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

So good afternoon everyone. Welcome. Today, today's consent calendar will consist of file item number two AB 2143 by Assembly Member Irwin. We will be having two bills pulled which is file item number 10 AB 1856 by Assembly Member Wicks As well as file item number 11, AB 1946 by Assemblywoman Wicks. Seeing that we do not have a quorum, we will begin as a subcommittee.

And we have Assemblywoman Addis. Sorry. Like, just blank it out. Assemblywoman Addis, here to present bill, file item number one, AB 1159. And, Assemblywoman Addis, you may begin when you're ready ma'am.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. We appreciate it. We're here to present AB 1159, the California Learner Personal Information Protection Act, otherwise known as CALPIPA, which makes critical improvements to California student data privacy laws to reflect the modern reality of our educational system and protect our students. And I do wanna thank the Chair as well as staff for all of your work, on this bill. We've had many productive conversations with stakeholders and continue those conversations.

So just a quick recap of the problem before us, the Student Online Personal Information Protection Act, otherwise known as SOAPIPA, which is the K-12 Pupil Online Personal Information Protection Act, now known as KOPIPA, was signed into law in 2014 to combat the risks associated with the rising use of technology in the classroom. But the use of technology has evolved dramatically as we all know.

And I was a teacher in the classroom for twenty years and parent of two college age students and have witnessed this, transformation firsthand. So as EdTech has entered our classrooms and students from pre k through university have a near constant online presence, there's a variety of issues that are arising. And students are facing threats like they have never seen before.

We know that EdTech platforms are collecting far more information than students may realize, including audio visual information, photographs, videos, audio recordings, financial information, home addresses and family contact information, attendance patterns, health related searches, and even answers to quizzes and homework. So when students are required to put information into Courseware, it becomes part of their digital essence, that leaves all of the student data, And in essence, that leaves all of the student data subject to be sold, stolen, subpoenaed, or shared upon federal request.

So we have a solution, AB 1159, that would ensure that information collected from any California student for educational purposes is only for educational purposes and cannot be misused by big tech. And I've got two witnesses here to talk a little bit more about this. Becca Kramer from the Privacy Rights Clearing House and sponsor of the bill, and Mitch Steiger, legislative advocate for CFT.

Thank you and welcome.

Thank you. Becca Kramer on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearing House, proud sponsors of AB 1159. California has long been a leader in protecting student privacy, passing the first law in the nation directly regulating the EdTech that was starting to proliferate k through 12 classrooms to ensure educational privacy law kept pace with technology. Over a decade later, EdTech is deeply embedded in students' lives.

But there is still no California or federal law focused on the EdTech companies who collect personal and private information from college students, including high school students with dual enrollment in a college course.

These college students are required to use technology in order to get their degrees. They must use the digital course book that their instructor selects and answer its digital prompts and questions, such as these questions that one such EdTech company asked college students. Did the student have more than one sexual partner? Did the student use a latex condom or oil based lubricants? Students and faculty are largely unaware of how their personal information on these devices is collected, used, shared, and sold.

Popular textbook providers, for example, reserve the right to use students' educational information for marketing and advertising, combining it with information purchased from data brokers, and sharing students' sensitive personal information with tech giants and social media platforms. No student should have to sacrifice their privacy in order to get an education.

AB 1159 ensures all California students have the same privacy protections when it comes to EdTech, as well as ensures that EdTech does not collect students' immigration status, sexual orientation or gender identity, or reproductive or sexual health information. Information that is invasive and not necessary for EdTech companies to know. For these reasons, we urge you to vote I on AB 1159.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. Proud to support this bill for the reasons already stated so well by the author and primary witness. This is an issue that is shockingly prevalent for our membership. We just conducted an internal survey that found 86% of our members listed it as somewhere between very important and extremely important for us to improve data security for our members.

And it's an issue for everyone whether they like to use EdTech or whether they're not big fans of EdTech and our members are really all over the spectrum on that one. For the ones that are aren't big fans of this technology, they're often required to use it. And one of the reasons that many of them aren't fans of it is because they're aware that the data security is not where it's supposed to be.

Especially for our higher ed faculty who are very much aware that there's not really much protecting their students at all. And so they know that when they use this technology, they might be putting their students at risk of any number of harms that that were already mentioned.

And it's really the same deal for those that do really appreciate this technology and want to use it where they think it's appropriate. They they believe strongly that this is how they can give their students the best possible education, but they have to weigh that benefit against the risk of their data being used in ways that it shouldn't be.

And so, it puts them in a very tough spot, to the point where some of them are no longer interested in remaining teachers because they're aware of the risks involved. And so this would be a big step in the right direction. And on a more personal note, my son is eight years old and this is an issue for him.

He uses a lot of ed tech in his classroom. And about a week ago, I had a conversation with him about this and I was explaining to him this bill and the need for it and lawsuits that are currently happening in this area and his eyes kept getting bigger and he announced that he was no longer gonna use any of this, that he did not wanna be followed. He did not wanna be surveilled.

And I had to explain to him that may not be an option for you, that some of this technology is used for state mandated assessments. And so if you don't wanna use it, that's okay, but there are times when you're going to have to.

And he didn't like that. He's very worried about what's gonna happen with his data. And I strongly believe an eight year old should not have to worry about that kind of thing. School is already tough enough for kids and they shouldn't have to deal with those sorts of risks. This bill moves us very far in the right direction towards minimizing those risks and we strongly urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Do any members of the public wish to register their support for the bill? If so, please come forward and provide us your name, affiliation Crystal. Acceptor lobbying

I was gonna say

And I know that your position on the bill.

Crystal Strait, representing Common Sense Media in support.

Good afternoon. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Mister Chair and Members of the committee, Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions and proud support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Karen Stout here on behalf of United US in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Samantha Gordon, Tech Equity in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Micaiah Tran on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support. Thank you.

Good evening. McKenna Mastaza with NextGen California in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

Good afternoon. Lan Lei on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in strong support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.

Megan Varve with Kaiser Advocacy, sharing support on behalf of Children's Advocacy Institute, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Asian Solidarity Collective, California National Organization for Women, California Work and Family Coalition, Californians Together, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of California, Courage California, Equal Rights Advocates, Genders and Sexualities Alliance Network, Indivisible, California State Strong, Core Center Advocacy, Secure Justice, Students Deserve, Tech Oversight California, and the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network. Thank you.

Alright. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition?

Quickly is it Sasha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District. We have some concerns that we've been working very closely with the author's office to resolve related to the definition of de identified data. Hope to resolve this soon. Thank you. Alright.

You're welcome. I now have two minutes.

Good afternoon.

Maybe. There we go. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Sara Noceto here on behalf of the National and California Associations of College Stores.

We are here in a oppose unless amended position. We have several amendments that we're proposing as outlined in our letter to the committee. I'm just gonna highlight two of them here today. First we're asking to narrow the definition of operator to exempt higher education institutions and their auxiliary in, organizations. An auxiliary organization operates to provide supportive services, specialized programs, and other functions pertaining to an institution's educational mission or activities.

This includes bookstores, food services, housing, student unions, and support services. Auxiliary organizations handle student related information received directly from institutions or collected in connection with the services provided. This data is subject to existing privacy laws which do prohibit the sale of student information for unrelated purposes and is reinforced by contract restrictions with institutional partners. Second, we are asking to preserve institution related communications and operational messages that are essential to student success.

These communications include notifications about course materials, affordability options, payment deadlines, rental return reminders, and order updates.

Our amendment would make clear that operators can communicate with students about products and services offered in connection with institution related services.

So as long as they're not based on profiling profiling unrelated to higher education purposes, this keeps the consumer protection goals of the bill intact while ensuring students still get the practical, timely information they need to access their course materials and to manage costs. We support strong and enforceable student privacy protections, and we agree that student data should not be misused for unrelated advertising, or profiling, or resale.

But we do believe AB 1159 should be more carefully tailored so it does not reduce access to beneficial student services. We look forward to continuing the conversation with the author and sponsors, but respectfully remain, opposed to the bills currently in print. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. We've reached the time in the hearing where a quorum has arrived and so we'll let's establish a quorum. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Thank you. Are there any Members of the public wish to register their opposition to the bill? Alright. Please come forward with your name and affiliation for the record.

Okay.

Robert Boykin with TechNet in respectful opposition.

Megan Stokes with the Computer and Communications Industry Association in respectful opposition.

Alright. Seeing no other testimony, why don't we return it to the committee for any further questions or discussion or motion? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Yeah. I do have a couple of questions. So we were seeing many bills that have to do with AI and platforms protecting our students private the personal information of the users and I'm in absolute complete support of of that function.

Some of the concerns that we have are Well, first of all, let me just begin by just asking how are the conversations with the opposition as far as some of the concerns and the amendments that have been presented to kind of address some of those concerns.

I think the conversations are going well. We've we've had quite a bit of back and forth in conversation, received new information yesterday. We're happy to keep going through that information.

Okay. So, because some some of the concerns that I have are were expressed by by the opposition including the inability for the information to be used for scholarships, qualifying for college placement or academic credit, accessing financial aid and receiving information about post secondary and workforce opportunities. So some those are some of the the issues. And then my personal one that I really really am concerned about, honestly is the the private right of action that has absolutely no guard rails.

So there's nothing limiting as to where and who can file a lawsuit against the universities or the, I guess the platforms or the actual companies providing the services.

So it leaves it very much open ended with no parameters and I and I think that that's where I'm coming in with. There has to be some clear guidelines and parameters as to who can and why they would file a lawsuit against anybody that's involved here. And I think some of the amendments that have been proposed might actually address of those concerns that were expressed. But the the the intent of the bill is commendable and I'm actually very supportive of it.

But I am concerned about the the those those concerns.

And then there was one other that was actually just highlighted and I think it's a good point is that I can understand the the limitations especially for stringent when it comes to k 12. Right? As far as being minors and being students. But these are, you're also dealing with the majority, with some exceptions, adults. So we're we're we're providing all of this protection.

Almost treating the consumer or the student as a minor but they're actually adults. So where is that come in on in in this in in this scenario with within this component within the bill?

Maybe I could take this one by one and and happy to turn Yeah. My affinity is okay.

Thank you for those questions. So, let's go in reverse order and I might need help remembering the first one, when we did. So in terms of when we're looking at the higher ed students, and this is adults. Yes, they are adults. But what does it mean to consent to a privacy policy that says a company can do whatever they want with your data?

When in order to use their product, which is required for you to use to complete your homework that is graded, you have to consent. And so it's a very coercive kind of a situation, and that's why we are proposing bringing in these guardrails that people would expect in any sort of coercive situation where that consent is not actually truly voluntary, because they are trying to get their education. And so that is why this is extending these basic protections regardless of age is because of the situation.

In terms of the private right of act it looks like you have a you wanted to ask No. No.

No. No. Go ahead. Okay. In terms of the private right of action, there are actually, a number of guardrails.

So our bill is the private right of action in our bill is actually not what privacy rights clearing house or the privacy communities would normally propose. It's based on the student borrower bill of rights, which this legislature passed just a few years ago, that has been shown not to have a bunch of frivolous lawsuits. If you would like, I have a nifty handout comparing exactly what's in the student borrower bill of rights and where to find it in our bill. But the, there are significant protections.

So first of all, it's only against the EdTech vendors.

Universities and the schools are not liable at all. It is just against the vendors. It is only if someone can, has suffered actual damages as a result of the operator's failure to comply with the statute. That is in the language that we have in the bill already. So they have to prove actual damages, which is incredibly hard, especially in privacy situations.

Then there there's notice given to the EdTech vendor, and they have the opportunity to correct the, the way that they're operating. And then only if they choose not to correct it, then it can go to appear to the, to a lawsuit. So there are actually a significant number of guardrails and hurdles to to protect, against frivolous lawsuits, but also to make sure that families have an opportunity when real harm has happened to protect their students, rights.

We've seen with the ten years of LPIPA and KOPIPA on the books that, unfortunately, the the law has not been re enforced very much. There was the very first enforcement action actually happened this last November.

And so we wanna make sure that students and families have a way when their students information is being used in way inappropriately to cause actual damages, that families have a recourse to go to the company and say, actually, you need to stop violating the law.

Okay. So you do have a right. First of all, you do have a right to cure. Yes.

There's a right to cure in here.

Okay. And then number two, do you, is there a definition as to what would be defined as harm?

My understanding is that is, a term of art that that's already established in case law.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

And then I don't remember You had a first question. An earlier question as well. Oh, the scholarships one. Yes. Yes.

So this nothing in our bill is preventing students from having access to scholarships. What it does is to say that the student and their family has control over which places get the student's information rather than college board or ACT making that decision for the student. So students can still look up this information. In fact, I went on their websites, in the first policy, First House Policy Committee hearings. I didn't have an account.

I wasn't logged in. I was just kind of general user. I was able to search various scholarship opportunities to filter by what type of scholarship I was looking for. So students will have that information, can learn already through those websites about how to apply, who is eligible. They are just the ones that will decide who's getting their information.

And that's important because I think when we think of scholarships, we think of schools and non profits and such giving those. But there are scholarships from Google, for example, that are listed on this website. And it's important that students and their families are making the decision about what information they are wanting to share and with whom, rather than another entity making that decision for the student.

Okay. So and then a final question just for clarification. For many of these, right now currently from what I understand and correct me if I'm wrong. But for the most part, people have an option to opt in or opt out as far as information sharing when it comes to various platforms. In this particular bill and with regards to the to the, I guess, the the apps that are being used here, Would it automatically be an opt in opt out option or automatically an opt out?

Would that be automatically in there?

How does that function in here? So the current We're gonna be here. The current framework under LPIPA and COPIPA, which we are also then, bringing into HEPIPA, is not based on consent or not. Given that in the educational context, consent gets tricky for the reasons I highlighted earlier about what does consent mean when, for example, your grades are based on it. But also who is consenting at what point in time.

If it's an EdTech vendor that the education the district has contracted with, is it the school district who is consenting? Is it your teacher who is consenting? Is it the student who is consenting? And so we are using the existing framework that is in LPIPA and COPIPA that says we're not talking about consent. We are talking about what companies can do and what companies cannot do.

And that's the framework that's used here. Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Jones, Vice Chair Jones.

Thank you, Mister Chair. If I can just ask, the opposition to kinda address the the PRA cure, the right to cure. And then also, is there is there an effort and the author or whoever can address this. Is is there an effort to get the definition of operator more well defined so that higher education is not part of it? Or are you are you purposely trying to keep higher ed in it?

So if I can go first to the right to the cure and then if you want to address that and then a response would be appropriate if the if the Chair is okay with that.

Oh, thank you, Mister Vice Chair. We do agree that the PRA is is a a notably narrowed PRA as opposed to a lot of legislation that we see. I think our concerns with the private right of action here are that in practice, institutions, auxiliary institutions, student service providers could be pulled into, like, discovery and and indemnification fights and litigation, you know, even if we're not being the primary, one being sued. I think that's just, you know, a a general concern with private right of actions.

We see overly, you know, overly, litigated PRAs all the time.

So I think that's I mean, it is a a further down concern of ours. I think, you know, the definitional concerns are primary for us, which I will go on to to discuss now. The, I know we've, we have been discussing, and we've seen some mocked up amendments from the author's office, that would exempt higher education institutions, which is a great step in the right direction. We are, still needing auxiliary organizations to be carved out.

You know, bookstores do have, like campus store platforms, course material ordering tools, access programs that, in our reading of the bill, we think would be included under under the term of operators.

So I think if we can get that, you know, exemption, we would feel a lot more comfortable with the bill.

And I would like I'd prefer to defer to the author, but if she would wants to defer to you, I'm okay with that too.

On the.

On the operator definition, is there are we continuing to work on to to define that? Are you intending to keep the auxiliary organizations that the opposition alludes to as to be captured by the bill or are you trying to work towards getting them out of the bill?

Well, we're we're definitely in conversations, around what exactly would be included. But the intention would be to make sure that we're protecting higher ed students. So we're still in conversations about exactly how we do that. I'd be happy to have, you know, share more technical, pieces of that.

Yeah. So the auxiliary organizations, it gets a little bit complicated, and we're trying to figure out how we thread the needle appropriately. Because they do, like, with these campus bookstores, for example, they're not the type of campus bookstores that I remember when I was in college where it's run necessarily by the university. But these are campus bookstores that are Barnes and Noble. They're full at they're vital source.

And so how are we making sure that we're threading the needle as when it comes to the educational institutions and the things that truly are related to the educational institution versus these auxiliary organizations that are for profit companies that have other incentives for potentially getting some of this information. And so looking forward to our conversation tomorrow actually on that.

And I also wanted to flag on the PRA since you were asking about that, that in the language that was referenced by the opposition witness, one of the concessions that we are making to also help address some of these concerns is that when someone files, notice to a company that they would simultaneously also have to file notice to the attorney general so that the attorney general would be aware, and could potentially intervene if there was a case that felt very frivolous.

Similarly, if, you know, many individuals are bringing cases against the same company, then the attorney general could be aware that there could be some real compliance ongoing compliance issues at that company. So we are asking also for notice to the attorney general.

Okay. Thank you. I think,

Mister Chair, I noticed that this is, after here, it's gonna go to appropriations. Is that correct? So I'm gonna lay off today and and hopefully your conversation goes well tomorrow and, I can support it when it gets to the floor.

Find other questions or comments? I appreciate the work that's been done. This is also in the education committee which which I serve on and and heard it as well. And this is the world that I come from having run the data program, the MIS and data systems at the community college system as well. And I saw a very sympathetic system of the just the practical considerations that both the higher ed institutions and the opposition has outlined.

So I'm hopeful that this will move in that direction. Higher education is definitely one of those areas where, the capacity of everybody in the system and including their their partners to customize, to personalize, to be aware of, you know, the the the challenge with fractions, you know, in a year and a half ago. Those are very important towards towards excessive education. This is a discipline which one size does not fit all and so the data can be really powerful.

So the language is in the bill about except words and furtherance of the to the direct benefit of the student is key in every dimension.

And and and keeping in mind as as Senator Ochoa Bogh mentioned that, you know, the average age of students at Community College and CSU is is is, you know, probably is pushing 30 now. And so we're we are talking about grown adults that under the constitution have the right to make their own decisions. That the constitution of the state of California says guarantees privacy to each of us and that is operationalized by our right to choose.

The constitution is not a right it does not enshrine our right to privacy by saying legislature go ban all data transactions. It is that the each individual person is the sovereign of their own data which they can use for their own benefit if they so if they so desire.

And we can quibble and we often do about whether or not they make smart decisions or they have or they're giving enough care to those decisions spending enough time. But in the end, that's not on us. That's not our judgment to make. That's not what the constitution doesn't say that for voting on complex initiatives or for deciding whether your data should be shared with the college board that, you know, that's just too tough for regular people.

So that is an important balance for us to continue to pay attention to in this.

So as you as I know the set of MS you're looking for, for me it'd be important that they that they're focused on making this more workable and not more expansive. And so the the end of the list I could see has some of both, but that that is that is critical to make sure that it works.

Because we have in coming from this world, we've often made this mistake where when there's technological change or data change, we instantly rush to say, no, we don't wanna do it. And our our and students find other waves. And it's been to their detriment into ours when we haven't gotten that right.

So this is an important it is an important bill for the reasons that I'm describing. Let me also note that that legally defined auxiliary organizations are all they're all not for profit by by state law. They those they may contract with others, but the legally up the legally responsible party in each of those is a foundation is a nonprofit organization. And for the community colleges in particular, it is one of the major They're not they don't mainly do, you know, banquets and that sort of thing.

They're Menjivar operating student services, and support services programs.

So it is really important to get that part of it right as well. So I didn't I laid off the bill in education. I'm gonna support it today with that with that understanding, but we do need to get to a resolution on some of these issues at least for me to be able to support the bill and appropriations and on the floor. And with that, do we get a motion? Close.

Yeah. Did you close?

No. Not yet. But do we have a motion? No, ma'am. Okay. It's moved moved by Senator McNerney. Assembly Member Addis, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Chair. I really, very much wanna recognize your expertise and you had some very eloquent comments in education.

And we took those back and have really worked on this set of amendments, have continued to work with opposition to, as as my witness has said, to really thread this needle between innovation and protecting student privacy and making sure that students have access, but not having their data be available to be sold, stolen, subpoenaed, shared without their permission and certainly respect that right of of folks to be able to make their own decisions.

And so, with that, just wanna appreciate, this committee and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. And we have a motion by Senator McNerney. So let's call the roll.

Motion is due passed for appropriation. [Roll Call]

Alright. The votes 4 to 0. We'll place that measure on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we'll proceed to our.

Proposed consent agenda which is can consist entirely of AB 2143 Erwin. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? So moved. Moved by vice Chair Jones. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Six to zero. We'll put the consent calendar on call. That brings us to, item number three, AB 179. Assembly of our Lowenthal is is, here. He's been with us since the outset. Welcome and please proceed when you're ready.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 179. AB 179 establishes a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts on platforms that use specified addictive design features and creates an eSafety Commission to oversee implementation and future digital safety policy. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the Chair and his committee.

I sincerely appreciate the time they have invested in this bill and the seriousness with which they have approached the important issues in this bill.

And I will address this more at the end of my comments. AB 179 asks a simple question. Should companies be allowed to intentionally design products that exploit children's developing brains for profit? California has never allowed industries to profit from children's developmental vulnerabilities without reasonable safeguards. Social media should not be the exception.

16 is not an arbitrary number. It reflects the developmental stage at which adolescents generally demonstrate substantially stronger executive functioning, impulse control, and resistance to manipulative reward systems. This bill takes a targeted evidence based safeguard that recognizes what pediatricians and neuroscientists already know. Younger adolescents are uniquely susceptible to manipulative engagement systems. AB 179 does not regulate ideas, viewpoints, or speech.

It responds to the business decision to designing products using features intended to maximize compulsive engagement among children. California has long regulated on safe product design, and this bill applies to that same principle in digital products. Internal documents and testimony for major technology companies show that engagement maximizing features are intentionally designed to keep users online longer. Internal company documents, independent scientific research, and recent jury verdicts all point to the same conclusion. Children 16 are uniquely vulnerable to these designs.

If market incentives alone were sufficient to solve this problem, we would not be here today. But the economic incentive for these companies is straightforward. The longer children remain engaged, the more valuable they become to the platform. That incentive directly conflicts with children's developmental interests. When markets fail to protect children from foreseeable harms, government has always set, stepped in with reasonable safeguards.

So what evidence led us to this policy? The evidence supporting this bill comes from the companies themselves, from independent scientific research, and now from the courts. Remarkably, all three reach the very same conclusion. I cannot think of any other trillion dollar industry that we would allow to knowingly design products that exploit the developmental vulnerabilities of children, and then claim no responsibility for the harm. Yet that is exactly what has happened with social media.

A substantial and growing body of research shows that children 16 are especially vulnerable to addictive digital environments, given that their brains have not yet developed the executive functioning skills necessary for impulse control, for emotional regulation, and 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 protect young people.

We no longer have to speculate about whether these products are intentionally addictive. The company's own documents tell us this.

TikTok's own internal documents, internal documents state that quote, the product itself has baked into it compulsive use. Meta executives discuss maximizing total teen time spent. Former Facebook president Sean Parker later acknowledged that the platforms were intentionally built to consume as much of users attention as possible through social validation feedback loops. These are not allegations from critics. They're admissions from the companies themselves.

The science confirms what the internal documents reveal. A 2026 chapter in the World Happiness Report by Jonathan Haidt and Zach Rausch conclude that social media is harming adolescents at a scale large enough to produce population level changes in mental health and well-being. 2023 longitudinal study, produced by JAMA Pediatrics following sixth and seventh grade students over three years, found that habitual checking of social media was associated with changes in the brain development that increased sensitivity towards 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.

Just last month, the US Department of Health and Human Services, building on the Surgeon General's warnings about youth social media use, issued a national warning on screen use, concluding that children are now spending an average of seven to nine hours a day on screens. This means they're spending more time on screens than they're spending sleeping or in school. The advisory warns that excessive screens use is associated with anxiety, depression, disrupted sleep, poor school performance, reduced physical activity, and social isolation.

This is no longer simply an academic debate. It is now recognized as a national public health concern.

These consequences show up in our classrooms, in our homes, and in our communities. This year, a Los Angeles jury reached the same conclusion. And KGM versus Meta jurors found that Instagram and YouTube could be held liable, because the harm resulted from product design, not from speech. The case focused on infinite scroll, on autoplay, on algorithmic recommendations, and other engagement features designed to maximize compulsive use. And that distinction matters.

AB 179 regulates product design, not protected speech. Infinite scroll, autoplay, recommendations, algorithms, and push notifications are product features. They are not speech. Age based safeguards are nothing new. We prohibit children from purchasing alcohol, tobacco, gambling products, firearms, voting, and numerous other products because we recognize the developmental vulnerability.

The question before us is whether products intentionally engineered to maximize compulsive engagement deserve similar protections. These examples reflect a principle we already accept. When it comes to children, age based guardrails are common, they are reasonable, and often necessary to protect health, safety, and development, even when a parent may disagree. Children should not bear the responsibility of protecting themselves from products intentionally engineered by multi billion and trillion dollar companies to maximize engagement.

That responsibility belongs with the companies designing the product and with policy makers charged with protecting children's health and safety.

The bill recognizes that current age restrictions have failed. Today, many platforms rely on self attestation, asking a child to click a button to claim that they are at least 13 years old. That is not age verification. It shifts the burden onto children and parents while allowing companies to continue profiting from underage users. This legislation instead requires reasonable age assurance measures, pursuant to the Digital Age Assurance Act.

California would not be acting alone here. Australia has already enacted a nationwide minimum age of 16. Since then, governments across Europe, Asia, The Middle East, and The Americas have been adopting similar policies or age verification requirements. Including Spain, France, Denmark, Greece, United Kingdom, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil. Just last week, The United Arab Emirates.

The president of the European Commission has announced that the entire EU is taking up this policy this summer. And it is rapidly becoming the international standard for protecting children online. There just is no other unsupervised environment where children spend that much time with so little accountability. It's so social media platforms operate with little to no scrutiny. Parents have limited visibility.

Policy makers are always playing catch up. There's no expert body is charged with keeping pace. Without dedicated oversight, regulation will always lag behind innovation, and our children will continue to bear the cost. Technology evolves faster than legislation. The Esafety Advisory Commission ensures that California has an expert body capable of keeping pace with emerging technologies.

Every generation of law lawmakers is confronted with new technologies that create extraordinary opportunities, alongside extraordinary risks. Previous legislators protected children from dangerous toys, unsafe automobiles, lead paint, tobacco, countless other products before industry voluntarily changed. This generation faces a different challenge. Whether companies should be permitted to expose children to addictive products that are intentionally designed to maximize compulsive engagement. And I believe California knows the answer.

Finally, Mister Chair, I would like to address the feedback from the Chair and the committee that our office has received. Over the past few days, the committee has proposed several concepts. While some of those proposals did not align with the intent behind this bill, others raised important policy questions that I'm committed to continuing to explore. I need to acknowledge and compliment this Chair for bringing forth menu items designed to protect marginalized youth from, with, from social isolation.

Significantly, the committee analysis raises the question of whether a platform that creates a truly separate experience for children, one that eliminates the addictive features covered by this bill such as algorithmic feed, should be permitted to provide that version of its service to users 16.

That is exactly the kind of thoughtful policy discussion we should be having. It reflects the broader question at the heart of this bill. How do we maximize children's safety online, while also preserving opportunities for connection and inclusion? I believe that concept deserves careful consideration. I'm committed to exploring it immediately, such that it's legally defensible.

And ask the support of both the Senate and Assembly privacy committees in incorporating this change. I further agree that this bill should be more clearly specify the composition of the Esafety Advisory Commission. Ensuring that the commission includes legal experts, pediatricians, other medical professionals, researchers, technical experts, and other subject matter experts is an important conversation, one that I'm already actively engaged in. But AB 179 represents one of the most significant youth safety online proposals before the California legislature.

It raises complex constitutional questions, difficult implementation challenges, and policy decisions that will likely shape not only California law, but influence legislatures across The United States.

Legislation of this magnitude deserves careful deliberation. I absolutely do not reject collaboration. To the contrary, I'm committed to getting this policy right with the input of this committee and all stakeholders. With that, I'd like to turn this over to doctor Ilan Shapiro, a pediatrician and fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. And Mark Berkman, the CEO of the Organization for Social Media Safety, who are here to testify in support of AB 179.

Welcome to you both. And you'll each have two minutes.

Thank you so much, honorable Chair and Members of the committee. My name is doctor Ilan Shapiro. I'm a pediatrician here in California and a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and most importantly, also a father. I support AB 1709. Every week in my clinic, I see the effects of what's happening with our kids, anxiety, depression, sleep disorders.

Kids who can concentrate cannot connect and cannot cope because they have spent amount of time doing screens, doing a lot of the social media in front of them. This is not a parenting failure. Our parents have multiple jobs. They're doing their thing. This is a design failure and an urgent public health disease that is actually compounding the effects of what we are having here in our communities.

This platform uses algorithmically driven feeds, infinite scroll, autoplay, variable rewards, the same mechanism as slot machines, engineered to maximize engagement in developing brains that cannot fully regulate themselves. We will let a casino market directly market a 13 year old. AB 1709 sets a simple, enforceable line. Children under 16 cannot hold accounts on cover platforms that have addictive features. That's it.

It puts the burden where it belongs, on the platforms, not on the parents trying to police every app, every update, and every work around. As a pediatrician, I can tell you the science is clear. The teenagers who spend more time on social media has significantly higher rates of anxiety, depression, self harm, especially girls, and also communities of color or black and brown communities that I serve. As a father, I can tell

you parents need backup. We cannot win this alone. This bill gives California kids a finding chance. I urge you an a vote on AB 179. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, distinguished Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 179. My name is Marc Berkman, and I am 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 1709 must be explicitly clear. Engagement maximizing social media is harming our children, harming them at a catastrophic scale.

In addition to the overwhelming evidence finding substantial adverse mental health impacts of adolescent use of addictive social media, We see acute harms that include cyberbullying, harassment, predation, drug trafficking, human trafficking, extortion, violence, fraud and dangerous challenges. These are not theoretical, they are real and impacting millions of California's children. From our work on the ground with students nationwide, we are seeing children harmed year after year while the industry tells 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. Notably the industry standing in opposition to AB 1709 has disregarded these acute harms entirely.

I would also emphasize that the industry itself in its opposition has cited research findings statistically significant population level links between adolescent social media use and adver adverse mental health outcomes, and stronger associations when use becomes compulsive. Which is exactly why we need this bill to protect our children from addictive forms of social media. AB 179 is necessary to protect our children, and I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you both. Does anyone member of the public wish to register their support for AB 179? If so, please come to the microphone. I would ask you to share your name, affiliation, but not lobbying firm, and your position on the bill only. Thank you.

Crystal Strait, representing Common Sense Media in support.

Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against Media Addiction. Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals also in support.

Hello. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the Commission of Women and Girls, a proud cosponsor, and also the American Academy of Pediatrics, California.

Mister Chair and Members, Ed Howard, senior counsel at the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law in strong support. Thank you.

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

Jillian Keegan with the California Community Action Partnership Association and our statewide network in support.

Chair, Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Alright. Are there two lead witnesses in opposition to AB 1709? Please come forward. You're welcome to join the witness table upfront.

Mister Chairman, I'm so sorry. Robert Hurrell, Consumer Federation of California in support of the bill. Thank you.

Oh, you gave you gave Mister Lowenthal a heart attack there for a moment, but thank you. Alright. Welcome. You have two minutes.

Alright. Good evening, Chair members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet. Here today in respectful opposition AB 179. I want to start by saying that we shared legislature's concern about youth mental health and online safety.

This is a real issue and it deserves thoughtful effective solutions, like the safeguards our member companies described in the Assembly committee's informational hearing, last March. With that said, AB 179 takes a very broad one size fits all approach to a complex and highly individualized issue. The research shows that social media impacts youth differently. Some may struggle, but many also benefit from connection, community, and access to information.

What is right for one team may not be right for another, which is one reason a blanket ban is not the right policy approach.

Second, the bill is unlikely to work as intended. Teens are not going to stop going online. They will just go elsewhere. That means less regulated platforms, workarounds like shared accounts or VPNs, and environments with fewer safety tools. In practice, this could make young people less safe, not more.

Third, this bill raises serious constitutional concerns. The Supreme Court has consistently said that minors have First Amendment rights to access lawful speech and information. Broad restrictions like this, especially when less restriction restrictive options exist, are unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. Additionally, there is ongoing litigation about the constitutionality of SB 976, which among among other things, restricts a platform's ability to provide personalized content to teen users.

Courts have previously ruled that a platform's decision to provide personalized content is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.

And finally, this bill removes parents from the decision from the decision making process. Families are in very different situations, And a blanket ban replaces parental judgment with a single statewide rule. We think there is a better path forward when it focuses on targeted risk, straightens parental tools, and builds on the safety features that platforms are already implementing. We understand the author's intent, but respectfully believe this approach is not the right solution.

That said, we also recognize the committee's concern that this bill reaches too broadly, and we are committed to working on targeted protections.

But our objection is to the access ban itself and narrowing who and narrowing who covers who it covers does not cure that. For the reason stated earlier, we must respectfully oppose and ask that the committee vote no on this bill today. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Does anyone, wish to register their opposition to AB 179? If so, please come forward, register your name and affiliation if any and your position on the bill.

Sorry. You're uncoordinated. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy, we continue to have concerns about the bill.

Becca Cramer. I've been asked to register respectful opposition on behalf of the Trevor Project, Advocates for Youth, COLAGE: Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere, If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, Gen-Z for Change, LGBT Tech, Fight for the Future, Electronic Frontier Foundation, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, EducateUS, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and Lawyers for Good Government. Thank you.

Good evening. Megan Stokes, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Chris Taylor, software engineer, representing myself and my friends in the LGBTQ community. I oppose.

Chair and members, Austin here with-- on behalf of Internet Works. We have an oppose unless amended position, and we're continuing that conversation with the author this week.

Good evening, Chair and members. Symphoni Barbee, on behalf of the ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition.

Thank you, Chair and members. Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully opposed.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress, also respectfully opposed.

Denise Odenwalder, respectfully opposed.

All right. Thank you to all the witnesses. So let's return now to the committee for questions or comments. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I've-- I have over time not supported bills that have attempted to remove young people from social media. I've opposed or stayed off of various bills over the last--I don't know--five, six, eight years. And it's a really-- I'll be honest. It's a rough issue because we know that social media is doing real harm to society in general, and I want to say for the record, I think addictive feeds are disgusting and they should be-- not exist.

And we-- it is leading to radicalization. It is leading to, just, mental health issues, not just with kids, and we all know people who go down the wormhole on YouTube or Instagram or X or wherever else and they're sometimes not the same people that they were before. And so the broad issue of these addictive feeds are they make a lot of money for the largest corporations in the history of Planet Earth and they are harmful. And they're causing real harm for kids.

At the same time, and the reason why I have been not supportive over time of bills--I don't wanna say like this because I think this is a more flushed out version of bills that we've seen in the past--is that there are young people who are not safe in their living environment, LGBTQ kids, but other kids who are living-- who are very isolated and social media and the internet is their-- that is their connection to the outside world to understanding that it can be better, that there is hope, that there are people like them out there, that there are people who care about them out there. And that is important.

And so it's been very always concerning to me the possibility of disconnecting these kids from the outside world and so that's why I'm not in support of them. The bill in its current form, as I've expressed to the author, I find to be very problematic because it's basically just like excising these kids globally from these platforms.

I know that what the author and I have spoken about--I think you referred to this in the opening--about the possibility of having a non-addictive feed for kids under 16 so they can choose what accounts they follow. They can access those accounts, they can follow them, they can communicate, and that is something that I would think is a good thing to have that option. So-- and I know you expressed to me and I think you said today-- I wanna be clear that that's something you're working on like literally this week. Is that right?

In asking for the resources of Senate Privacy and Assembly Privacy to work in conjunction on that very policy, we have to be certain that the way that it's written is gonna withstand legal scrutiny to the extent that the best and most expensive attorneys in the United States are gonna be litigating in this bill on the other side of this, as that has been the playbook of the platforms thus far. And so, with that collaboration and in advance of Senate Judiciary, which would need to analyze what we do put together, that is the goal, sir.

And so, if-- I just wanna be clear. So if you're able to-- if that's able to be crafted in a way that you think is solid enough to withstand challenge, is it-- are you saying that you-- is it your desire to include that option in the bill?

One hundred percent.

Okay.

As a matter of fact, the goals of this legislation is not to preclude any children--

Right.

--from being connected. It's to stop the platforms from offering these feeds while keeping children in their ecosystem. As a matter of fact, I like-- when people refer to the word ban, I say, we're not banning children from social media. We're banning social media from accessing our children, and I think that distinction is critically important here.

So if I could, Senator-- just a moment. I presented-- it was last week, maybe the week before, AB 2 in this committee, which has to do with duty of care issues and negligence and harm that's been proven in court on that front. What we're hoping for is that the combination of these two things, amongst other regulation, and basically reading the room that the platforms drop these addictive features for children. And I think that what the chairman has proposed and the committee has proposed, which is what you're speaking about, serves that. And so it is absolutely my goal to incorporate those in the course of this week.

And I guess-- thank you for that. And I guess the other question-- of course, none of the platforms are here. They're here through their associations, so I know you can't-- I will say, like, then the question becomes, will the platforms-- if they have that option, will they will they do it? Because we know that there are-- there's YouTube for kids, there's Instagram for kids, et cetera, but again, the platforms aren't here. So I'm gonna ask the association, will they-- do you think they'll do that? If that's the only option because-- yeah.

I'm sorry. Can you clarify what is the only option to--

If there were an amendment to say that kids under 16 could be on platforms that have addictive feeds as long as there is what would presumably be an age-gated non-addictive option for the kids, because again, there are children's options now, but I don't know that they meet the definition of non-addictive.

Yeah. So I-- we do appreciate and I can recognize the committee has talked about that as currently drafted. It's kind of overbroad, but narrowing it to addictive feeds doesn't really resolve the core problem that we have because California did that in SB 976 because it restricts addictive feeds to minors absent of parent consent and the law is itself being litigated right now on the First Amendment grounds.

It's being litigated because big tech companies have decided to litigate it, and so I think the-- I mean, that's part of the problem here.

I would state for the record, TechNet wasn't part of the litigation processes.

No. But you represent companies that are. Okay. Yeah. And I-- you know, then there are larger issues here that go well beyond this bill that the more we move towards age-gating on the internet, that creates other privacy issues, the most extreme of which were some of the laws which we did not do in California, for example, for adult content websites requiring everyone to give their driver's license and identify themselves.

We have another a bill coming up in this committee next week around adult themed websites with some challenges and we're seeing in this committee over and over again, you know, a movement towards sort of age-gating on the internet and that does over time and and cumulatively potentially pose some serious privacy issues. This, of course, is limited to only certain social media sites.

So I'm willing to support moving the bill out of committee today, Assembly Member, to give you the opportunity to work on the issue that we just discussed, you know, and again, I do so with trepidation but I will-- I wanna give you the opportunity to complete that work.

Senator, if I could respond, first of all, thank you. There were two components that I actually spoke of. Both were were proposals from the committee and from the chair. One is the aspect that you just spoke about. The other is shoring up the e-Safety Commission. Now, it's my feeling that e-Safety should have a mandate to address social isolation on a real-time basis and report to the legislature. So, that should mean that this is done sensitively, always being measured on a constant basis, and specifically in line with the marginalized communities that you're speaking of.

There are communities like the LGBTQ plus community that has advocates. There are so many groups of children that have no voices to speak for them, kids in rural communities, kids who may have abhorrent conditions at home--they may be being abused at home--kids who are in the foster care system. We can go on down the road the true challenges to those things, and I think it's critical that the e-Safety Commission is mandated to make social isolation a priority because it's gonna go beyond social media itself.

What about how chat bots are impacting it? What about how AI is impacting it? All digital life impacting children and their ability to continue to evolve and grow and their socialization to continue, and so I think that that advisory committee is gonna be a key part of the concerns you have as well.

And can I-- one last thing, Mr. Chair, if I may? Just for the proponents, could you just comment on how you balance that? Because, you know, obviously, I think-- I fully agree about the mental health harms being caused to children, but then there's this other piece of it with folks who are being disconnected from those outlets; can be particularly harmful given their circumstances at home. If you could just comment on that?

Yeah, I would echo the author's statement that this bill is not about depriving any child of support or community, especially vulnerable youth who need it. Removing addictive feeds from vulnerable youth is really a necessity, especially when we look at the data on vulnerable youth. If you look at LGBTQ youth particularly, it's more likely than not based on the evidence that when they go looking for a community on social media, they get harmed at higher levels than vulnerable populations.

Also, when you look at the research on the benefits, it's almost new. We have short-term, qualitative surveys on why youth go onto social media and what they're looking for. That is there because they have developmental needs that they're looking to fill. What we don't know are medium and long-term outcomes. What we don't know are comparable alternatives and how effective they are at delivering those benefits.

What we don't know is the exact measurement of at least the anecdotal notion of these benefits versus the substantial harm that we're seeing, and-- one more point. I'm so sorry. One more point is that this bill, when it's limited, as it sounds like it's going to, to just platforms that do not allow or that do not change and still provide addictive feeds, that does not implicate social media platforms where we find most LGBTQ youth are actually going to for benefits right now like Reddit. That's where they're finding, anecdotally again, that support and those benefits. Those platforms would not be implicated by this bill.

Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I do think that, you know, when you have, you know, some young trans kid who, you know, maybe follows Laverne Cox on Instagram, that could be incredibly powerful for that child or, you know, follows, you know, any number of organizations or individuals or role models that could be very, very powerful for them. And again, I agree with you the addictive nature of feeds is harmful and I'm not disputing that whatsoever. In this bill right now, without any amendment, says that if there's any addictive feed on a platform, you're off, even if there's a separate non-addictive feed.

No. We've-- yeah. We're only for questions, please. All right. Other-- thank you, Senator Wiener. Are there other comments or questions? Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, and I appreciate the questions by Senator Wiener and the back and forth, but I want to thank you for bringing this forward, you know, not just as a legislator, but as a parent, too, and just as someone who-- you know, we represent in Long Beach many LGBTQ community members and I see that you're continuing to work with them.

I think you've met with many of the heads of the opposition, which I'm very, very grateful for as I'm an Ally and on the board of the Equality California. That is very important. I know. I don't want children who are already inherently vulnerable to have access to this plethora of this universe that did not provide them education to begin with. It's almost like, here's the keys to the car that we did not educate you on how to drive.

And that's really hard, right, to say, especially as it pertains to social media. Here are the keys to the social media car. We didn't tell you how to use social media, what to do, and if you have a parent-- if you have a parent or a guardian that is in your home that is supporting you, even if there are parental controls that are put on the back end, the platform still supersede a lot of that, unfortunately. I know because I have an 11 and a half year old that I left back in Long Beach and was not supposed to be on a certain YouTube channel but somehow ended up on this YouTube channel even with the parental controls.

And so that is very worrisome, not just for my child who has two parents in the home, but for children that are inherently very vulnerable and don't have the back-end parents telling them or controlling, you know, these particular platforms or even know how to do that. I know that you'll continue working on this, and I think there are concerns raised by the opposition that are certainly valid, right?

Like, you know, obviously ensuring that we are not limiting free speech, but you've made the distinction very clear that this is a true product design issue, which I agree with and needs to be-- it needs to be fixed. Otherwise, I-- you know, I guess my other question to you is how else do you see, in addition to the issues that Senator Wiener had brought up and then the issues on the commission--I mean, how else do you see sort of the bill moving ahead if there are, you know, certainly no other issues?

Those are the areas that we're--Senator, if I may--those are the areas that we're intently focused on. We actually did not shore up the components of the e-Safety Commission so that we could have dialogue and have that input on it, and those are the two areas that we think really strengthen legislation.

Yeah, and I would hope that the commission, however that looks like, you know, in this different iteration with more robust conversation, more expert individuals, you know, that they will also think about--you know, I think you've alluded to this--just that, you know, children also have a right to privacy too and I don't think that often is talked about.

It's just always like in the hands of the parents and-- but, you know, they, again, not knowing the literacy of how to use the social media, oversharing, not knowing how to use location services, their digital footprint all over the place, and so what does that mean for them? In future opportunities, in, you know, their personal safety as well, I just think that's often not considered. As much as we're talking about the platforms and who should be responsible or not, that absolutely needs to ensure that it's uplifted in this commission. So that's a real issue. But do you see anything else, any other issues down the road that you think might be important?

Well, I think that we're going to need to address the constitutionality issues in Judiciary, which should be a robust discussion, of course. Public health can trump First Amendment issues as we have determined it to do when we say that children must go to school, even if they don't want to, that they must wear helmets when they're on bicycles or skateboards, that they must be in car seats designed for children. You know, we can go on down the line on those things.

So that's why it's critically important that we do have experts in the field of pediatric medicine and so forth that are saying, this is a crisis. We've got to deal with it right now. This is the first generation ever in recorded history that is actually performing worse than the generation before it academically, intellectually, IQ scores, math testing, reading. We can continue.

And there doesn't seem to be any data points on the other side. And what concerns me tremendously is something we should all be looking at, which is what's happening with these platforms. Now, Meta just announced its Q1 results a few weeks back, and for the first time since the company was created, there was actually a decline in the user base from 3.58 billion to 3.52 billion. But simultaneously, there was a 27% increase in revenue per user.

So they're going to continue to change and optimize in ways that should be alarming to all of us. Senator, you pointed out that you have looked at this over a five to eight-year period of time. The platforms have changed dramatically in a five to eight-year period of time. They're remarkably different today. They're remarkably more addictive and perilous today than they were in the past in my estimation and the estimation of the experts that are covering this.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that, and I know this bill will continue to just, you know, be a living sort of document as things change. As you mentioned, technology changes, and as, you know, our kids are, you know, getting older and learning more and hopefully becoming more literate on on the do's and don'ts of the social media. So with that, I support your bill. Thank you.

Senator McNerney.

Well, first of all, I wanna thank the author for your hard work. You've clearly done a lot of homework. You made a good presentation this afternoon. I wanna thank the chair for working with the author and the consultant for creating this incredible document. A lot of stuff in there.

The document has definitions. It's a very innovative approach to this, but it's a new thing. I mean, we need to figure out how to control these platforms to prevent them from bringing harm on society, and the definition of addictive features and addictive feeds, this is new ground, so I appreciate the authors there. You know, I'm gonna say the same thing I said last week for the same author.

Protecting children is this society's most imperative-- most biggest moral imperative. There's nothing more important than protecting the children in society, and so far, we haven't really done a good job of that with regard to the internet. We just haven't done that yet. And again, moving down this, there's gonna be mistakes.

We're gonna put laws out there that are gonna have unintended consequences, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything. It means that we should do what we have to do as best we can and then make corrections when they have to be made. You know, we can't count on corporations to do this. They're-- that's not their-- that's not their charter. They are amoral. They're not immoral. They're not bad, but they're amoral. Their job is to make money, and they make money by designing algorithms that keep people on the computer, to keep people clicking, to keep people hour and hour.

That's how they make money, and they're doing a pretty good job apparently, according to statistics we just heard. And these algorithm designs are designed by the best neuroscientists that that they can afford to pay to do that. I mean, this is serious business and it's our responsibility in the legislature to protect our society, to protect our children.

These companies are making stratospheric profits, and I think we need to find a way to corral that and work with them as much as we can. But again, it's our responsibility to take protection of our children, so I'm gonna support this bill clearly.

Senator Ochoa Bogh, were you up next?

I don't know if I'm next.

If you'd like.

Yes. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So thank you for bringing this bill forward. With many complicated bills, when you see the list of opposition and support on there, you realize you're working in a space that perhaps is new.

And then also, I think it creates an environment where we're compelled to have conversations that are difficult. And I think that that's part of good governance: ensuring that we have all stakeholders at the table and hearing the different perspectives on it. I'm really intrigued by this particular bill because I had heard how other countries had implemented this bill, or the essence of the bill, in other areas, as you mentioned earlier in your opening.

And I was curious to see how it was working in those countries. Do we have any feedback as to what that has looked like for those countries that have had it in place?

And I know for many of them it's relatively new, if not this year. I believe most of them have been this year that they have been implemented. But on that ground, also with the question of I am and the reason I'm asking is I am concerned though I absolutely support the premise of the bill because of the the damage that we've seen. The science behind of what is happening to our youth. I wholeheartedly have been following that as as a parent.

And I am incredibly concerned about that. So I'm just gonna be curious. What do we know from the countries that have implemented this? And then the along with the fact that I am concerned about the fact that if we do pass this bill and we ban our youth, well, the word. I actually appreciate it.

Yes, delayed. Yes. I actually appreciated the distinction you made about it not being a ban, but actually addressing the algorithms, the features, and the design of the product, which I absolutely appreciate, because I think that was something new for me to consider. But on that end, the reason I'm concerned is that, say we modify their ability to have access to it at the age of 16.

We know that right now in play is the ability to rely on California's Digital Age Assurance Act, which does not become operative until 2027. And that's when we're going to have it implemented at scale. So with that, the concern that I have also relies on the fact that our kids are incredibly smart and they're very creative. And if they want to curtail something, they will find a way to get over and around these age restrictions. And there's nothing currently that I'm aware of that is 100% effective.

And so what that would create, I'm kind of nervous about, is then having an environment where we have platforms that are now catering to and assuming you have an adult audience, or an older 16-and-over audience. And how they will be able to have basically no safeguards and no guardrails for content for youth. So I'm almost kind of likening it to the prohibition, right? We prohibited it in the twenties, but then it created an underground market for it.

So what is that going to look like if we're able to get this squared away? And what is that unintended environment that will be created for our youth?

So thank you, Senator. Very important questions that we should all be asking ourselves. The only nation that's actually implemented this thus far is Australia. I was actually there for the implementation, which started in December. So this is brand new.

And it's the entire global community, the many nations and the European Union and so forth, that have announced that they're taking this on. And there will be a delayed implementation from that as they're working through the policy. In Australia, they have an eSafety Commission. They assess that there are two buckets of kids. There are the kids that are not on social media yet, that have never been on it, that are age 12 or under, that are not addicted today.

And they see an immediate win with that group of kids that are not going to grow into this the same way. Because in Australia, like here, there are no uniform rules for parents to abide by, for schools to abide by. There's no consensus around that. And so the thought is, universally, that that is a home run with this bucket of kids. What we're talking about, what you may be speaking about, are the ones who are addicted now. That are age 14 and so forth, roughly in that period of time.

That is going to be bumpy policy. The immediate feedback, and if it's okay, Mr. Chair, I'd love to ask for Mr. Berkman to also comment on this. Roughly, for this pool, the only data that they have back in Australia is a survey that's been conducted of parents.

And roughly a third of this group over here is off social media completely, which by any measure is a big win. And two thirds may be on, but we don't know. Are they still on the five hours a day? Are they on one hour a day?

What are they doing to do this? And the question is, for all of us to ask ourselves, why is that the situation? Is it because the platforms aren't doing meaningful things to keep them off because they want this policy to fail? Is it because the addiction is so great and we've never engaged in a social experiment like this before, trying to get an entire generation off an addiction? An addiction that requires a critical mass, so there's peer pressure to be back on together.

All of those are things that we're going to have to look at. And if we're looking for policy that's clean out of the gate, this isn't it. This is not it. This, I think, is better to liken to underage drinking. Just because kids drink, and probably almost everybody in this room tried alcohol underage, or drank regularly in some cases, doesn't mean that we should lower the drinking age and allow it to be permissible.

We have to have certain social guardrails that have to do with wellness, that draw and point children into a way where they're going to develop in a healthy, productive way. And this meets those standards. And if it's okay, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Mr. Berkman to respond.

Yes. But I would like to encourage both the author and the witnesses, when there's questions from the committee, because we have a long agenda, to stay in that pocket, because we've also got a full opportunity for a close as well. So the question has been about what is happening in other countries and what results are we seeing, if you have something to add to what the author had to offer.

If I may. Sure. Before my wife actually bans me, I need to run for the airport. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here, but I respectfully need to run away.

We've all been there. So okay. Thank you for joining us today.

Yeah, really quickly, I would align myself with the author's comments, particularly on public health and safety. And on the percentage of compliance when it comes to Australia, it is very early. We have one snapshot survey. And what it shows, and what the data shows, is that they have, not Australia.

They've moved hundreds of thousands of kids off of social media. That means a substantial amount of children protected. The thesis that if we regulate social media in the way that we're banning a known dangerous feature, children will flock to other dangerous ones. I question the thesis. I know the industry is mentioning this.

To go to another platform with addictive feeds, teens need to go to a platform with scale. Because that's what makes it entertaining and worthwhile. The other unregulated, unsafe platforms, like the chat roulette sites where we're seeing sexual exploitation, sexual trafficking, those are not addictive feeds. Those exist today. We see children go to them when they're drawn to that type of content, when they're seeking it out.

And so, you know, it's a much longer conversation than we have time for, but I would question the thesis that's being propagated.

Let's stay to the question. There'll be an opportunity for a close by the author. And, Senator Ochoa Bogh, please continue.

Certainly. So I just want to reiterate that I appreciate the intent of the bill. I appreciate the conversation that you had, and you're working with the committee and the Chair with regards to the First Amendment. I really appreciated that, and I appreciated your differentiating the product features and design rather than the banning component on that angle.

So with that, I do want to express my concerns about our youth finding other ways of navigating and getting, you know, an underground market for kids who are not able to access these types of platforms.

But on that end, I will be supporting the bill. I look forward to seeing what that language looks like when it comes back to the Senate floor, which is probably the next time I will see this particular bill. But I do want to see how this evolves. I appreciate it. My first concern was the First Amendment.

The other concern I had was the underground market used by the youth, who can be incredibly creative. But I appreciate the clarification that you gave in your opening statement. And with that, I will be supporting. But I look forward to seeing the final language, and I reserve my right to change my vote in case it doesn't address some of those concerns. But thank you very much for bringing this measure forward and at least facilitating the conversations in this space.

And with that, I will be supporting the bill.

Senator Gómez Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for the work you've been doing. This isn't the first time you've introduced legislation like this. You've worked on protecting our children, and you've brought your daughters to testify in the past. And I've appreciated that, because they speak candidly about what social media does and doesn't do.

I appreciate also that you're talking about social guardrails. The issue really is health. It's the mental health of our children. It's the education of our children. We talk about how we're way at the bottom.

We're spending so much money on education. Our children are not performing as they should. But when we talk to our teachers, the teachers say, I don't have the children's attention. They're on social media most of the day. That's a problem.

And I think that if we give the attention to their education, things are going to be much better. The comment was made that corporations' bottom line is their bottom line. It's to make a profit, and they're going to do whatever they need to do. And it is our responsibility, as my colleague said, to put the parameters around how you interact with our children.

And once we set the guardrails, then corporations are going to have to adjust what they do specifically as it relates to our children.

And I think this is a very important step. I appreciate the Chair's pushback and your acknowledgment that sometimes iron sharpens iron, and we know it. And so when you know that you're presenting something that is very important, but to have somebody question, what about this? Or have you thought about this?

Or what are the unintended consequences here? And I think being willing to go through those suggestions and making your bill even stronger, I'm very pleased about that. With that, if it hasn't been moved, I would move the bill.

Alright. Thank you, Senator Gómez Reyes. First, I have a lot of feelings about all of this. Many of them quite personal, for many of the reasons that Senator Wiener described. And I think it's always been the case that with this legislation, all policymakers are quite sure about what safety for children means in the generation in which they are.

And we don't always get that right. And so I think one thing I've learned here is that when something's framed up as let's do it for the kids, let's do it to stop murderers and rapists, or let's stick it to the big corporations, all of those are important. Those are important objectives, but they can sometimes cause us to stop thinking about what's the actual policy underneath.

And so my first word is that the most important time to really, really interrogate bills is when those are the purposes. Because they're so right and they're so strongly felt for obvious reasons, that we need to, but we need to think about them.

And I've lived in a world in which society's judgment about what was safe for kids, what was healthy for kids, what was healthy for mental health, was that my existence be illegal. That it should be impossible to learn that deviants like me, who are different in their sexual orientation, you know, we should make sure that that's not discussed. That that's not a thing and that it's regulated, that it's prohibited. And that was done with equal verve. And so it is important.

It's one of the reasons why the commission issued to me, the important issue here is that it be essentially a scientific enterprise, that we're learning, and not just an advocacy perspective around what does safety mean by folks who have a view about safety which has not always included folks in marginalized communities. Or at least not at the center.

And I think what's animated me a lot about that is just thinking about, when the day the bill takes effect, what happens with that kid whose parents might be the problem? Whose school is the problem? Whose offline life is far more dangerous and unsafe than their online life?

And in that moment, it's not a medical issue. It's not a question of like, how do I make sure that this kid gets connected to services? That's not the point. As Senator Wiener was saying, that's not what you need in that moment. Maybe it is, maybe it is. I just need to know, oh wait, are there people here that look something like what I feel, that are dancing and enjoying life and not looking like they're on the verge of committing suicide?

Can I join a social media discussion group about a game that I'm currently playing, but where there might be heated rivalry characters in it? And I'm not going to acknowledge what I am or what I'm thinking about or what I'm afraid of. I just want to go and have fun with people who may be like me, and maybe I'll learn a little bit more.

The last thing on your mind when you're starting to struggle with these questions about being socially ostracized is, how do I find an LGBT community center? That's not job one.

That does come. These are essential services, but it's not always for every child their first thing. And so I am so grateful that we're in a world where we have technology for social connection to happen at a distance, over place and time, that does not confine you to the place where, for many marginalized groups, their family is their main support. But for some marginalized communities, their family, their classmates may be exactly the problem.

And creating venues in which they can connect with others safely is absolutely essential. And so I think about what happens, you know, to a kid in a rural town in my district, that suddenly all those systems are gone. They can no longer connect through social media to people and places and communities that are all they have. And in that second bucket, I think, that the author was describing, folks who are already there. And then of course, those who have not yet found that.

And so that's why the priority for me in the conversations has been exactly in that space. The author's done outstanding work on the big picture issues and the international ones and all of that. I was with him for a moment in Australia and watched him learn, and the intense curiosity and problem solving they're bringing to the equation. But that specific question is not one to be left for later. It's not one to be left for a commission to think about. It's not one where we can simply say, well, you know, things will happen.

We'll see how it goes. We cannot. We have to, it's today's our pride celebration, for God's sake. We have to care about those kids too, and who they are and where they're at right now. So that's not about some specific line in the bill, but it is for me the animating issue about how we proceed here.

Because in our desire to accomplish this, we do need to make sure we're not leaving folks behind and taking for granted that they depend on this. And of course that they also have rights, and that they're not medicalized. But that their identities are something to celebrate, not to cope with.

And that we have to create the conditions under which that can happen.

I think part of the technical issue for me, and this is not the author's fault, like we've done this to the law already, is, you know, we have two concepts in the law. We have addictive features, which are exactly the things that the companies are doing, which are so harmful. Defined in that way, psychologically exploitative features that are intended to maximize engagement, all the ways that we've heard.

And despite all of the hearings and the cases and the bills and everything else, the companies have largely, at least the biggest ones, largely done nothing about them. Maybe doubled down in some cases. And so we're here in part because some of the association members are not doing their own job here.

On the other hand, we have the second piece, which we call addictive feeds, which troubles me. I don't know why, just as a human being, a consumer, a teacher, whatever, where we've just defined addiction essentially as recommending things based on what you're doing, using, requesting.

I've been down plenty of these rabbit holes when I'm gaming or whatever, and I want to find the best strategies to beat this boss in a game or whatever. And I want that to be, and yes, I will still be looking at them twenty-five minutes from now because I need that information.

I want that to be recommended to me. There is a word for the opposite of this, which is boring. Right? Where a site takes no effort whatsoever to help you see things that are of interest to you. And so that kind of feed where it becomes addictive, or has other things that make it addictive, absolutely we should be controlling.

But I take issue with that fundamental notion, and again, it's not the author's problem. This is the existing framework that we use. The simple act of making recommendations about things that you might be interested in based on your activity. Particularly when you are not a normie. Right?

When your life is not like everybody else's, just looking at everybody else's interest is not helpful. That definition of addictive feed, to me, causes a lot of this debate and controversy. Because it's the thing that also makes it unlikely that any company will have complied with this by the January effective date.

So I'm going to lay off the bill today, because I'm hopeful that the author's work on amendments, and also the Judiciary Committee, which has the principal responsibility for this, answers both things as we go forward in the next few days and hours on the issue.

I do appreciate the author's continued work to try to get at these, and also appreciate both the supporters and the opposition. I know this hasn't been easy, to be stepping up because of these uncomfortable questions that you are raising, some of which I am echoing.

Even if they're not ultimately in the bill, we need to make sure that we don't lose them and that we don't make the same mistakes that prior generations have made in leaving behind people who need us to be paying attention to them, in terms of the most marginalized and most vulnerable communities who are just trying to experience a little joy, and maybe some ballroom if you want to join us at the pride party that's happening right now over at Ace of Space.

So with that, we have a motion on the bill. Assemblymember Lowenthal, would you like to close?

Oh, in the interest of brevity, I would simply say thank you so much for the robust discussion, and the discussion will continue. And the work on this bill will continue, and I look forward to getting as much input as you're willing to offer. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. Thanks to everyone. And let's call the roll on AB 1709.

[Roll Call]

Five to zero, we will put that bill on call. Thank you. And now we'll proceed to your second bill. Assemblymember Lowenthal, AB 2076

This one will only be an hour and a half. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, members, for the opportunity to present AB 2076. Thank you, Mister Howard. This bill strengthens California's existing Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act in three ways.

It adds nitrous oxide to the list of highly dangerous products requiring age verification. It prohibits using gift cards or store credit, to purchase these products online, cutting off a common workaround. And it increases civil penalties for large companies that violate the law. Nitrous oxide, commonly known as laughing gas or for young people, whippets, is increasingly ending up in the hands of children. What was once primarily a medical culinary product can now be ordered online by a child with a few clicks and a prepaid gift card.

It is cheap. It is easy to find. It is being delivered straight to the doorsteps with little to no barrier. And the health consequences are severe. Regular regular and recreational use can cause nerve damage, vitamin B12 deficiency, and in severe cases, paralysis or death.

Nitrous oxide is so evidently dangerous that even the highest commonly described as killing brain cells. California already has framework in place to keep dangerous products out of children's hands, but we know it isn't working. Just this past fall, the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law investigated whether major online retailers are complying with the Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act. The findings were alarming. Researchers were able to purchase restricted products using prepaid gift cards with minimal age verification.

In one test, a researcher submitted a false driver's license and a birthday, to buy a BB gun, and the order went through anyway. That BB gun was then left unattended in a shared apartment courtyard. No adult signature, no ID check, just dropped off and left. And that is the system that exists today. And nitrous oxide, easily searchable, cheaply purchased, and deliverable to any doorstep fits squarely into that gap.

Adding nitrous oxide to the list of products requiring age verification is an important first step, but it's not enough. We must go further to ensure these products do not reach our children. The current penalty of $7,500 per violation is not a meaningful deterrent for large scale sellers. And frankly, it's not an enticing number for prosecutors to pursue either. When the cost of litigation can easily exceed the potential recovery, enforcement becomes impractical.

AB 2076 addresses this in a targeted and proportionate way. To protect small businesses, the enhanced penalties only apply to sellers with more than 25,000,000 in annual gross revenues. For those large sellers, courts will have discretion to impose penalties of up to $250,000 per violation when necessary to deter future violations. The punishment should fit the scale of the violator, and AB 2076 gives courts the tools to make that happen.

No parent should have to worry that their child can order nitrous oxide cartridges as easily as ordering a book.

AB 2076 closes that gap and gives parents accountability and Child Protection Act the enforcement power it is always needed. I'm pleased, Mister Chair, to be joined by Ed Howard, the Child Children Advocacy Institute, and James Fontaine, although we may have lost him because he had to go on a flight. So the ghost of James Fontaine, the chief of the major narcotics division with the San Diego District Attorney's Office, both here to testify. One of whom is here to testify in support.

Welcome. You'll have two minutes. Thank you very much. And Fontaine will have no minutes.

Mister chairman, members, Ed Howard, senior counsel of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, pleased to cosponsor this important measure with the San Diego District Attorney's Office and the Consumer Federation of California. Our parent witness was also regrettably unable to attend and with the chair's permission, I'd like to briefly read her statement and then take any questions the committee may have if if it's on. "Good afternoon. My name is Kristen Heidelbach, proud parent and supporter of AB 2076.

Sadly, I'm intimately aware of how easy it is for children to purchase harmful products online.

My 16 year old daughter was able to easily procure a box of hemp cigarettes from an Amazon account she had opened, which could be done with no effort to verify age. Thankfully, she realized what she had purchased after she saw the THC and the CBD percentages on the side of the box and gave them to me and apologized. They were ordered and delivered without so much of a question of her age or query for an ID.

Interestingly, they were marked on Amazon as an herbal alternative to cigarettes. Charlotte obtained this product by buying an Amazon gift card from a grocery store.

As my own experience affirms, Amazon has not done has done the math and has concluded that it is simply more profitable to offer these products without age gates and roll the dice on whether or not an under resourced government enforcer would put aside other priorities and entangle themselves for years in litigation against one of the largest companies in the world. All to get a maximum penalty of less than the jurisdiction under current law of small claims court.

When it comes to these huge companies, if we're going to be serious about ensuring compliance with our laws, protecting children and ensuring fair competition, we simply must make the profits not worth the risk. AB 2076 protects children by doing two common sense things. First, it makes sure that children can't evade age restrictions online by using gift cards to buy the most dangerous items to them.

And second, for businesses earning more than $25,000,000 a year, a judge can increase the $7,500 penalty to a maximum of $250,000 per vote job violation, but only if the judge finds such an increase is needed to deter future violations." It's the end of her statement. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I'm pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Does anyone wish to register support for the bill? If so, please share your name, affiliation, if any, no lobbying firm, and your position.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Olivia Herrera on behalf of the California Children's Hospital Association, California District Attorney's Association, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in support. Thank you.

Good evening, Mister chairman. Robert Hurrell with the Consumer Federation California. We are proud cosponsor of the bill. You'll be pleased to know I will not be using the other two minutes for support testimony. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelly MacMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in support.

Good evening, Mister Chair. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association in support along with the nearly two dozen other law enforcement groups enlisted in the analysis and support. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members. Connor Gassman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Alright. Thank you. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Do any members of the public wish to register opposition with the committee? Seeing none, we'll return to the committee for any questions, discussion, or motion. It's a motion by Senator Gonzales. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Alright. Motion by Senator Gonzales. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 4 to 0. Place that measure on call. Thank you. I also wanna note, AB 1988 has been removed from today's agenda at the request of the author. And so we will proceed now to AB 2025 by Assemblymember Pellerin who's joined us.

Welcome.

Thank you.

And please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I'd like to ask the Chair for permission to display props. What did he

Is there any objection to seeing no permission granted?

Wonderful. Thank you. For real estate sales, existing law requires images that are digitally staged to be labeled and the original be made available to consumers. Today, I ask that you help me extend that same those same requirements to rental listings. Given the high competition in the rental market, it is not uncommon for renters to commit to a unit without visiting it first in person.

So here, before you are, screenshots of a Zillow listing for an apartment in Sacramento. At first glance, it may not appear to be staged using AI tools, but upon close inspection of the curtains and the angle of the floor, you can clearly see that these elements were added digitally along with the rest of the furniture. When compared to the original image that is below there, you'll see that this pop out is completely obscured by the digitally added curtains.

And if you look at the table under the TV, you'll notice that the door, that front door will likely open into that space and hit the edge of that console table, raising the question of whether the room could actually fit the AI furniture in this image. Now, these might not be a deal breaker for a renter, but these facts about the property are only revealed because we have access to the original image.

So AB 2025 presents consumer harm by requiring that digitally altered images used in rental listing advertisements include a disclosure that the images have been altered and that the original photos be accessible to the renter for images, posted online. The bill has no opposition and has enjoyed bipartisan support. And do I have my oh, I do have a witness. My witness is still here. With me to testify in support is Justin Brookman from the Consumer Reports.

Welcome. And you will have two minutes. Hey.

Is right on or that good? You're good. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Chair Cabaldon, members of the committee for having me here. We are proud to I'm I'm from Consumer Reports.

We are proud to support AP 2025. It'll put in place some common sense guidelines around the use of generative AI images and real estate list, rental real estate listings. Generative AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can decrease staging costs for agents and landlords, but also has potential to be used to fool prospective renters about key features or problems on listings. The fake images can be a deceptive inducement, Wasting would be tenants time and money and visiting apartments they otherwise would have avoided.

People moving from across the state or across the country may need to make actual decisions based on online listings and maybe in for a nasty surprise when they show up and they find a wholly different property than the one they saw that they were getting.

The use of AI in rental listings including deceptive AI has exploded in recent months. Wired recently published real estate is entering its AI slop era late last year. Other major outlets like Slate and Yahoo and the Atlantic have also published investigations. Popular real estate Reddits are packed with complaints, from consumers who've been duped by AI generated images. Even the National Association of Realtors recently published a story entitled, are you catfishing buyers with picture perfect real estate photos in realtor news.

AB 2025 doesn't prohibit the use of generative AI listings. It just requires labeling and providing links to originally unaltered images. Things is a basic protections that make sense for consumers and for that reason, we urge an aye vote on the bill. Alright.

Thank you. Does anyone does anyone wish to register support for the bill? So please vote for the stand up mic and share with us your name affiliation if you have one and your position on the bill.

Happy to. Good evening, Chair and Members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power of California Action in support of the bill and the dramatic flare. Thank you.

Alright. Are there two lead witnesses in opposition or any?

Tweener. Tweener.

Okay. Okay. Tweener? Is there a Tweener? Yeah.

Thank you.

I see. I think there might be.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Freddy Quintana with the California Apartment Association. We agree with the direction of this bill and appreciate the Assembly member working with us on these on amendments. As a result, the of the author's and staff's hard work, we are neutral.

Okay. Better yet.

Alright. That's better than a tweener.

I know. I said better yet. Yeah.

Yeah. Anyone else wish want wanna register a position on the bill? Seeing none, let's return to the committee for any questions or comments or for a motion. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you for bringing this measure forward. Just for clarification purposes, as a realtor, I was in the impression that this was already required to be disclosed. Is this within the realtor such as like the IMRLS web platform or are we talking about other platforms that are subject to be able to publicize rental properties that are not real tour based. Is this like private private platforms or is it

So the law passed last year to apply to real estate agent, a listings. And this year, we're applying it now to rentals as well.

So non so so private party rentals?

So so like anything on any of the platforms that are available for people when they're searching for apartments.

Okay. So I'm gonna assume or that you're implying that not the realtor perspective. Not from the realtor listing because that's already,

If they're advertising rental listings, they would have to comply with this law. Okay.

So once again, just clarifying that it's we did the realtor component. Now we're doing private entities putting or facilitating the rental market. I'm going to sue. Yes.

My team member is shaking her head. Yes.

So Yeah. I just wanted that for the I'm I'm supportive of the measure as a as a realtor. I know that we have to disclose whether or not, you know, we're using AI generated imageries in our listings. So I just I must I was assuming that this was had to do with the private market that is not agent represented. Private parties.

So it's making it consistent across all platforms.

Yeah. I will be happy to support the measure, when the, time is appropriate. Thank you. Mister Chair. Thank you.

Alright. It is appropriate. Would you like to make a motion? Okay. I think the motion. Alright.

It's been moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Sure. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words and I hope it earns your vote. Your Aye vote. Thank you so much.

It's worth one word.

Alright. Then we have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Please call the roll.

Motion is due passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

The votes 3 to 0 will place that measure on call. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Alright. Bye bye.

We are waiting for two two prideful authors. So let we're gonna lift the calls on the bills that we've heard so far. Alright.

[Roll Call]

Five to zero will replace the call.

[Roll Call]

Vote seven to zero. We will replace the call.

[Roll Call]

six to zero, we will replace the call. Alright. While the committee is waiting, one or both of the two remaining authors, we will stand in a brief recess.

Apologies and consumer protection will reconvene in thirty seconds. Alright.

Reconvening the committee then. We're we have Mister Zbur here to present AB 1609.

Welcome. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, Mister Chair, Members. I'm proud today to present AB 169 sponsored by the Communication Workers of America District Council nine. This bill restores a basic expectations when Californians need help, especially with essential services, that they can reach a real human being in a reasonable amount of time.

During the Covid pandemic, I spent more than four hours on hold on the phone trying to get medication for my 98 year old mother. After getting nowhere and being on hold, 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. And that and at that time, they were just just running around not answering the telephone.

I was forced to go out in public at the height of the pandemic, risking contracting Covid myself and actually bringing that Covid back in and exposing my 98 year old mother. That could have been prevented if I'd 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 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 bots, and endless hold times when dealing with healthcare, utilities, housing, and travel emergencies. Being able to reach a human customer service agent can be critical or life threatening at times.

Customers need to be able to promptly fill a medication to prevent their utilities from getting shut off and access time sensitive and access sensitive information for scheduling purposes. AB 169 ensures meaningful access to live assistance by, first, requiring large businesses to offer access to a live human representative during business hours, limiting hold times after a telephonic call or online customer service inquiries answered, requiring transparency, including clear disclosure of AI use and prohibiting AI from being presented as human.

And, finally, prominently displaying a phone number if one is made available for live, for live assistance. AB 169 does not ban automation. Under this bill, businesses may continue using AI and automated systems.

However, automation cannot replace real and vital workers or be used as a barrier that prevents people from reaching prompt effective help. This bill not only provides needed customer protections when customer service is needed, it also recognizes the critical importance of human workers. Today, you'll hear from opposition that there continues to be some concerns with this proposal.

I also believe you will hear from them how hard my office has worked with the opposition, communicated with them, listened to them to try to address their concerns, and we continue to do that. I've amended AB 169 significantly twice now in policy committees to address legitimate concerns that will continue to discuss any outstanding concerns that are being raised.

Some of the amendments that we've made to this bill include adding a reasonable effort standard, extending the time thresholds, adding a callback option as allowable, clarifying in certain terms, that this proposal is not requiring telephonic customer service if that is not currently offered, on an online customer service platform, adding an exception for unforeseen circumstances where specific time frames cannot be met.

We've also accepted the Chamber suggestions regarding hours of operation, limiting it to existing ten hours during existing operating hours for those businesses, and we're also considering some additional tweaks. I'm also accepting proposed committee amendments today, which are included in the committee analysis and will exempt certain sectors as specified, including credit reporting services subject to the credit Fair Credit Reporting Act, and expand the time frame for the callback option to a designated time frame within a twenty four hour period as requested by the committee.

We also, we will also continue to work on including a business to business line carve out that protects everyday consumers. With me today and speaking momentarily is Ignacio Hernandez representing the sponsor of the bill, the Communication Workers of America District Council nine.

I'm proud to be joined by CWA as they have a long and laudable history of bargaining over new technologies, limiting impacts on workers, customers, and the public, while ensuring that workers win their fair share of economic gains that new technology can achieve. Mister Chair and members, this bill is simple. Given the accelerated deployment of AI and increasing difficulty in trying to reach actual people, this bill ensures that we can talk to a human when we most need human customer service support.

I ask for your Aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today to testify in support of the bill is Ignacio Hernandez, representing the bill sponsor, Communication Workers of America District Council nine.

Welcome. You will have two minutes.

Good evening, Mister Chair members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District nine. District nine covers California, Nevada, Hawaii, and we have members in all states in a variety of sectors, and we are proud to be the sponsors of the bill. First of all, I wanna thank the author for moving forward with this bill and also for all of the work engaging opposition to this really very important bill.

We all know that in recent years, and I've worked on legislation over the last decade or two, that, you know, the advancement of technology was supposed to make things easier for customers.

It was supposed to make things more accessible. And instead, what we're finding, and you've probably had your own experiences as I have, and my family and friends, and as my as my clients have had, of being stuck in these endless chat bots, or being stuck on endless phone, trees and cannot get to a human being. Technology is there and can be helpful when there are very simple questions that can be answered.

But when you need the discretion, the knowledge, and the judgment of a live person, you should be able to get to a live person, whether you're calling by phone or via chat bot. What this bill does is advance that.

It gives the ability for someone to move forward with a live person to problem solve. I always like to say what we do here in the legislature is we problem solve. That's why we interact with one another. We can't do this. Technology can't replace what we do here in the capital and do in legislative process.

It's the same when you get to chat bots, when you get to calling business and you need to resolve an issue, you need to get to a human person who can do that. The other thing, these are workers that CWA represents. We've been fighting the rollback of call centers for years. Companies keep arguing technology is important and we get that, but it should not be, you know, replacing human beings that have jobs, that are workers that are providing important service to customers.

And so this is a balanced bill.

I know there's a lot of work, and again, I wanna applaud the author for trying to address a lot of the issues going forward. But we need to create a baseline here in California. So for those reasons, we ask for your support. Alright.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to register their support for the legislation? So please come to the stand up mic and share with us your name, your affiliation, not your lobbying firm, and your position on the bill. Welcome.

Becca Cramer with the California Low Income Consumer Coalition in support. Thank you.

Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity in support.

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

Good evening, Chair and Members. Conner Gusmanon behalf of Teamsters California, the Malcomada Transit Union, the California Concord of Machinists, Unite Care, the Utility Workers Union of America, and the Engineers and Scientists of California, all in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Members of the committee, Randy Pollock on behalf of Consumer Data Industry Association. Based upon the proposed amendments, regarding the credit reporting industry, we are now neutral on the bill. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Are there lead witnesses in opposition?

Good evening. Thank you. Ronald Deilami with Cal Chamber in opposition. I'd like to first thank the author for the amendments taken thus far and the significant time that he and his staff have spent working through our concerns including the lengthy meeting we had on Friday. We of course look forward to reviewing the additional amendments once they are in print.

But for purposes today's hearing, I do wanna focus on some of the remaining operational concerns and outstanding amendment requests, all of which are more detailed in our letter. While lengthy, some of that reflects the bill's one size fits all approach across industries. First of all, recent amendments appear to intended to clarify that businesses are not required to provide telephonic customer service. Related provisions still create uncertainty regarding what customer service methods satisfy the bill and when businesses qualify for the intended safe harbor.

So we continue to seek clarity and flexibility around how human customer support can be provided.

Similarly, we appreciate but continue to see significant issues with the exclusive business lines amendment adopted for b to b communications which we have discussed. There are also some issues around how residency is determined under customer. It's important that residency be based on an account holder's billing address as we suggested in our red lines to avoid case by case determinations of the caller's location.

There are also several straightforward fixes that would meaningfully improve implementation, including narrowing the bill to existing rather than prospective customers and focusing requirements on circumstances requiring escalation from automated systems or AI assistance to prompt human support. We also believe time frame should be longer and flexible enough to avoid unintended impacts on service quality, and that businesses should be deemed to meet human access requirements by providing reasonable alternatives like callbacks, scheduled appointments, or other deferred options for which there is some language in the bill.

We we do appreciate that. On liability and good faith, we ask that the bill retain commercially reasonable and practical compliance standards that have been added, but remove the added phrase, designed and intended to achieve compliance, which undermines the certainty of a safe harbor that was added. And while we appreciate the move to the tiered penalty structure, we continue to recommend lower penalties and an opportunity to cure before first violation and limits on liability for isolated or inadvertent errors.

And finally, for today, we still see clarification that unforeseen circumstances beyond the business's reasonable control still include unpredictable events such as IT and telecom outages, great emergencies, and PSPS events as examples. And we do think that there will there can be some agreement on that after our conversation.

We really do look forward to working with the author. We've had really good conversations, and we thank the committee. Thanks.

Alright. Thank you. Anyone else wish to register opposition with the committee on this bill?

Good evening, Mister Chair. Christopher Keiley here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully opposed. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Good evening. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the California Travel Association. Respectfully opposed.

Shane Levine with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association in opposition. Thank you.

Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in, oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Robert Boykin with TechNet. Respectful opposition.

Ryan Allain with the California Retailers. No official position, but concerns we've been raising with the author and continue working them out. Thank you.

Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. We have an opposed unless amended position to continue working with the author. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Naomi Pajardo on behalf of California's Credit Unions. We would echo, the concerns of the bankers with with an opposed and less amended position. And then also on behalf of, the computer and communications industry association, we have an opposed position. Thank you.

Alright. With that then, we'll turn to the committee for questions and comments. Senator Ochoa Bogh, the Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mister Chair. So I completely understand the inability to reach a inability to reach a live person at some point. You're just going and even sometimes on websites and platforms where you're trying to find just a phone number to get to someone. It is incredibly frustrating. So I probably because of my age, I still wanna talk to a real person when when possible and feasible.

But I do have some concerns that I wanted to kind of walk through. And it has to do with implementation enforcement and the operational impacts across the industries that the one size fits all is is probably and when you're dealing with with something within this space, it's going to be obviously, especially in California, we have a tendency to do a one size fits all. And in a and especially in in this environment, we have such an array of of industries that are being represented.

So my questions are the following. So many businesses offer a system where they will call you right back at your place in the queue.

But would the wouldn't this bill require these businesses to acquire new systems that allow future day scheduling?

No. I mean, this would allow it would allow a callback. I think the way the bill is currently written, it would require a callback. I think within an hour, the committee has asked us to lengthen that. So you would actually allow that callback in a longer period of time, a a specified time period within twenty four hours.

So there's a there's a extreme amount of flexibility now. And it the language isn't completely drafted, but in terms of what we've agreed with the committee to do.

Okay.

Okay. So we don't have that yet in print?

We don't have that in print, but we will be working with the committee staff to to have it in print by the next policy committee.

Okay. And then do I read that this bill correctly? That the that the businesses would need to have this advanced scheduling feature ready by 01/01/2027. Is that the goal?

They

6 months from now?

Yes. If they I think most businesses that actually have these features already do that, many of them, if they have that option. So, this is an option that they would have. The underlying the basic requirement is that they actually design their system and have a good faith effort to have a callback within fifteen minutes. And then, of course, there's exemptions for unforeseen circumstances, a number of exemptions in the bill.

The other thing I'll point out is that this there's no private right of action in this bill. So this is something that would require public enforcement. So, you know, this is something where I think it would only, you know, the attorney general or or district attorney would only do this where you've got egregious circumstances and someone sort of violating, in some kind of systematic way.

So thank you for the the no private right of action because that just really makes it very difficult for our businesses here in California as you probably already know. So just for clarification. Yep. So for most of these businesses, they would have to have it ready by 01/01/2027?

If they they could decide to offer it later and the the compliance date on the bill is 01/01/2027. So however they intend to comply and there's a number of compliance options to do that would be yeah. That's when the compliance period would be under the under the bill currently.

Mister Sherwood, would it be possible to sense that very briefly? Yeah. Respond to that.

Yeah. Could you could you, please?

Just just this time. Sorry. I apologize. I wanna set a precedent. So the question was for the author, so who gave a great answer or something.

Yeah. I just wanna clarify the provision of the bills that's currently drafted is is at the option of the business to whether or not to have the callback feature. So while it would be the date that you mentioned it would be January, it's still the option of the business if they decide to have a callback, then it have to follow certain parameters.

So it's optional at this point based on the current language. Okay. And then, so we are to assume that a business has two products. Product A is a consumer focus and product B is a business to business product. And would a business be required to offer the same ten hour per day of customer service for both products?

Or could customer service be open on Saturday for the consumer product but closed on Saturday for the business to business product?

So the current bill requires ten hours a day for five at least five business days. We are considering making that even more flexible, which we haven't done yet in the bill. One thing that some folks have asked us to do is give either that option or a seven day a week option with eight hours a day, and we're open to considering that. So that's we're trying to give more flexibility on that in terms of the time period.

There was another part of your question that I don't think I answered though.

Well, basically, it was just could a consumer service be open on Saturday for the consumer product but closed on Saturday?

So so currently, we are working on a business to business exemption for the bill. So that this would not apply to, you know, to to assistance numbers that a business, you know, provides for its business partners and for its business clients. So if they're provide if they only have one customer service option and they're providing it to consumers, if a business is utilizing it, they would actually have to comply with that.

But if they have a separate business line, our intention is to have a biz a separate business operation for business to business assistance. We're trying to work on languages tight enough that it doesn't allow someone to skirt it for basically mom and pop customers for, you know, basic people that are trying to get to the get customer service assistance.

But we're trying to get a business to business. We're working on a business to business exemption.

Okay. And the bill is heading to what committee afterwards? Judiciary? Okay. So I'm gonna seems like you're still working a lot of the little kinks of the business community.

And I'm I'm always very considerate about the businesses in California just because in general we're really, really hard on on the business environment. So I'm gonna I'm gonna watch and wait to see what that language looks like. Moving forward, I'm gonna lay off the bill today but I look forward to seeing the language. I guess the next time I'll I will see the bill will probably be on the Senate floor.

So I will take a closer look at the at the language then to see if we can address some of those concerns that, have been expressed by the opposition.

But I look forward to seeing the bill. Thank you for working in this space because I I'm with you. I I like my people.

Thank you. Senator Padilla.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Colley's thank the author for bringing the bill. I think it's a reasonable consumer protection approach. I think there's still some avenue to continue working as you've testified in your presentation. I appreciate that including the reference to some of the exemptions.

So I appreciate the work and as the the son of a former one time communications worker, I'm happy to move the bill to appropriate time.