Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection

We will call the assembly privacy consumer protection committee to order. We do need it is 01:30, so we're starting. We do not have any Senate authors at this time. So senators, if you are out there listening, please join us over in the capital so we can commence our hearing. We have 10 bills on the agenda today, but thanks to the great work of committee staff and the Republican caucus staff, we have three bills on the consent calendar.

We will take those once we're able to establish a quorum. So members, if you're still in the building, you can come out with that. To effectively manage our time today, we'll be limiting testimony to two witnesses in support and two in opposition on each bill, each witness with two minutes to present. It is required that anyone is coming forward have submitted to the committee their supporter opposition prior to this hearing. After the support witnesses concludes, we'll take anyone in the room, the same with the opposition.

I'd like to note as always that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on our website. So if you don't have an opportunity to provide testimony here today, please do so on the website. We do review all opinions submitted through that fashion. Behave respectfully. Otherwise, we will not allow folks to not behave respectfully.

Great. With that, we're waiting for both the quorum and a member. We need one more member of the committee to make a quorum. We have a quorum. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. If anyone we have three bills on the consent calendar. SB 719 by Senator Cabaldon do pass to appropriations committee. SB 930 by Senator Reyes do pass to education. SCR 82 by Senator Niello.

1719 is do passes amended to the appropriations committee. I'm sorry about that. SCR 82 by Senator Niello is adopted, motion to be adopted and re referred to appropriations. Do I have a motion on the consent calendar? That calendar is moved and seconded. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. We've dispensed with the consent calendar. Hopefully, we'll see a Senator soon. 5-0. So thank you.

I'm here to present SB 1050, the Advertisement Integrity Act on behalf of Senator Ashby. The bill requires advertisements using AI generated performers to include a disclosure if the former performer is synthetic. Advancements in AI led to the creation of synthetic performers, which are human like digital figures that convincingly appear, speak, move, and act like real people. The use of these performers in advertisements misleads consumers and allows creators to avoid the responsibility of hiring real workers.

Without a disclosure requirement, the risk of consumer deception increases while at the same time severely jeopardizing work opportunities.

With the evolution of AI and its impact on commercial media, the state must ensure existing advertising laws are updated to reflect these new realities. SB 1050 does this by requiring disclosures when a synthetic person is depicted in an ad. The bill is sponsored by SAG AFTRA and supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, Common Sense Media, and National AI Youth Council amongst others. With me to testify today is Shane Guzman representing SAG AFTRA at hand to the Teamsters.

Committee, Shane Guzman, on behalf of SAG AFTRA, proud sponsor of this bill, along with the Teamsters, a strong supporter of the bill. I'd like to thank the committee staff and, of course, the chair and

the rest of the committee for working with us and making sure we have the best product going forward. This bill is is just about what it says. It's about disclosure when a synthetic is used depicting a real or depicting a real human being, but it's not a real human being. It's about protecting consumers when the image of voice trying to convince them to buy a product is not real. They deserve to know who is pitching them on a product.

It's easy to imagine why this is important. For example, imagine a synthetic depicting a teenager in an ad for an acne cream, for example, where before and after images so miraculous skin recovery, I think it's it's behooves us to make sure that consumers know when that is occurring. And, of course, this is also about the actors and voice performers that SAG AFTRA represents.

We have seen the diminishing of art through the improvements or advances in technology, and it's important to protect those artists and make sure we have a level of humanity, going forward. So, the last thing I'll mention is we we've worked very hard to try to mitigate some of the concerns of opponents as this bill has moved through the process.

We will continue to do so to try to bridge that gap. We have two more policy committees to go through and then we have the rest of the summer. I think we're close, but, we still have a little work to do. And with that, we urge your eye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Oh, I was like, I don't know how that worked. Good afternoon. Crystal Strait on behalf of Common Sense Media and the Music Artist Coalition in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet. Here today, we respectfully oppose SB 1050 unless it is amended. We appreciate the author's goal of promoting transparency and agree consumers should not be misled. Our concerns are about ensuring the bill is targeted, workable, and aligned with the existing law.

First, I want to thank the author and committee for recent amendments making disclosure report requirements more flexible instead of a rigid in ad label and focusing the trigger on generative AI rather than a routine production tools used in nearly every modern ad. Unfortunately, we do remain opposed less than me on three key three key points. First, materiality.

As drafted, we still feel the bill requires a label at any time a synthetic performer appears even incidental background or obviously stylized use that no reasonable consumer would find deceptive. California advertising law has always tied disclosure to a risk of material material deception, and we're simply asking this bill to do the same.

Without that anchor, the recent removal of the word prominently means disclosures get attached to the content that conveys nothing useful. And when labels appear everywhere, consumers learn to ignore the ones that actually matter. Second, common sense carve outs. The bill should exempt accessibility features, AI captioning, audio description, sign language overlays that serve consumers with disabilities and pose no deception risk. And it should exempt purely illustrator with thematic figures that make no claim about the product.

Third, fair enforcement. Right now, a single inadvertent error is enforceable under the UCL through private litigation with uncapped per impression penalties. We're asking for these standard guardrails, a right to cure, a good faith safe harbor, and a reasonable penalty cap. So businesses working hard to comply are treated like aren't treated like bad actors. These are narrow technical fixes that can help focus the bill where consumer protection is generally at stake.

We look forward to continuing to work with the author of this committee and the subsequent committees after this bill passes today. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Melissa Ptak with the Motion Picture Association. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And we also thank the, the author, the sponsor, committee consultants, for the work that's been done on this bill so far, and we look forward to continuing to be engaged, with further changes.

Let me just say at the outset, the testimonial that Shane mentioned in his illustration, we would agree if the bill was limited to that situation where a synthetic performer was testifying to something that happened to them and they're not a human, if this bill was limited to that, we would not be, in all likelihood, would not be opposing it.

So that's a great example, and we look forward to further conversations. Our opposition is for two main reasons. The bill omits the element of deception and requires a disclosure whether or not a consumer would be misled. So this bill limits commercial speech, and any restriction on speech must directly and materially advance a substantial government interest and not be more extensive than is necessary to further that interest.

SB 1050 requires labor lay labeling of all ads that use synthetic performers, not just those that which are misleading, making the bill's restrictions on speech too broad.

Second, we're concerned about the private right of action, that it will be an invitation to litigation against companies that are perceived as deep pocketed. We would request that the enforcement remain with the attorney general and other public prosecutors. The recent amendments raise additional concerns. The bill now requires disclosure where synthetic performers use in an audio only advertisement. A disclosure in such an advertisement will pose operational challenges, particularly for extremely extremely short advertisements.

The new amendment limiting disclosure where synthetic performers appear prominently needs some clarification. Those producing ads will need more specificity. For example, is a stadium full of people prominent because it's a large number of people and may even take a lot take up a large part of the screen? What if the ad also features human actors in the foreground who who are the primary focus of the ad? Would such an ad be outside the scope of the disclosure requirement?

We think there's room to improve that. We note that SB 1050's differs from a recent New York, law that just took effect within the last couple of weeks. And while we understand that California has no obligations to mirror another state's law, it is very challenging for our member companies and other California companies to establish business practices which comply with state laws which that have very different standards.

We look forward to continuing to work with the author and the sponsor and the committees, going forward, about the remaining issues. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair and members, Peter Kellison on behalf of the California Broadcasters Association. The June 11 amendments extend the bill into audio. We're unclear about the purpose served, concerned about the impact on local broadcasting, and look forward to working with the author and sponsors.

Alright.

Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, oppose unless amended.

Matty Hyatt, Capital Business Alliance, oppose unless amended. We agree with the lead author, the lead witnesses, amendments.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments in opposition, turning it back to the diaspora questions or comments. Yes. Assemblymember Demaio.

So, I'm always looking at cost benefit. And what you're saying is you can't use AI for fictitious people.

Do you wanna

So nothing in this bill would prevent the use of AI, to be clear. The bill merely requires a disclosure so that there's no confusion on the part of the viewer.

I mean, does it, what's the harm? If there's a fictitious character that that doesn't impersonate another personality, a well known person, What's what's the harm? Do you I'm curious.

May I ask the witness? Thank you. Through the chair.

Through the chair. Our our view is that the harm is it's it's misleading to the consumer, potentially misleading to the consumer. The consumer may be assuming that the individual that's depicted is a real person that's benefited from a product and and it being a synthetic or digitally created bean inherently misleads the consumer. And that's

Okay. So if Daffy Duck is in a cartoon and endorses a product, I mean, what is the harm? Are we I really I I understand sometimes we have to regulate AI, and I understand when it's perhaps a likeness of someone who, you know, is a real person who has not consented to that speech. They should be given a a protection and and rights, but these are fictitious individuals.

Sorry. I didn't wanna interrupt you. I was waiting for you to finish assembly member.

Struggling with the public the public benefit. Because there is a cost of regulation. And and I know a lot of people who they do AI, and they're not aware of every darn let law and regulation that government imposes, particularly here in California. And I'm I'm I'm always having to weigh adding complexity and risk, legal risk to these individuals versus the public benefit, and I'm not convinced. And maybe we're not gonna be able to establish that here today.

It might be just a differing of opinion on public policy. But I think that as this bill moves forward that there needs to be a case made for that because I'm not seeing that. And it would be I'd be hard pressed to explain to my constituents what the benefit of the regulation is.

Yeah. And just to clarify, so the bill defines synthetic performer to include an image general an image made through generative artificial intelligence, so advanced AI, so wouldn't include Photoshop and the opposition acknowledge that, that creates the realistic impression of a human performer. So I just wanted to clarify that because you said Daffy Duck, and Daffy Duck would not be covered by Bill. So I just wanna make sure I understand what you're saying, but I just wanted to clarify if it is in that point.

Yeah. But in the past we would hire actors and actresses to say things and is, you know, they would be, I mean, maybe that's what the intent of the bill is. Maybe we have the Screen Actors Guild here, and they wanna make sure that their people get work, and they don't like AI. If that's the purpose, let's just simply state it as such. But I am really struggling with public benefit of a new set of laws and regulations.

And I really would encourage, if you wanna have more broad spread spread widespread, support to clarify that benefit because maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like another another regulation, another law that we're imposing on the marketplace.

So, I won't be supporting you today, but that would be my advice to try to make that case.

Thank you. Assemblymember and Madam Chair.. So, I do want the witness to be able to speak on behalf of his client. He does represent the Screen Actors Guild.

I see the benefit because I will be supporting it today and I am supporting it as chair. I wanna live in a world where I understand whether what I'm seeing is real or not real. And whether you have an advertisement and just to be clear, the witness gave the example of, you know, we see advertisements all the time. For example, pharmaceutical companies where someone is talking about their experience and currently, I think it's a real person.

I will tell you when I sit and watch advertisements now with my children, my youngest often says to me, "That's AI.That's not AI."

And I think," Wow. Like, my son, my 11 year old is being raised in a world where he doesn't know what he's seeing is real or not real." And that actually, frankly, is not the world I wanna live in. I wanna live in a world where I know if it's a real human, obviously, to your point in many cases, it is an actor.

But we do have unfair competition laws to ensure that what we are seeing and hearing is truthful, and that is where this lies in its enforcement.

And so I think it's really important that we we do distinguish between real people and these depicted AI generated individuals. And I will say that I have worked with SAG AFTRA on many AI bills, and it has been a privilege to do so. And I will tell you that and I speak for the studios as well. These are entities who have always been tech forward, both the people who work in the industry and the, studios themselves.

They have always been early adopters of technological advances, and I don't think anything is different here with artificial intelligence.

And so I don't see SAG AFTRA as being opposed to AI, but I think that, they have a right as workers to also distinguish between when it is them and when it is AI. And that would really do their interest here, but I can defer my witness.

Yeah. I and and assembly member, I agree. We wouldn't be here, you know, we are protecting our artists. There's no question. But we also wouldn't be here if there wasn't a consumer benefit.

The bill doesn't, we're not trying to outlaw AI advertisements. We simply want the consumers to have a choice and to see if the if what is being depicted is real or not. That's it.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments from the dais? Any other members? No? Do member, would you like to close?

On behalf of Senator Ashby, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do we have a motion? Second. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number seven, SB 1050 by Senator Ashby. The motion is do passed to arts, entertainment, sports, and tourism committee. Barakaham? Aye. Barakaham, I am Macedo, Brian, DeMaio?

Demaio, no. Hoover, Erwin, Lowenthal, McKenner, Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson, Helleran?

Aye. Helleran, aye. Petri Norris, Ward, Wicks, Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye.

Oops.

Four one. Four one. We will leave the role open for absent members.

Thank you. And now I'll move on to SB 1111. You guys want to join me? I'm here to present SB 1111 on behalf of Senator Ashby. Since 2019, the creation of AI-generated deepfakes has risen by over 500%.

In 2020, over 100,000 AI-generated nude images of women were created, most of which consisted of AI-generated pornography. Over 9,500 websites have identified AI-generated pornography. Of the videos found on these sites, over 95 percent are sexually explicit and feature women who did not consent to their creation.

90 percent of cyber exploitation victims are women, 93 percent suffer significant emotional distress, 51 percent of victims have suicidal thoughts, and 49 percent report being stalked or harassed online by people who saw the material. SB 1111 creates a framework to hold AI users accountable by creating clear legal standing for victims and defining the boundaries of this AI technology.

The bill expands liability only for very specific sets of instances when someone uses another person's voice or likeness to create a digital replica without their consent. The bill is sponsored by Paris Hilton's 11:11 Media company and supported by SAG-AFTRA, the California Federation of Labor Unions, and the Transparency Coalition, amongst others. With me to testify today is Mikey Houthi, the California policy director for Common Sense Media.

So unfortunately, I'm not Paris Hilton, but I'll do my best to stand in her place. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Mikey Houthi. I'm California policy director for Common Sense Media, and we're proud to support SB 1111. Common Sense Media is a nonprofit operating nationwide whose focus is to protect kids' safety and well-being in the digital age.

California is leading the nation in AI regulations. However, a significant gap remains. The lack of comprehensive legal framework to address the nonconsensual creation of deep fake audio and images is dangerous and leaves victims with no remedy. This exposes individuals to various forms of exploitation, identity theft, scams, misinformation, and misrepresentation of character. With some deep fakes target when while some deep fakes target public figures, AI software now allows users to create content featuring anyone.

Often, women and children are targeted victims, and the vast majority of incidents are sexually explicit in nature. This bill creates a framework to hold AI users accountable by creating clear legal standing for victims and defining the boundaries of AI technology. SB 1111 establishes violations in the right of publicity law and false impersonation law for using a person's voice or likeness to create a digital replica without their consent. This bill is not about broad sweeping regulation of AI technology itself.

It is about developing clear rules for the use of AI and providing a remedy for victims of its abuse.

As technology changes, California must continue to advance the standard for protection against AI violence and those affected by it. I respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Crystal Strait with the Music Artist Coalition in support.

Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I will turn it over to the dais for any member's questions. Seeing no comments or questions, we have a motion and a second. Secretary sorry.

Assemblymember, would you like to close?

On behalf of Senator Ashby, I'd expect to ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

I'm trying to get Menjivar to come in. She doesn't have any bills.

So many of you know artificial intelligence has embedded itself into nearly every corner of modern life. It's made its way into our workforces, our schools, our health care, and our homes. And recently, it has found its way into our children's toys. The market has been flooded with such toys as Teddy bears that are powered by the same technology running chatbots such as Grot.

Researchers testing these toys have found alarming outcomes. Various a o AI toys marketed to children have been found to speak in-depth about sexually explicit topics, give kids advice on where to find dangerous objects such as matches or knives, promote increased usage through addictive features, and pose data privacy risks. In California, we have some of the strictest toy safety laws that protect children from a myriad of physical harm such as exposure to toxic substances and choking hazards.

We need to update these regulations to address the psychological harm that products can pose as well. In the state of New York, for example, similar legislation is making its way through their state legislature.

We are in a cycle. Technology moves faster than regulation, and we are not yet fully aware of the harm often until it is too late. This bill breaks that cycle by placing a four year moratorium on the sale and manufacturing of AI chatbot powered toys, allowing a proper time for lawmakers to modernize our toy safety regulations to fit the digital age. Innovation without guardrails, especially when it comes to our kids, is not boldness, it's recklessness.

We need to put the time in and thought to get this right because children's well-being is at stake. Joining me today to testify is Nicole Rocha with Children Now.

Good afternoon, chair and committee members. I am Nicole Rocha here on behalf of Children Now. For years, young people have been sharing how their mental health has been negatively affected by their online interactions. After many years of fighting for legislation to keep kids safe on social media, youth and families have finally seen historic verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars with juries finding that social media intentionally addicted children and failed to protect them from known harm.

In addition, the age appropriate design code was largely affirmed by the ninth circuit earlier this year.

Importantly, last year, Senator Padilla passed a first in the country bill to regulate how companion AI interacts with children and created fundamental safeguards. And while these are historic wins, the work is far from over. As AI pours into every aspect of our lives, it is important to learn from our experience with social media. If the legislature does not take timely action, we could once again be dealing with the aftermath of decades of harm to children that could have been prevented.

We are not saying that the harms stemming from AI are the same as the harms stemming from social media use, and we are certainly not claiming that AI use by children has no benefit.

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

What the bill would do is put a pause button on the use of companion AI in products designed specifically for play by children until we know that that technology how that technology is going to affect their developing minds. AB 867 is a sensible measure that will make space for thoughtful consideration before young people are exposed to potentially harmful technology.

They deserve a digital world that supports their healthy mental development. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Crystal Strait with Common Sense Media in support.

Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against Media Addiction in support.

Diana Hawkins from Mama's Silicon Valley in support.

Hello. Kelly Mac Millan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in support.

Thank you. Do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

Madam chair and members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Just very quickly, wanted to outline, our concerns with the broad definition of toy in the bill and what constitutes a toy not being considered, what you would think of as a children's product. We appreciate the conversations with the author's office and look forward to continuing to work with them. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition or yes? Okay.

Jacob Brint with California Retailers Association with an imposed unless amended position contingent on a knowingly standard. Thank you.

K. Last call. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, turning it to the diaspora. Any questions or comments?

Thank you, Senator. I remember your other bill that you brought forth in this space. And I would say that some of the concerns that the opposition has brought up in terms of the amendments needed to bring greater clarity are important, and, you should consider them. I recognize we're in the second house here in this committee. I don't I don't remember.

I think you go straight to a probs after this, but I think that those, are valid. I'll be, supporting today, but I think those are, before I would vote for it on the floor. I think those types of things need to be resolved. Thanks.

Thank you.

Senator, would you like to close? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. Assemblymember DeMaio.

Miss Wilson, you know, is gonna support the bill today. I'm a little more interested in getting, maybe in your close, specific commitments to the issues that have been raised. When I read through the bill, I said, I understand we don't want AI to be out of control for our kids. I started thinking about the age of 18. We had we had a similar bill on addictive features on social media that Mister Lowenthal has been leading the charge on that I support.

I just think all the way to age 18, the definition of toy, knowingly selling, what, exchanging, transferring. I mean, this is very widespread. I could see people getting caught up in noncompliance here. And I also have to, you know, ask, you know, do we need a moratorium when there are some safeguards that are already in place, regarding, making sure companies are looking at these issues. So I'm very nervous about the the unintended consequences of this bill, though I understand the intent behind it.

I just think right now there's a whole bunch of definitional gray area that needs to be clarified. And my hope is that either we see that fixed by the time it gets to the assembly floor, or I would be very opposed to it and urge others to oppose as well.

First of all, I wanna thank the author. Second time we've seen you today on similar topics, not the same bill, but I used the metaphor earlier, peeling back the onion that is precisely what you're doing on this. I think a moj moratorium is the exact thing that needs to happen right now, and I will reiterate what I said in BNP earlier. All of this exists because we lack oversight.

We do not have an oversight entity that is doing those types of things, and that's why legislators at the behest of of their constituents are going to try and initiate things like moratoriums until we can get our arms around them.

And the truth of the matter is is and I could say this as a dad, the toys from this past holiday season were significantly different than the year before, and it is going to be exhausting and impossible, dare I say, for the legislature to have to run bills on an annual basis in reaction to the things that we're seeing in consumer marketplace.

The truth of the matter is is we don't have a testing regimen that we know to be safe, and we don't have professionals in the field, in an oversight capacity that we do in virtually every other component of government to advise and make recommendations to the legislature on guardrails. And so I applaud you in the absence of that for coming up with things that are going to, you know, put a stop gap and and make sure that this generation is truly safe.

I'm I'm very worried about the power that that I see firsthand chatbots have over children, and they're developing minds. And I'm I would like to be added as coauthor of this bill if you'll have me, and I really appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions or comments, I would like to add a comment briefly also thanking the author for bringing this bill forward. We've seen many, many bills related to the dangers of AI and chatbots. And so, similar to my colleague, it is, exciting to see something that's actually gonna give us an opportunity to not just continually play catch up in some of these and actually have a proactive act action towards things that are harming our children.

And especially today, we have a whole new generation of babies being born into a world with AI. And we know that from zero to five is when their brains are most developed, and that includes the toys they play with.

And so I wanna thank you for bringing this forward and would also love to be added as a co author.

Thank you.

And seeing no other comments oh, yes. Assembly member Ward.

Only adding on because we're still waiting maybe another Senate author, but one to really just echo as well, full faith in the author to sort of work on some of these definitional issues. I hope that there's no disagreement that, you know, the fundamental of what you're trying to work on here is the the the the principle of the harms that we're seeing from this that we wouldn't wanna see available to any of our children. And so you've been committed to this for several years now.

I appreciate that you're really leading in this space. People lives will be saved because of it. Hopefully, mental health will improve because of it. And so I wanna be able to see all that worked on and how the author have the chance to be able to bring that to the floor.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no other comments, would you like to close?

Thank you, madam chair and members. Appreciate the dialogue and always will continue to work diligently with all concerned parties to make sure that we can operationalize a piece of legislation and make it not just work and meaningfully impactful, but also equitable. That is the goal. I think, to, the assembly member from San Diego's comments a minute ago, we shouldn't lose sight of the obvious.

There is a growing and overwhelming dataset nationally, not just about the implementation or utilization in toys, some of which are designed for very small children, by the way, that employee chatbots as a design interactive feature.

Sometimes we're finding out based on that dataset that those are being deployed in these models that are being designed and marketed without regulation, sometimes without license from the developer deployer of the technology. So there's a myriad of issues here that I think support the obvious premise of this bill, which is this has the potential to harm the most vulnerable among us, our children. It is has the potential to occur at large massive scale.

Data is growing daily to support that, and that cries out for reasonable oversight. That's the purpose of this bill. I appreciate the dialogue. I have heard you. We'll continue diligently working the bill to make it impactful, and, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We had a motion and a second, I believe. Yes. We had a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have six votes who will leave the roll open. Seven. Seven

We have seven votes. We will leave the roll open for absent members. We will move on to item number three, SB 1247.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present SB 1247, the Child Influencer Right to Deletion Act. This bill gives children whose image and likeness were monetized in content by their families during the time they were juveniles the ability to delete that content, allowing them to control their image and their privacy. Two years ago, I introduced SB 764, which created financial protections for child influencers in line with California's historic Coogan Act nearly a century ago.

That bill was a key first step in adopting and adapting laws to the modern economy, and this bill is a continuation of that work, creating privacy protections for children of bloggers who often had some of their most vulnerable moments in their developmental cycle captured, digitized, and marketed to massive audiences for profit. This bill gives children who were monetized online the ability to delete that content.

Children of family influencers may not have a choice in participating in videos or their lives being available for public consumption, and more child influencers have spoken up about the difficulties of growing up in the public light, with some experiencing stalking and threats due to their public presence.

A New York Times investigation recently found that many of these children posted online drew audiences of adults seeking explicit content, and parents continued posting their child because more followers meant more lucrative advantages. Alyson Stoner, a champion of this bill who has testified previously on it, experienced stalking and identity theft as a child performer and states that these sorts of threats are the norm, and they are on the rise with AI tools. These images are now often used for child sexual exploitation and abuse. The parents and company profit. The child pays the price.

Similar legislation has been proposed and passed in other states, such as Utah, where Shari Franke, daughter of Ruby Franke, a family blogger convicted of child abuse, championed a similar bill after she and her siblings grew up with their lives documented painfully online. This would give them control of their image back when they turn 18, allowing them to take back control and begin a process of healing.

This bill has had strong bipartisan support and has received no no votes, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do we have any main witnesses in support? Additional witnesses in support.

Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against Media Addiction, in support.

Diana Hawkins, Mama Silicon Valley, in support.

Matty Hyatt for California Civil Liberties Advocacy, in support.

Kelly Mac Millan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, do we have other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, turning it over to the dais for questions or comments. Seeing none, we had a motion and a second.

Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Item number three, SB 1247 by Senator Padilla. The motion is do pass to the Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure has nine votes. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members.

Senator Gonzales.

Go ahead. Item number nine, SB 1146. Whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Glad to be here. I wanna begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff for their work. I'm here to present SB 1146, which will protect Californians from deceptive AI generated health advertisements. The rapid advancement of AI and generative AI, as we know, has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and fake content, and specifically over the issues of medical products and medical services and health related products.

SB 1146 will address this issue by requiring advertisements for health products or services that include a digital replica or synthetic performer depicted as a health care provider to clearly disclose that the content was AI generated. And it's a critical step forward to making sure that consumers are protected against this deceptive practice. Testifying in support, I have doctor Adam Dougherty, from Sutter Medical Center and George Sorey from the California Medical Association, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is doctor Adam Dougherty. I'm a board certified emergency physician living and practicing medicine here in Sacramento and a trustee of the California Medical Association. I'm here representing CMA as the proud sponsor of SB 1146 by Senator Landon Gonzales. I'd like to thank Senator Gonzales for authoring this important measure and all of the work the committee and staff have put into this bill.

SB 1146 seeks to crack down on the growing use of artificial intelligence to create fraudulent advertisements for health related products that use a physician's image without their knowledge or consent. Deepfake doctors on digital platforms are garnering millions of views while endorsing potentially dangerous, non FDA approved weight loss supplements and questionable medical treatments and devices. We know that deep fakes are rampant online, but when it's health care that's infiltrated, patients' well-being is at a direct risk. We are combating misinformation daily in our exam rooms.

These scams frequently target the elderly and those with chronic conditions, leading patients to waste money on ineffective products, believe and act on medical misinformation, or delay seeking medical care.

Bad actors are exploding the credibility of the medical profession and weaponizing the sacred trust between doctors and patients. Patients with poor health literacy or those unable to access timely primary care may be a particular risk in this rapidly evolving space. This bill establishes simple common sense transparency requirements for advertisements for health related consumer products and services.

If the ad uses AI to generate or significantly alter a physician's likeness, including their physical appearance or their voice, they must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure informing consumers that the content was created using AI. This bill empowers the attorney general to take enforcement action against fraudulent actors and gives individual physicians a narrowly tailored mechanism to legally defend themselves against scammers who have used their image without consent.

Lastly, the bill does not prohibit the use of AI in legitimate health care settings. It builds on previous CMA sponsored legislation, which prevents AI from misrepresenting itself as a licensed health care professional. These bills focus specifically on transparency in marketing and consumer protection. The physician patient relationship is built on trust and is core to our profession and the communities that we serve. When scammers use AI to steal a doctor's identity, they are not just committing fraud.

They are putting lives at risk. SB 1146 is a common sense measure to restore integrity to health information online and hold scammers accountable. For these reasons, we ask that you support this measure today. We appreciate your time and consideration, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

George Soares of the California Medical Association here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? MJDS on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in support.

Lawrence Gaiden with the California Dental Association in support.

Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

We shouldn't.

Seeing no main witnesses in opposition, do we have any others in opposition? Seeing none, I will turn it over to the dais for questions or comment.

Wonderful bill. I'd love to be added as a coauthor, Senator, if you would have me. I can't see any scenario where AI generated images would be appropriate in this field. I can't there's no wonder why there's no opposition to this bill. I can't see any business case.

I can't see any consumer case. I can't see any reason. Thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Thank you.

I make it a standing practice of always joining all bills that assembly member Lowenthal Jumps on. And so I would also like to join you in this effort. Thank you for leading this fight.

Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments other than thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward, would you like to close?

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I thank doctor Doherty for being here. He came out of practice, look at that, to come here and testify. So I appreciate it. Thank you, members.

Thank you. We had a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

Great job. Item number nine, SB 1146 by Senator Gonzales. The motion is do passed to the Judiciary Committee. Bauer-Kahan? Macedo?

Aye. Macedo, aye. Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye.

Demaio? Aye. Hoover, aye. Irwin? Aye.

Aye. Irwin, Aye. Lowenthal?

Lowenthal, Aye. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, Aye. Ortega?

Aye.

Aye. Ortega, Aye. Patterson. Pellerin? Petrie-Norris? Ward?

Ward, Aye. Wicks? Wilson? Aye. Wilson, Aye.

Aye.

That measure has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. We will lift the call on consent.

[Roll Call]

Well, leave that role open. Leave it open. Okay.

[Roll Call]

That measure has nine votes. We will keep the roll open for absent members.

[Roll Call]

That bill has 10. We will leave the roll open for absent members.

[Roll Call]

We have 12 votes that measure, will leave open for absent members.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 12 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members.

[Roll Call]

That measure has 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 10. We'll leave the roll open for absent members.

Item number three, SB 1247 by Senator Padilla. [Roll Call]

We have 11 votes. That bill will remain open for absent members. If staff is listening, if we can get Senator Becker, Senator Perez over to privacy and consumer protection. Thank you.

Welcome, Senator Becker. We appreciate you being here this afternoon. Whenever you are ready, we will take item number six, SB 1000.

Thank you. Oh, wow. Alright. Thank you for letting me present SB 1000. I want to thank committee staff for their engagement on this issue over the last three years.

In 2023, we passed the California AI Transparency Act. The first law in the country requiring AI content to be labeled with disclosures about where it came from. Assistant AI and the technologies, use embed and detect these disclosures have evolved rapidly, and that requires changes to be made in the acts in order for it to accomplish its goals.

The language in print today has been drafted in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders across industry, civil society, and international authorities, including those in the EU, who recently published the code of practice for Article 50 of the EU AI Act. SB 1000 brings the act into harmony with international regulations around content providence and pushes industry to standardized methods of content disclosure that are readable by large online platforms.

These changes will make sure the actual crimes will work for consumers and developers alike. Furthermore, this committee and I have engaged extensively with the entertainment industry to ensure there are no unintended consequences that harm creators and studios, and that we are confident the existing exemptions under the original law accomplish that. This bill will serve as a bedrock for future governance in this space and provide all Californians with additional information about where the content they see comes from. I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Okay. Do we have a witness in support?

Yes. Good afternoon, members. John Doherty from KP Public Affairs on behalf of Google and Adobe in support. I want to thank the author, the committee staff, and everybody who's working on it. I would briefly say, I hope we can get this to the governor in time to hit, and make it the law before 942 goes into effect, which will create confusion. So, appreciate it.

Thank you. Seeing, do we have any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments from the dais? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Senator, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thanks. Just to explain what what he said. So August 1, the original bill goes, it goes into effect and so that we're hoping that this can be passed and adopted quickly, hopefully go to the assembly floor, so that it, these changes are adopted before the bill goes into effect. But again, I appreciate the committee's three years work on this.

Looking forward to have this really lead the world, once again from California, and I'll respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you. Secretary, we have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

Item number six, SB 1000 by Senator Becker. The motion is do passed to the appropriations committee.

[Roll Call]

That measure has nine votes. We will leave the role open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number nine, SB 1146 by Senator Gonzales. The vote is 10. We have ten votes, 10 I's.

[Roll Call]

We have 12 votes that will leave the roll open for absent members.

Senator Perez, welcome.

We will, oops. We will now hear SB 957 by Senator Perez when you're ready. Oh, there you go. Now your mic's on.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 957, the Shield Act. Before I begin, I will be accepting the committee amendments reflected in comment four on page six of the committee analysis. I appreciate the work and collaboration of the committee staff to address the need to clarify from previous amendments in the Senate that social media companies also assess subpoenas issued pursuant to the Tariff Act.

SB 957 requires social media companies to notify individuals when the federal government seeks their personal information through an administrative subpoena.

This bill also ensures that users have thirty days to respond or challenge the subpoena, requires companies to disclose what information was shared, and establishes reporting requirements to the Attorney General. Social media has become a critical tool for Californians to engage in activism, political expression, and information sharing. This is especially true now. Discussions around politics and government have been particularly prominent, as communities across the state are responding to increased federal immigration enforcement.

Community leaders and residents have organized to share updates about immigration enforcement activities, using social media platforms to track ICE presence, share alerts with their neighbors, and hold federal agencies accountable.

Despite the federal and state constitutional right to freedom of speech, administrative subpoenas are being increasingly used by DHS to obtain information about individuals who operate accounts that post about or criticize ICE. These administrative subpoenas do not require judicial approval or probable cause, yet they can be used to obtain sensitive information like names, addresses, and phone numbers. We've already seen cases where individuals were targeted simply for expressing criticism of the federal government.

For example, a New York Times article cites that in recent months, Google, Meta, Discord, and Reddit have received multiple subpoenas from DHS requesting identifying details of anonymous accounts that have spoken out against ICE or tracked the location of ICE agents. In another example, a man in Philadelphia was subpoenaed after sending an email to DHS criticizing their treatment of an asylum seeker.

DHS agents and local police showed up to his home to interrogate him. The subpoena was challenged in federal court as a violation of the First Amendment, and the court ruled that subpoenas cannot be used to intimidate individuals who criticize federal agencies. While some social media companies have willingly provided notice to individuals, others have shared information without ever letting the user know their data was requested. The lack of transparency in these instances undermines trust, exposes individuals to potential retaliation, and discourages people from speaking out publicly.

People should not be intimidated into silence out of fear that their personal information may be secretly shared with the federal government without their knowledge.

SB 957 would protect user privacy and free speech by ensuring that Californians are notified and given a fair opportunity to challenge a subpoena before their information is disclosed. This bill is sponsored by the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus and is supported by the ACLU of California Action, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Oakland Privacy, Public Counsel, and others.

Today with me to provide testimony in support of this bill is Becca Cramer Mowder with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Symphoni Barbee, a legislative advocate with the ACLU California Action.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Symphoni Barbee on behalf of the ACLU Cal Action. Proud to be here in support of SB 957. Since President Trump took office, the Department of Homeland Security has been sending legal demands called administrative subpoenas targeting U.S. residents who have criticized the government online. These subpoenas have never been seen by a judge, and recent reporting indicates that there are hundreds of these abusive demands sent to social media companies.

The government targeting people they disagree with to reveal their identities would be bad enough, but people are put in impossible positions when they are targeted. In some cases that the ACLU has litigated to challenge these subpoenas, people have been given ten days to file the motion in federal court. It is an impossible burden, and one that risks trampling people's rights.

These subpoenas demand big tech companies like Google and Meta turn over extensive privacy data about account users who did nothing more than exercise their First Amendment rights from the internet. In one case covered by The Washington Post, a person targeted by a subpoena had agents show up to his home.

These subpoenas are intimidation dressed up as law. They're an attack on people's fundamental rights, and we ask today that you vote yes on SB 957. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Becca Cramer Mowder with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, also a proud supporter. In the past year, the Trump administration has consistently targeted people engaging in free speech. ICE has issued administrative subpoenas to tech companies to unmask users tracking ICE activity, people who have criticized the government, and even those who attended a protest. And these ICE subpoenas are unlawful, and the government knows it.

When they've been challenged in court, ICE has consistently withdrawn these subpoenas. SB 957 offers very basic consumer protections. It requires social media companies to do two things that they should already be doing. First, companies must give their users prior notice of a subpoena. In order to challenge a lawless subpoena, users must first know about them.

Many companies already promised to give this notice, but they don't always follow through. EFF's lawyers currently represent a PhD student whose data was turned over to ICE because Google did not give him the notice that he was promised. Second, SB 957 requires companies to make sure that ICE subpoenas do not exceed the agency's authority and are not overly broad. Companies say they already do this.

For example, when EFF asked ten tech companies to do more to protect their users from these subpoenas, one company replied, quote, we carefully review all legal process to ensure facial validity and legal sufficiency, and we will object when appropriate, end quote.

While this statement is a good start, a mere promise from a tech company is no longer enough. We need enforceable laws, which is why EFF is proud to support SB 957 and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here in support of this measure? Name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Osama Muqaddam with the Council on American-Islamic Relations California in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzales, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Mr. Demaio?

I am going to put in my date book four or five years from now that we need to do a study of all the unintended consequences of Trump derangement syndrome on public policy. Because this is a widespread bill that will limit the ability of the federal government to protect us far in the future. You tie the hands of federal law enforcement. The bill doesn't apply to the state.

And I didn't hear any hooting and hollering when Governor Gavin Newsom in May 2020 launched something called California Connected, where he entered into a contract with social media giants to do contact tracing on COVID-19.

Again, if the federal government has a search warrant, there are protocols, processes, due process, protections. But we're talking about really bad public policy driven by, I think, a derangement syndrome. So I won't be supporting this, and I would ask the author to really perhaps put, if you're going to proceed, some guardrails on this. Maybe even a sunset, I guess. Because it does seem to be fixated on one individual rather than trying to improve how law enforcement interacts with various agencies and private companies.

So I will be a no vote. Thank you.

Anybody else? No? Okay. Seeing and hearing no further comments. Sorry about, there's a motion by Assemblymember Ortega, seconded by Ms. Pellerin.

I don't know why we have a feedback moment.

If we could turn that mic off behind, can you turn that mic off? Thanks. Appreciate it. Okay. Nope.

Still happening. Okay. Well, I'll just stand back from my mic. Maybe that'll help. So I think this is a critically important question we are asking.

I think it's important to note that criminal subpoenas are different than administrative subpoenas, and the requirements on a government agency to get an administrative subpoena are different than a criminal subpoena. And we have seen cases, and the ACLU has been at the forefront of litigating these, where these administrative subpoenas appear to be intended just to get at First Amendment protected activities.

And, you know, when the press broke this story about those subpoenas, which is when I heard about it, it may have been in other people's awareness prior to that. There was some incredible investigative reporting that helped me see this. It was frankly concerning to me, because when the government starts to curb constitutionally protected activities through what appears to be witch hunts, that's really concerning, because people need to exercise their rights to speak.

And the Supreme Court has actually found that anonymous speech is part of the fundamental protection under the First Amendment. Sometimes we want to speak anonymously, and we have the right to do so. And so I actually have a bill moving in the Senate that prohibits companies from responding to administrative subpoenas that are solely after First Amendment protected activity, because I believe that those subpoenas are on their face unlawful.

We have the same protections here for subpoenas going after abortion providers and the like, because that is protected activity. And so you cannot subpoena what is protected activity here in California and actually be protected across the nation under the federal constitution.

And so I think that one of the things you're doing here, which is letting people know, is basically giving them due process rights through that knowledge, because otherwise due process is meaningless if you don't know you need it, as the witness said. So I think this is really important. I think you've worked really hard to not have opposition from the companies that will have to comply with this.

I imagine that has not been true since the beginning of this bill, but that you have gotten to that point. And so clearly, there's something the companies believe they can comply with and will protect California citizens.

So I have an aye recommendation, but would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I really appreciate your comments. And, you know, just want to reiterate what you mentioned, and to, you know, Assemblymember Demaio's concern, you know, this is really about notifying individuals, giving them time to respond if they would like to, and also making sure that we have clear transparency on what information is being requested. At the end of the day, and I do want to highlight that this bill has received bipartisan support.

When we're expressing and utilizing our First Amendment rights, when we're interacting online, you know, that is protected speech.

And whether it be somebody that is considered a Democrat or Republican, those rights should apply evenly. The fact that we've seen cases where the federal government is targeting people who basically disagree with the administration and disagree with ICE's actions is incredibly disturbing. And I think we should all be appalled by the New York Times investigative reporting that found that the federal government had issued hundreds of subpoenas to target users. So appreciate your comments, Madam Chair.

I love to hear that you're bringing forward that bill as well. An urgent aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill has nine votes. It is out. Perhaps the members?

We will leave it open for absent members. Thank you, Senator. So we will go back and do add-ons. Our A-plus student can leave. Okay.

When you're ready. Okay.

[Roll Call]

We are adjourned.