will continue down that road, and, I would love to continue to work with you on this.

Thank- Thank you. I think- I think the thing I would ask is as you move forward that you look at things that can be done in the bill to make sure that there are safe places that kids in the 13 to 16 year old age groups can access.

Yeah. Yeah. And and and just one last thing. There are some things where you limit time is- is still not a great thing. Sending a kid into the casino to play blackjack just for an hour, probably still not a good thing.

Just allowing you to buy this gun just once, probably not a good thing. We- We still need to make sure that that we listen to the pediatric community. We're listening to the scientific community, the education leaders that are telling us it's bad for all children. We need to do it in a way that, that preserves the mental health for all Californians, all Californians.

Thank- thank you. Any other question or comment? I'm gonna allow the- I know the witness wanted to mention you're chomping a bit to say something about the First Amendment issue for the record. Please go ahead.

Thank you, chair. Again, Aaron Mackey with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I know we're here today talk about the First Amendment. And just to respectfully disagree with the analysis that, is provided for this committee, I would say that, the level of scrutiny that, this bill would be subject to under the First Amendment is likely to be strict scrutiny because it bans an entire medium of expression, from youth.

And so it would have to be shown to be narrowly tailored to the government's compelling interest and that there were no less restrictive speech, restrictive alternatives.

And under that analysis, this bill would fail because a ban doesn't allow for any alternatives. And then even if the test if the court were to find that this is a content neutral speech regulation, I think it's a lot to hang your hat on the Eleventh Circuit's non presidential stay decision, which is not a merits decision. We're still awaiting that decision. But even so, I think the test that was discussed in the analysis is wrong. It's a compelling government interest that must be narrowly tailored.

It's not just an incidental restriction. This, again, is a flat out ban. So you have to justify that as being narrowly tailored. And, again, because it's so over inclusive, it completely bans it and doesn't allow teens, 16 to access it. That again would likely fail, intermediate scrutiny.

So I I think that the analysis is, both misleading and perhaps incomplete.

Thank you. Senator Bauer-Kahan?

Just because, as we know, I'm always here to defend staff who write brilliant analysis and work deep into the night as I'm sure my staff was writing me at 2AM when they were doing this, as I'm sure yours was as well. And so I don't believe it's misleading.

And in fact, if you look, listen not to the witness, but actually read the case law, which I will say my chief consultant read every single case in the ninth circuit on this topic, this is absolutely in line with the way that we need to narrowly tailor it to be content neutral to get intermediate scrutiny to deal with the actual features rather than the speech itself. And I absolutely believe it will pass scrutiny.

Any other questions, comments? Okay. I- I will- I agree with our privacy chair and with our committee consultants that I do believe is narrowly tailored. However, ultimately, courts are gonna decide that. I mean, there's no doubt this will eventually end up in- in the courts.

And so I think, you know, everyone's gonna have their opportunity to have their day in court when it comes to that. I- I think that, ultimately, I- I- I think it's so important what you're doing Assemblymember Lowenthal. This is groundbreaking. It's- It's uncharted territory for so many jurisdictions around the world that are delving into this because this is something that is new that, you know, to hear from the witness. I mean, high school was hard enough before we had all this.

And to think about what what young people have to deal with now and and what they're inundated with. And the reality is I believe and the data has shown that even if we consider those that feel isolation and may need some kind of outlet for that, I believe the way that the algorithms right now are designed and the addictive fees are designed by social media, it creates far more isolation from those that may otherwise not feel isolated even amongst adults.

And because I know there have been comments that, well, adults also go through this. Yes. They do.

Adults get gambling habits. They get into addiction. But we're talking about our responsibility as a village to protect our youth, to protect our children so that they don't go down that path as a young person or when they get into adulthood. I I think that that's part of our responsibility here and what separates or allows us to delve into these constitutional questions is because of the overwhelming governmental interest to protect our youth.

And, you know, one thing that was mentioned by a couple folks, you know, about corporations and about corporations need to have empathy.

The reality is, and I've said this before in other context, corporations don't have empathy. They don't love people. They don't hate people. They have a mission to make money, and that applies to everything that happens in this building when we hear corporations give their perspective. We've gotta put that filter on.

It's so important. Absolutely want them to come to the table, but it's gotta be a table that we are inviting them to with our interest in protecting our youth, in this case, protecting our youth in mind. If they so choose to come to that table, yes. Absolutely. But it's gotta be on our terms in terms as was mentioned by our privacy chair in terms of we set the regulations that they have to abide by.

Now they may have very productive feedback, and- and I'm sure they do. But, again, it's gotta be for the interest the the the interest that we have, the public interest that we have. I believe, and I think Assemblymember Zbur raised really important questions about those under 16. And what I will say to that is that the market will adjust. These social media companies have a great interest of still having access to people under 16 even if, again, they have to have platforms that don't have the addictive feed.

That's what this is about. It's the addictive nature. They can still have platforms that have access to people under 16, and they're going to want to. But why? Because of marketing.

They're gonna wanna get their social media platform before young people, before they're able to access it when they're 16 in a non restrictive manner. So if you think that these social media companies are just gonna take off and leave town and and not have platforms available to under 16, I- I think that there's a complete misunderstanding of of how corporations will want to market to young people.

So I don't worry about that as much, although I think it's an important enough question that it does need to be I think if we- we talk about this advisory commission, I think it's an important enough aspect of the advisory commission to have as a ongoing agenda item to make sure we don't have that isolation from our youth. Because every issue raised by Assemblymember Zbur and- and those that have concerns is completely legitimate.

And so, you know- you know, organizations like the Trevor Project and others that I think a lot of us have great admiration for will still be accessible to those under 16.

It's the addictive feeds, the addictive nature of the social media. And that's what we have to key in on is that they still can have these- these companies don't have to stop operating. It's just that when they're talking to our young people under 16, they can't get them hooked into those addictive feeds. That didn't exist when social media started because they were still developing those addictive feeds.

And yet people had access to it back then without those addictive feeds, and most of those people were- were young, either young adults or under 18, because some of those, like Facebook and others, you couldn't access them unless you were a part of a school.

And so they started without addictive feeds reaching out to young people. They know how to do it. They can do anything. That's how much faith I have in our tech sector and the brilliant minds that we have. What we can't do is allow them to do whatever they want.

And so I would love to be added as a coauthor, and I appreciate and look forward to the continued work, that's gonna be done on this. Would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair. I yeah. I couldn't have said it any better. That- That was, encapsulates everything that's in my heart, much less in my mind. Thank you for that.

You know, I- I- I- I- I don't think I don't like the word ban with all respect to the opposition whatsoever. We're not banning anything. There is no ban in here at all. It is simply saying that if, as a business decision, you are making the business decision to incorporate these addictive features that the pediatric, scientific, educational communities all align on, parent groups all align on, then you may then you are banned from offering that to kids until they're 16 years old.

It is a delay, much like it is not a ban on riding bicycles or on riding skateboards if we insist that children have to wear a helmet while they're doing that, which is what we do in California.

But If I okay. I'm just to my close. I'm just to my close.

You have one sentence you'd like to say?

Well, I just was saying it's already existing and how I mean, the US Congress don't- doesn't allow alcohol television advertising for alcohol. It can't. They don't target advertising to children. I mean, it's not like this is such an abstract idea. It is already in existence in how advertising works, approaching communication works to targeted groups.

I mean, that's been on the books for decades. So I would like to just see this is just the twenty first century of how we try to protect.

Would- Would you like to be a coauthor, miss Dixon?

I think I would.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you Assemblymember Dixon. Thank you Assemblymember Lowenthal.

I just also wanna say that I'm grateful to the bipartisan nature of this, and we certainly welcome all of you to join the bill. You're all welcome.

Thank you so much.

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. And you did accept the amendments, I presume.

Absolutely accept the committee's amendments.

Thanks.

Okay. Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. [roll call].

Alright. That bill is out. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

Assemblymember Hadwick. Yeah.

Gonna confirm with her just to make sure. Alright. Item four, AB 1722.

Ag Day. Thank you thank you, mister chair and members. I apologize for my casual dress. It's Ag Day, so I've been dealing with cows all morning. I'd like to thank you I'd like to thank the chair and committee staff for working with me on this critical issue.

Rural communities are overwhelmed by high volumes of conflicts with large predators. These predators, such as mountain lions, bears, or wolves, are killing livestock, pets, and people. Currently, the federal endangered species act recognizes a self defense when a person takes a listed animal based on a good faith belief that the action was necessary to protect themselves or another individual from harm.

Unfortunately, it is not clear what self defense standard applies when someone has to defend themselves or a loved one against a large predator protected under the the California Endangered Species Act. Rather than leave it to a court or prosecutor's discretion, California should set a clear standard.

AB 1722 establishes common sense exception to take under the California Endangered Species Act. Under this bill, a person can defend themselves or their family from bodily harm inflicted by an endangered species. AB 1722 will ensure ranchers, hunters, hikers, and people enjoying the outdoors have have certainty that they can protect themselves if they encounter a dangerous predator. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm joined today by El Dorado County Sheriff, captain Ed Falkenstein.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is captain Ed Falkenstein. I'm here on behalf of sheriff Jeff Wyckoff of El Dorado County in support of AB 1722. Sheriff Wyckoff asked that I convey his concern for public safety following the tragic mountain lion attack involving Wyatt Brooks. That incident is a reminder that while California outdoors are a great asset, they also present real risk. No one should face life threatening encounters without clear, lawful way to protect themselves or their loved ones.

The experience of Thailand and Wylet Wylet has impacted not only their families, but the entire community across El Dorado County. It calls on us to act. AB 1722 provides the practical framework to reduce wildlife, human conflicts, while still promoting reasonable stewardship. It ensures that families, hikers, and outdoor workers have clear guidance and the ability to act in good faith if the unthinkable occurs, and we respectfully, urge you to support AB 1722.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1722? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1722? Alright. Bring back to committee.

We have a motion and a second. Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Papan.

I just wanna thank the author for her work in in in this area. It's been a pleasure working with you on the water parks and wildlife side, and I think you've come up with a a good solution. And I'm happy to support the bill, and it's all about self defense, peeps. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Alright. Yeah. Thank you, and thank you for working with the committee on on the the amendments. Would you like to close?

I just respectfully ask for your aye votes. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Okay. I'll place that on call. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Assemblymember Caloza. Item 24, AB 2530.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee for this opportunity to present AB 2530, and thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all your hard work on this bill. AB 2530 brings the California Fair Notice Act into closer alignment with the Federal WARN Act, an important and timely step towards strengthening protections for workers across our state. We have narrowed the bill, to two provisions. One, this bill will expand the WARN Act to public agencies.

And two, this bill will require private businesses to give notice to their employees if they intend to sell part or all of the business.

At its core, this bill is about fairness, transparency, and dignity in the workplace. When businesses face a difficult decision to downsize or close, workers deserve advance notice so they can prepare, support their families, and transition to new opportunities. AB 2530 is especially significant because it applies to both public and private employers. Too often, conversations about layoffs focus solely on the private sector, but public employers and public employees, as we know, are the backbone of our communities who keep essential services running.

And they also face uncertainty when budgets tighten or programs are reduced.

Affirming that every worker, regardless of who signs their paycheck, deserves the same basic protection and should be should be nonnegotiable. For employers, AB 202530 reduces confusion and administrative burden. Instead of navigating two separate and sometimes conflicting systems, businesses and public agencies can follow a more streamlined and predictable set of rules. Let me be clear. AV twenty five thirty does not prevent layoffs, but it does stop it does not stop the economic realities that businesses and public agencies face and must navigate.

Rather, it ensures that layoffs are carried out with transparency and respect, replacing uncertainty and panic with clear notice and a chance to prepare. In doing so, we ensure that families are not left worrying about how to cover rent, afford groceries, or keep up with their medical bills. And today, I have with me in support of AB 2530 Sandra Barreiro with SEIU California.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California. We represent public employees in every jurisdiction across the state. Education employees have a statutorily required minimum sixty days notice of a layoff. But for other public employees, they have to bargain for the amount of notice they receive.

So particularly for county and city employees, I've seen contracts with as little as ten days, twenty days, thirty days. This bill wouldn't supersede collective bargaining agreements that provide more than sixty days notice, but it would establish sixty days as the minimum amount of notice required. And less than sixty days isn't enough when more and more workers are living paycheck to paycheck. We're expecting more mass layoffs resulting from HR 1. And, again, many families are one paycheck away from financial crisis.

By requiring sixty days advance notice, we also can allow EDD to make sure that they can prepare to process a large influx of claims. And some workers might be able to find a job within sixty days and never be need to file for benefits at all. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2530?

Nevneet Perrier on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2530?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, an association of the state's largest 14 counties, in respectful opposition to AB 2530. AB 2530 seeks to make public agencies subject to the Cal WARN Act without consideration for the incompatible circumstances for local public agencies and their employees. The Cal WARN Act currently re requires certain private employers to provide sixty days advance notice of mass layoffs, relocations, or plant closures.

And while these notifications are intended to protect employees from an abrupt loss of employment or obligation to relocate, local governments do not relocate or close.

Further, as you're aware and your analysis nicely points out, local agencies are already subject to the statutory provisions of the Myers Millious Brown Act, which require local agencies to meet and confer with recognized employee organizations regarding changes to employees' wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment, including layoffs.

Specifically, the MMBA as well as subsequent subsequent case law and decisions by the Public Employment Relations Board requires that public employers bargain over the effects of layoffs, which includes the following, the number of employees affected, the selection criteria that identifies affected employees, the timing of the layoffs, severance pay and benefits, reemployment rates, and impacts on workload and safety of remaining employees.

Layoffs may be a necessary tool in a challenging fiscal climate, but they cannot be implemented for unlawful reasons, and the mandatory effects bargaining must occur before layoffs are implemented. Simply put, layoffs may not happen without a meeting confer between management and labor. AB 2530 obligates public agencies to a process better suited to the private sector.

It would mandate costly administrative procedures for implementation and provide no additional benefit to employees. As a result, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2530?

Good morning, mister chair and members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Also, on behalf of my colleagues at the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back. Oh, yeah. Please.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Any motions? We have a motion in a second. Alright. Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you, chair, for your recommendation, and thank you to the opposition for coming forward. We look forward to reaching out and working with you. And I think, you know, this bill is really important. It provides a floor of basic workplace protections regardless of where you work, public or private sector, which I think is important now more than ever. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

We'll place that on call. Thank you. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? Consent

[Roll Call]

Alright. Placed that on call. And just just to note, the Gonzales bill, item twenty three eighty twenty four eighteen was moved to consent. So that was just butted on as well so you can make a note of that. But before Yeah. And then Assemblymember Stefani, ready to go? Item five, AB 7053. Alright. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, chair and colleagues. Today, I'm presenting AB 1753, the survivor pathways to safety act. As I've stated before in many committees, when a survivor walks into a courthouse and asks for protection in the form of a protective order, they are not just simply asking for a piece of paper. They are asking for safety. They are asking for peace of mind, and they are placing their trust in a system that promises to protect them and their families.

But too often, that promise is not kept. A survivor goes through the difficult and sometimes dangerous process of seeking a restraining order. They follow the rules. They show up in court. They take the steps that the law requires.

And when the order is granted, they believe they are finally safe. Yet in too many cases, the person who threatened them still has access to a firearm and the danger remains. We know that people who are legally required to surrender their firearms do not always do so. And in one investigation, only one out of twenty five armed abusers provided proof that they had turned in their guns as required by law in a protective order system. It's not just a compliance issue.

It's a public safety failure that puts lives at risk. Just two years ago, a couple who had gone to court to extend a restraining order were targeted and killed by the very person they were seeking protection from. They had done everything the law asked of them, yet the system failed them. That tragedy is a painful reminder that a protective order must be more than a promise on paper. It must be backed by a system that works every time.

That is what AB 1753 is designed to do. Our protective order system must work. Hard stop. End of story for me. This bill closes critical gaps in how protective orders are enforced and how firearms are kept out of the hands of people who pose a threat to others.

First, it strengthens firearm prohibitions for individuals who have demonstrated dangerous behavior, including those convicted of hate crimes or criminal threats against schools, houses of worship, or medical facilities. When someone targets a community or makes credible threats of violence, we should not allow them easy access to weapons. Second, it improves coordination between courts and law enforcement so that when a protective order is issued, there is a clear and reliable process to determine whether the restrained person has firearms and whether those firearms have been properly surrendered.

Third, it makes the system more accessible and safer for survivors by allowing remote court appearances, strengthening enforcement of protective orders issued by tribal courts and other states, and ensuring that victims are promptly notified when protections are put in place on their behalf. Taken together, these changes make our protective order system more consistent, more accountable, and more focused on safety.

At its core, this bill is about closing the gap between what the law promises and what survivors actually experience. A restraining order should never create a false sense of security. It should provide real protection backed by real enforcement. Because when someone takes the courageous step step of finally asking for help. The system has a responsibility to respond with action.

Every survivor deserves to live free from fear. Every family deserves to know that the law will protect them, and every community deserves to be safe from preventable gun violence. And AB 1753 moves us closer to that goal. And with me today is Ethan Murray with Giffords.

Thank you.

Chair Kalra, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Ethan Murray. I am a state policy attorney for Giffords, and we are the proud cosponsor alongside the attorney general's office of AB 1753. In 2020, Zachary Rahimi assaulted his girlfriend and agreed to a domestic violence restraining order in Texas

in order that legally prohibited him from having firearms. But Texas had no system to ensure he actually gave those firearms up, so he didn't. Over the following months, he shot at a bystander, fired an AR 15 into a home, and opened fire on multiple occasions in public. It took nearly a year before law enforcement finally removed his guns. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the federal law that prohibited him from having firearms.

That legal victory couldn't undo the harm caused by a system that failed to implement his orders. That is the problem AB 1753 seeks to solve. And California is closer than any other state in the nation to solving that problem. 2023, nearly 290,000 protection orders were reported to the California Department of Justice.

Over the past decade, the legislature has built the infrastructure to back those orders up, consistent relinquishment procedures, prosecutor referral processes for noncompliance when people don't turn over the firearms and expand the remote hearing access so survivors can seek protection safely.

A B 1753 completes that decade long project, extending remote hearings to the two order types that are left out, requiring prosecutors to have written policies for noncompliance, and giving judges authority to search the Department of Justice automated firearm system in any civil protection order cases, not just domestic violence cases. And critically ensures that no survivors forced to tip-off their abuser before seeking emergency protection when safety is a concern. That exemption already exists for domestic violence or shorter restraining orders. We respect oh, thank you.

California has proven that these tools can save lives. AB 1753 is how we take the next step in ensuring that work continues, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1753?

Thank you, chair and members. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians and Support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Your facts. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1753? Alright. We'll bring it back to committee. Any question, comments, motions? and a second. Yes. Assemblymember Dixon.

Have the amendments been accepted?

There's none here, but they were in public safety.

Yeah. There may be a reference to the ones that were in the

So they were accepted in public safety?

Yes. Oh, okay. Yeah. We worked to make sure that Okay. We had a bill that.

Assemblymember Papan?

I just wanna thank you for the common sense approach. It looks like not huge tweaks, but can really promote safety and ask to be added as coauthor.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Zbur

I also wanna thank the author and would love to be added as a coauthor.

Great. Thanks.

Yeah. I also wanna thank the author. One of the leading causes of death for women. If you look at the data from '18 to '44, one of the leading causes of death is homicide. It's usually a partner.

One of the leading causes of maternal death is homicide. And so men have a problem. They have a serious problem when it comes to violence against their partners. And the reality is in situations like this, we have to give every opportunity for someone to get protection. This is a gap that exists.

I think the laws have been structured in a way that's protective, but this is a gap. It's clearly a gap that's been identified by some of her Stephanie, and I appreciate you for continuing to be such a a powerful leader on gun violence prevention. But in our legislature, I would also like to be added as a coauthor. Would you like to close?

Thank you, chair, for those comments. I appreciate it, and thank you to the members who asked to be added as a coauthor. As Ethan mentioned, 293,000 protective orders. Can you imagine what those people are going through? Look what happened last weekend.

Eight children killed, but in Virginia, what happened? We have a real problem on our hands. And this legislation really takes a look at our protective order system. And I can't thank Giffords and the Department of Justice enough for working on with me to make our protective order system work, for those who need it. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We'll place that on call.

Yes. I think so. Okay. We have file item two, AB 1609 Assemblymember Zbur. We have a motion. Is there a second? Alright. Hold hold. Okay. I need a second. Alright. Go ahead.

So my witness is running over from another hearing, so hopefully he'll get here in a second and to make sure I've got the right bill. Okay. I do. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair, members.

I'm proud to present AB1609 today sponsored by the Communication Workers of America District Council nine. This bill restores a basic expectation. When Californians need help, especially with essential services, they can reach a real human being in a reasonable amount of time. Technology should not technology should make life easier, not block people from getting help. During the COVID pandemic, I spent more than four hours on hold on on a phone trying to get medication for my then 98 year old mother.

After getting nowhere and being on hold that long, I ended up driving to the pharmacy to deal with the situation myself and actually showed them how long I'd been on hold that day as they were not answering the phone.

I was forced to go out in public at the height of the pandemic, risking contracting COVID myself and bringing that back back into the home, exposing my then 98 year old mother to that at a time when there were no vaccines in which I was doing everything I could to, make sure that, I was protecting her. That could have been prevented if we'd been if I had been able to reach a human being. It's not only COVID that makes this an issue.

People are trying to get to basic services, basic medication.

People are house people that are housebound and need to drive to a location, they need to have the ability to get their needs met. Today, too many people are trapped in phone trees, AI chat box, endless hold times when dealing with health care, utilities, housing, and travel emergencies. Being able to reach a human customer service agent can be critical or life threatening at times.

Customers needs to be able to promptly fill a medication to prevent their utilities from getting shut off and to access time sensitive information for scheduling purposes. AB 1609 ensures meaningful access to live assistance by requiring large businesses.