Assembly Standing Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection

Welcome to Assembly of Privacy and Consumer Protection. We have eight bills on the agenda today. Sadly, no items on consent or harder next week to get more on consent. To effectively manage our time today, we'll be limiting testimony to two witnesses of support to an opposition. It's not on.

Oh, let me start over for the audience outside the room. Welcome to Assembly privacy consumer protection. We have eight bills on the agenda today. No items on consent to effectively manage our time. We'll be limiting testimony to witnesses in support, to an opposition, two minutes each.

And then, of course, everybody else can register their support or opposition. If you don't have a chance to give your full testimony, please use our website and our portal. We do read all the letters submitted and so you have an opportunity to provide any additional information there. We don't have a quorum, so we will start as a subcommittee, and we will get to the bill presentations. I am gonna go first, so I will hand it over to Assembly member Ward.

Thank you, madam Chair. This is item number one, HR 117. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Assembly Member. I'm pleased to present HR 117, which calls upon Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 was enacted to help foster the development of the Internet. When Section 230 was enacted, the Internet was a radically different place.

Well, Section 230 served a valuable purpose in the development of the Internet. Three decades after its enactment, the law has become outdated. Its expansive grant of immunity has enabled some of history's most profitable companies to disregard or even facilitate foreseeable harms as an unacceptable cost of growth. This is the only industry I can think of that can cause foreseeable harm and have no liability for it.

Courts have dismissed cases involving harassment and stalking, sexual exploitation, child sexual abuse materials, scams targeting seniors, terrorist recruitment, and other incredibly serious offenses on the grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempts such actions.

Unlike brick-and-mortar businesses, which can face significant liability for those foreseeable harms occurring on their premises or in connection with their products, dominant platforms generally face no equivalent legal pressure to invest in effective safety measures or responsible product design. The harms fall disproportionately on California's children, women, LGBTQ plus individuals, and non-white people. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has declined multiple opportunities to narrow Section 230's application, making this congressional action necessary and urgent.

This resolution calls on Congress to reform Section 230, starting with passage of the bipartisan Sunset Section 230 Act introduced by senators Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham. That legislation would sunset Section 230 after two years, creating a window for Congress to enact targeted surgical reforms that restore principles of legal accountability but allow for innovation at the same time.

By urging this first step, the legislature signals California support for structured federal processes to reexamine and modernize this immunity framework, preserving what works while closing the loopholes that have shielded platforms from accountability and caused the harms we've heard about in this committee. I wanna thank my joint author, Assembly Member Dixon, for her leadership on the resolution we passed yesterday on the floor on social media, Survivor's Day, which was honored today, and for her partnership on this calling on Congress to reform Section 230. With me to testify in support are Julianna Arnold of Parents Rising and Kel O'Hara from Equal Rights Advocates. Come on up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll invite our witnesses up here to the presentation table, and per the committee rules, you'll have up to two minutes each.

Yeah. Or you can sit here.

Thank you very much for the committee to having me here this afternoon. My name is Julianna Arnold. I am a Co-Founder and Executive Director of Parents RISE, advocacy organization run by survivor parents to protect children online and call for greater accountability from big tech. I'm also here today because I'm a mother, a mother of my daughter, Coco, who was a bright light, funny, beautiful, powerful, and very deeply loved, and she had a whole life ahead of her and she should still really be here.

Instead, Coco died after she was contacted, groomed, given a fake prescription pill that unknowingly contained fentanyl, and then was sexually exploited. She met this man. He approached her. He was a predator on Instagram. And like too many parents, I learned after my child was gone that the laws protecting powerful technologies companies were stronger than the laws available to protect my child.

There was no justice. That's why I'm here in strong support of HR 117 and the call for Congress to reform Section 230, beginning with the bipartisan Sunset Section 230 Act. Section 230 was written nearly 30 years ago for a very different Internet, but today it's become a shield for some of the most powerful companies in the world. It allows them to avoid accountability, even when children are harmed from their products, through their products, harmed from algorithms, recommendations, direct messages, and design choices.

And when families seek answers, too often, they are left with: the answer is we have immunity. I know parents who after losing their child to social media met with a Snapchat spokesperson to ask how strangers could so easily find their children, contact them, target them, and sell them illicit and often deadly drugs. And the response to-- those parents received was, we have no liability here because of Section 230, and again and again are the answers that they're getting. No care, no empathy, no accountability. They did not have to care because there is no consequences.

230 shields them from any responsibility. So what are families to do? What are victims to do? Sunsetting Section 230 is not about restricting speech. It's about corporate conduct, product design, algorithms, recommendations, direct messaging systems, and business decisions that put children in danger.

Free speech should never be used as a smoke screen for corporate immunity when children are harmed. A two-year sunset gives Congress time to replace this updated law with targeted reforms that preserve what works, close the loopholes that have denied families justice for decades, and respond to the technology of today, not of 1996. Please support HR 117, Section 230. Restore accountability and stand with the children who should still be here.

Thank you, and thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Kel O'Hara, and I'm a Senior Attorney at Equal Rights Advocates, a national gender justice organization. For countless women and LGBTQ people, the Internet is as dangerous as it is valuable. Recent national surveys have found that between 26 and 38% of American women have experienced online harassment or abuse, women of color and young women experience digital harm at even higher rates, and as many as 90% of transgender adults have experienced the same.

Seventy five percent of online abuse happens on social media, but platforms like Instagram and Snapchat are not being held accountable. This is largely due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 was written as a Good Samaritan provision. It was meant to encourage responsible content moderation by allowing online providers to clean up their spaces without being punished for the effort, but in the three decades since its enactment, Section 230 has instead become an accountability vacuum.

Courts have interpreted this law so broadly that digital providers are able to sidestep liability for anything that occurs on their platforms, including known harm, like a man's ex-boyfriend using a fake dating profile to send more than a thousand strangers to his home for sex, as was the case in Herrick versus Grindr. The survivor contacted Grindr over 100 times to try and get that profile taken down, but the company did nothing because they didn't have to. That case was dismissed under Section 230.

230 was never written for the Internet as it exists today. In 1996, the Internet was dial up and message boards. Thirty years later, that statute does not hold up against a digital world dominated by multibillionaire corporations and the attention economy they've created. Something has to change. The largest and most powerful companies in the world must be held to the same standard as everyone else when their own choices cause foreseeable harm. I urge this committee to support the much-needed reform of Section 230 by voting aye on HR 117. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to offer a position of support? Please approach the microphone.

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

Thank you.

Cheyenne Kenny in support. Cancel Grindr.

Elizabeth Kenny in support.

Barbara Walker, mom of three, in support.

Victoria Hinks, survivor, parent of owl forever sixteen, in support.

Richard Badusek with the Alexander Neville Foundation, in support.

Thank you. And seeing nobody else approaching the microphone, we have no opposition on file. Is there anybody, members of the public here, wishing to register a statement or a position of opposition?

Okay. Seeing none, we'll turn it back to the committee members for any questions and comments. K. Seeing none, Mr. Demaio.

I understand that we're in the Wild West, and that section two thirty obviously contributes to that, in both a good and bad way. My concern though is that we're doing a honorary resolution, symbolic resolution, without specificity as to what the reforms would be. And so in the absence of knowing what the reforms would be, a more a more developed replacement or improvement of section three two thirty, I'm just concerned that it opens up broad liability without dealing with, what we would be doing in its place.

There are a lot of good things about section two thirty. There are also some things that you you scratch your head and say, gee, this seems to be pretty broad, and there are some areas where we'd like to regulate, some rare areas where we'd like to see improvements.

My remarks continue to go in the direction of the technology industry. You have the most brilliant people, most innovative people working for you. You know that there are documented problems. Fix them. And if you don't, then the the public will demand change.

I do think the most appropriate place for this to happen is at the federal level so that we have uniformity across state lines. It's always, frustrated me that here in California, we are promulgating rules and regulations that, by effect, seem to have an impact nationwide because most of the technology companies are here or we're one of the biggest markets. And so we do start having an impact, like, the 10,000 pound gorilla.

But these are issues that should be dealt with at the federal level, which speaks to, our legislature calling on Congress to act. But I'm concerned about the lack of definition about what we are actually asking for.

So I'm not able to support it in its present form, but, I will indicate to the technology industry, once again, you need to get your blank together on these issues. And in the absence of you solving some of these problems, then government will come in and that might actually create another list of of unintended consequences and negative impacts. So the industry needs to step up. You can't just say, oh, we're gonna oppose. The these are these are matters of public concern.

And if you're going to be a good corporate citizen, you need to come up with solutions. All I see are oppose, but I don't see any constructive recommendation. So once again, I'm not gonna support this because I don't know what I'm signing on to, but I do wanna indicate to the industry, we wanna see, your ideas for how we can solve this. Thank you.

Gotcha. Thank you. Assemblymember, appreciate your comments. I also thought it was a a witty shout out to communications decency act when you bleeped your own profanity. So I appreciated that little blimp there.

But if it was intentional, it was well done. So but I did wanna point out that page four, lines 18 through 31 cite to exactly what it is we're calling on Congress to do, which is there is a bipartisan effort introduced by Senator Graham and Senator Durbin that he's been introduced to sunset two thirty for two years.

And it's not intended as it states here to remove all reasonable protections to to provide a deadline to ensure that Big Deck participates in the reform to do exactly as you noted to find the common ground between what is helpful and what is harmful to people. I mean, that's what we're calling on. So we're not we're not creating that, but they actually it has already been introduced in the Congress, and that's what we're calling on them to pass.

So I just wanted to clarify that for you. And I know that my witness has worked on that. So I don't know if you wanna provide any clarity there too. Yeah.

I mean and, it's been years that we've been telling the tech companies that they have clean up their act, and, unfortunately, they're not doing anything. And now we have the evidence that's came out through the trials that I witnessed firsthand, and they're just doing the same PR playbook. They don't care. They're in denial, and that's why they're not taking any more of these cases because they don't want any more documentation to be licked out through the discovery process.

Because from what I hear, it is a smoking gun.

You know? And I just have to say, we have been lobbying in Washington, I have personally, for three and a half, four years on the Kids On Un Safety Act and other federal legislation, which over and over consistently because of tech's involvement in our political processes and our legislative processes has been blocked. Miraculously blocked. And it's happening right as we speak right now.

And, unfortunately, we do need to lean on the states because that's the only place that that legislation is being passed that are put protect our kids.

And the Federal Government right now wants to put federal preemption to block all those laws. And all the work that's been done in states like California and by survivor parents in many states that have been working so hard to get legislation on the books. So, unfortunately, until there is a decent federal piece of policy and legislation, preemption just doesn't work. It leaves us with absolutely nothing and giving these companies yet another section two thirty to hide behind.

And that's the problem, and that's why we need this to bring it'll force everyone to come to the table because they know their the time is limited on two thirty.

So they're already looking beyond that. But at least we need to get rid of two thirty and replace it with federal legislation that actually holds these companies to do a duty of care so they're held accountable and responsible for how they are designing their platforms. So thank you. I appreciate that.

Great. See no other member, committee, questions or comments. Madam Chair, I wanna thank you for bringing forth this important resolution.

Thank you.

I think as you noted and I think as your witness stated as well, you know, a law now approaching 30 old was originally meant to be a good Samaritan law, and one that was gonna be able to facilitate a growing electronic and and digital industry with a trust bond that things would be done well, that moderation and and content would be adhered to because we would hope that the better angels in all of us, you know, would try to make sure technology was was was being responsive and and was socially appropriate.

And, sadly, in some instances, that's not been the case. And so we're left with a growing frustration right now. We experienced that very right well even in this committee and a number of ideas that we would like to be able to legislate or ideas that we are legislating, but now we have to narrow or even further craft because section two thirty of the of of the the the federal section two thirty that is prohibiting us from even having those conversations.

Now we've done a lot here in California and certainly under this chair's leadership, to be able to work and, set the model, I think, for what we can do as a state, but we are constrained, in our ability to, I think, really, be able to legislate to the fullest extent, things that we would like to be able to do to make sure that these are safe spaces and that we are moving forward, in a world together with, digital technology in a way that is gonna be safe for all.

I I would note that, you know, your resolution does have both a a a good amount of content in there that outlines what the problems have been, areas that really need closer scrutiny.

We're not directing them to say you must have legislation that's gonna do x, y, or z, but we're giving them a framework of what the problems are, kind of, you know, sort of a a scope of content of areas that need to be researched into. But, yes, the important thing that we are asking through this resolution is that they set that deadline because, I will say, sadly, Congress is deadline driven. Right? Happens with every budget, every little tiny budget cycle that we have to go through.

And most of the time, things get done by that deadline.

So it does bring everybody to the to the table when they realize that, yeah, there probably are a lot of good parts of Section two thirty that are still in there right now, and we don't want that to be all of a sudden, inactivated.

But we wanna make sure that something is really pushing the question to be able to, get it right, modernize it, in a way that allows us to be able to continue to work with them at the state level, and and ultimately provide everybody with the public safety that I think that, you know, the Chair, and your your coauthor as well, Miss Dixon, are working really hard to achieve through this resolution. So appreciate you, bringing this forward.

Hopefully, if, you know, in some, you know, near near near term if there's one thing that this Congress could do, this year, before, its, its time is up and everything. And I I would note, as, I think it's Congresswoman Hageman from Wyoming also has been a leader in this space.

You know, it would be to to to take us up. And if if a signal like this, California, is something that, you know, helps stoke that question, it's we're better off for it. So madam Chair, I wanna, again, thank you for, bringing forward this resolution. It I'll be happy to support it today and invite you to close.

Thank you. I would just thank my witnesses for being here for their fierce advocacy on the subject and, of course, Gianna for organizing, the parents and giving them the power to make a difference. It really means the world to everyone in this room, so thank you. And, I know you're making Coco's memory be a blessing To your work. Yep. And with that, when the time is right, I'd respectfully ask for an echo.

Thank you. We're operating as a subcommittee, so be sure to take a motion and have a vote when the time when when we have a quorum. And with that, I see we have a Senator here, which is wonderful. Okay. She's the first of six, and any other senators are welcome to make their way to Room 437.

But looks like we'll be proceeding with item number three SB 898. Senator Laura Pearson, thank you for joining the committee. And when you are ready, you may begin your presentation.

Thank you.

Okay. Join you? Cool. Absolutely.

Alright. Well, good afternoon, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity today to present SB 898, which requires manufacturers to disclose a minimum amount of time they will support connected consumer products and to provide notice when product is approaching and and when it reaches its, quote, end of life, end of quote. I thank the committee staff so much for working with our office, and I do accept the committee proposed amendment. Millions of consumer products today are enhanced through Internet connectivity.

Think dishwashers, vacuums, TVs, smartwatches, speakers, phones, and much more. We buy these smart products to enjoy the benefits that they promise, and we expect continued software support, security updates, and full access to the smart features that made us buy the products to begin with. Yet most consumers have no idea that their connected products could lose software support at all, let alone win. If necessary, support ends, connected products can quickly become vulnerable to cybersecurity and privacy risk or significant loss of key functionality.

This bill seeks to create a structure that will address this problem and also this transparency gap.

It also requires that consumers are notified when the manufacturer will definitely no longer update and support the product on its own and how they can continue to use the product safely. Now a product reaching its end of life as currently defined does not automatically mean that the product software or physical components no longer work at all. Think, for example, a refrigerator.

It can continue to safely store food using its hardware for many years after its end of life, but the ability to check its temperature on your phone may longer be available or or updated, or additional steps may need to be taken to ensure that it's not vulnerable to real security threats like hackers gaining access to accounts logged into apps on the fridge. And I also wanna be clear that this bill is not expecting manufacturer to be future tellers.

However, manufacturers build out entire teams. They spend years developing concepts and invest deeply in these products. And therefore, they should understand and have short term and long term plans that include what ongoing support would look like before the product's released. They know that this information, and they owe it to consumers to consider it when making these decisions, and therefore, it should disclose that. Lastly, it's also important to capture least connect products within these protections, such as Internet routers, modems, and home security systems.

In the limited circumstances where support ends during an active lease, only then would companies be responsible for replacing the products. SB 898 creates a framework to structure disclosures and notices so that we enhance trust and security between manufacturers, consumers, and connected products. Today, I have Justin Brookman with Consumer Reports as my lead witness and support. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Welcome back.

Thank you very much. Hi. I'm Justin Brookman on behalf of Consumer Reports in support. SB 898 requires that makers of connected devices tell consumers how long they plan to support the devices and to let them know when they're approaching end of life. We all buy tons of connected devices these days, smart TVs, home speakers, major appliances that can connect to the Internet.

But connecting products requires ongoing support from the manufacturer to update software to account for technology changes and from evolving security threats. Without devoting resources to maintaining a smart product, consumers may be vulnerable to cyberattacks. They may lose smart functionality, or the product could just stop working altogether and be bricked. There aren't really clear norms today for how long connected, products, should last.

Consumer Reports did a survey in December 2024 found that 43% of connected device owners said that last time they bought a device, they weren't aware it might lose software support at some point.

The same survey found that 72% of connected owners, device owners believe manufacturers should be required to disclose how long they will support the software on the devices. Some manufacturers do this today, which is great. A lot don't. Last year, the FTC researched a 184 connected products, only to discover that only 21 of them disclosed how long, today would support the devices or what the end end of late, date was on the product web page. This is a consumer protection issue.

It's also a cybersecurity issue. In April, the FBI announced that a Russian group had hacked end of life consumer and small business routers to conduct attacks on websites, spy on passwords, and gather sensitive data. If if any requires, companies provide information consumers to use when they purchase consumer devices about how long they'll last and stay secure.

It also provides for a mechanism for consumers to find out how long they're, protected, and have a plan for end of life in them when they're when they're when they're done. Other countries have laws that require manufacturers to disclose this time period, and it's time that Californians do as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And did you also want two minutes for that?

Yes. This is Megan Smith with Public Interest Research Group as my second lead witness.

Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Bauer Khan, vice Chair Macedo, and the members of the privacy and consumer protection committee. My name is Megan Smith. I'm an organizing director with PERG, national partner of CALPIRG or California public interest research group. CALPIRG is a statewide nonprofit and nonpartisan advocate for consumers with thousands of members in the state.

And I'm here today to testify in support of SB 898. Internet connected devices require security updates from manufacturers in order to remain secure and functional. But right now, there is not a way for consumers to know how long a product is expected to last or when it stops getting support and stops being secure. This is important information that consumers ought to know at the point of sale and when the product loses that support.

When manufacturers see support for their products and render them unusable, it generates tons of electronic waste.

We've estimated that a 130,000,000 pounds of electronic waste have been generated from expired software and canceled cloud support from 2014 to 2025. For example, in 2024, Spotify stopped supporting their Car Thing music player device, less than three years after that product was launched, leaving consumers with an unusable device. And there are countless examples of this kind of behavior, which we've cataloged in our report, the electronic waste graveyard. Transparency and minimum support timelines could avert waste and encourage longer support.

Manufacturing devices also has a big ecological impact.

And if Americans' laptops and desktops could be used for just one year longer, the amount of pollution eliminated from not manufacturing those replacements would be the equivalent of taking 250,000 cars off the road. There are 20,000,000,000 Internet connected devices right now and growing. And so we need to prevent these devices from becoming a tidal wave of e waste, a security problem, or both. We need to inform consumers about these issues so they can protect themselves and incentivize manufacturers to support longer lasting products and extended support.

So I strongly urge the committee to vote favorably on Senate bill 898, and thank you for your time.

Thank Thank you very much. Are there other members of the public here wishing to register a position of support? Please approach the microphone. Okay. We're not rising to approach the microphone.

Is there anybody here? We have, I think, a little opposition on file. Anybody here for lead testimony on an opposition witness? I'm gonna take the seats up here, and you also will have up to two minutes each.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We are respectfully in an opposed unless amended position and greatly appreciate Senator Weber Pearson, her staff, and the committee staff for their excellent continued engagement here and willingness to work with stakeholders. Our primary concern, remains the enforcement mechanism, but it is compounded by compliance obligations that manufacturers may be unable to satisfy through no fault of their own.

Regarding enforcement, while we appreciate the author's intent to not create an explicit new private right of action, violations would be actionable under California's unfair competition law allowing enforcement by both public prosecutors and private plaintiffs.

Because the UCL does not require proof of intent, manufacturers may face liability for inadvertent or technical violations. For these reasons, we believe a more balanced approach would rely on enforcement by the attorney general and do acknowledge the jurisdiction of the committee we are in today, and again acknowledge the great work of the committee on amendments to this bill, particularly flexibility in a support time frame and additional safeguards.

Further clarification would be helpful regarding the scope of covered products and focus possibly on products without current appropriate warranty structures, obligations related to leased products, and the bill's end of life notification requirements, which may require notice through multiple channels simultaneously and create significant operational burdens with limited additional consumer benefit. We are still reviewing the committee amendments and appreciate the committee's work to address stakeholder concerns. We do have some preliminary concerns regarding proposed language tied to reasonable consumer expectations, which could introduce additional uncertainty, despite clear disclosures.

However, we again are committed to continuing conversations with the senator's office and stakeholders. But for these reasons, we respectfully are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Two minutes on the nose.

Tough to beat. Thank you, members of the committee. Jack Yanes with Sloane, Consistent here on behalf of Consumer Technology Association in respectful opposition to SBA 898. CTA is North America's largest technology association representing over 1,200 members. More than 80% are small businesses and startups, many are based in California and make products used by Californians every day. At the outset, I wanna thank the author, her staff, committee staff as well for their hard work in this bill.

We are, CTA is still reviewing the amendments, but we have some preliminary, takes from that. I want also wanna note that, we appreciate the amendments suggested by the committee. The move to an ordinary use standard and the removal of the mandatory five year floor both reflect the disclosure based approach we have advocated for. Our letter provides a bit more detailed description of our concerns, but there are three I just wanna briefly highlight here today. The first is the six month advance notice.

Manufacturers with long support windows often cannot identify an end of life date that far in advance, which makes that requirement difficult to meet in practice. The second is a labeling issue. Timelines can change after a product ships, requiring that support period to be displayed on packaging as s p g eight nine eight currently does could leave consumers with outdated or incomplete information. And the third thing, I'll just briefly touch on, my colleague touched on as well, is the, UCL, exposure in the bill.

We know the bill already recognizes that there are third party dependencies that are legitimate constraint on manufacturers, and we think that same logic is worth considering on the enforcement side throughout the bill.

So appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns here today and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for being here. Is there any other members of the public here in opposition wishing to offer a position of opposition?

Good afternoon, Mister chairman, members. Silvio Furr on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, also opposed. Would like to thank the author and the staff. I look forward to reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We have just recently taken a position of opposition. We have both legal and operational concerns. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Arsenault on behalf of TechNet in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Naomi Pajarano on behalf of the computer computer and communications industry association. We also have an imposed and less amended position. Thank you.

Taylor Criddle with the Electronic Security Association in opposition unless amended. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dylan Hoffman. I've been asked to register opposition, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.

Thank you.

John Winger with Sluggins, Jensen and Associates here on behalf of AdvoMed, the Advanced Medical Technology Association. We're the national trade for the medical device industry. Like to thank the author. We're having ongoing conversations about FDA regulated, medical devices, which I don't believe are the intent of the bill. And so we're just trying to find that sweet spot on language there, but just, until then, we are opposed unless amended.

Great. Thank you. And seeing nobody else approaching the microphone, I'll turn this over to any committee member questions or comments. Assemblymember Erwin.

Well, I I wanna thank you for bringing this bill forward, and I think the, amendments definitely bring additional, flexibility. But I would encourage you to continue to work with the, with the opposition because it is really about implementation. I I did an IOT bill a few years ago, and and there are a lot of, nuances.

But as Chair of the cybersecurity committee, I'm very excited to see this because the end of life is definitely a a time when a product is very vulnerable to, to attacks or even DDoS attacks where somebody somebody else's, equipment might go down. So, really do, appreciate you, bringing this for us.

And it's all well also a really good reminder that not everything is automatically updated, and we should all be even though it's not an IOT device, we should always update our our phones, our, you know, bring cameras. We should we should keep everything updated. That's not automatically updated because there are more and more cyber threats, out there, and it's important to protect yourself. So, I will be supporting Bill. It's a great flag also for your committee and the team to come here, but thank you. Why not?

Thank you. I I don't believe we have any other committee member comments at this time. I appreciate, Senator, you bringing this forward, the work that you've been doing already with opposition and, by accepting the committee amendments, I invite you to close.

Thank you. We'll definitely want to once again thank the staff on this committee for working so closely with my staff on the amendments. You know, definitely welcome any suggested language from any of the opposition. Understand that they have put some, concerns together. But any language that they may have, feel free to, bring to my office and share with my staff.

This is an extremely important issue. And as we rely more on technology, it is extremely important, not only for consumer knowledge, but also for, the issues of cybersecurity as was mentioned by Assembly member Erwin. And with that, respectfully ask when I vote on SB 898.

Thank you, Senator Whitver Pearson. We are still operating as a subcommittee. So when when the time we have a quorum, we'll be able

to take a motion and be able to vote on the item. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

And next, we have Senator Wahab. Going back to item number two, this is SB 435. I do appreciate you being here, allowing us to continue the flow, and, make best use of all of our time. And with no senators behind you, I'd invite any one of the four remaining senators to join us in Room 437. But when you are situated and ready, you may begin your presentation.

Thank you.

Alright. I wanna start off by thanking the committee staff for all the help and Assembly members, Brian Lowenthal and Ortega, for coauthoring this bill. A year ago, I came across an article reporting how CARFAX and data brokers share data they collect with ICE and other federal agencies. This data collected from people without their knowledge or meaningful consent is weaponized to track surveil every move of undocumented immigrants.

But I also wanna highlight that even some of this documentation literally tracks individuals from other states trying to come in and potentially seek medical care, go to a Planned Parenthood clinic, individuals that are more targeted for their identity and much more.

Since then and shortly after I originally presented this bill, California experienced the largest planned deportation in American history. Instead of creating safer communities or protecting American jobs, it led to shuttered businesses, families in, in hiding of fear of being deported, ICE agents chasing undocumented immigrants to their deaths, and much more. In fact, that we have been seeing data being utilized to track every single person's movement as best as possible.

Throughout the country, we have seen immigrants, parents, teachers, faith leaders, activists, and others who speak out become targets of surveillance and intimidation. In fact, when somebody posts even online that they attended a protest or anything like that, it has been utilized against them.

In an article published by NPR detailing the massive surveillance web ICE has accumulated accumulated, they describe how an activist by the name of Emily experienced an instance of intimidation by ICE agents as they took photos of her and her license plate and proceeded to address her by name, reciting her home address from information on their phone and much more.

In another instance, Maine, an activist who had her face and license plate recorded by ICE was intimidated by agents flaunting, that they have access to a nice little database. The information from the nice little database is the same information that data brokers collect, compile, and sell to ICE and other federal agencies. The availability of information data brokers have, store, and sell isn't limited to one population. It affects all of us, including everyone in this room.

A 2025 study by Georgetown's Law Center on Privacy and Technology found how ICE has built its surveillance by tapping into data from private companies and state and local bureau bureaucracies and spent approximately $2,800,000,000 between 2008 and 2021 on new surveillance data collection and sharing programs. LexisNexis, a data broker, has held contracts with ICE since 2021 valued at $22,100,000.

LexisNexis promoting themselves as bringing together disconnected data from over 10,000 different sources give anyone who pays the right price a comprehensive view of people's identities, including addresses, phone numbers, license plates, and much more. By aggregating digital records and by purchasing databases with billions of data points from private companies, ICE has the ability to sidestep traditional legal processes and build detailed profiles on individuals raising serious Fourth Amendment concerns.

Under the California Privacy Protection Agency, definitions of publicly available information specifically in subsection two and three, empower a business to believe and claim information as public, and two, assumes that the absence of restrictions on shared information permits it to be treated as publicly available.

These definitions enable the monetization of personal information without meaningful consent, raising concerns about whether California is adequately safeguarding data personal data. As a result, Californians lose their rights to the information, including their ability to limit the reuse, prevent the sale or aggregation, and the right to delete their information. As Californians, we have the explicit and inalienable right to privacy enshrined directly in our state's constitution.

In this digital, world we live in, California's privacy law must ensure individuals can share information without it automatically becoming publicly available for unrestricted commercial use. SB 435, as presented today with author's amendments, narrows the definition of publicly available information to public records and information that is made lawfully available to the public or present in widely distributed media.

These amendments also address the encroachment on first amendment rights that opposition raised last year, providing a clear and tangible direction to business. Here with me today, to testify is Tracy Rosenberg, member of Oakland Privacy, and Becca Cramer, senior lobbyist at Kaiser Advocacy.

Yeah. Absolutely. Good afternoon, Chair, 10 members. My name is Tracy Rosenberg. I'm the advocacy director for Open Privacy, a statewide coalition that focuses on guardrails and safeguards in the interest of privacy protections, civil rights, and community consent.

As the author has laid out, we are in an era where people's personal information is being directly weaponized against them. Accordingly, people are becoming more aware of the privacy protections that they have and wanna use them. But sometimes they run into roadblocks that are lurking inside our otherwise strong privacy laws. The super broad definition of publicly available information that was added to the CCPA in 2020 is one of those roadblocks.

SB 435 ensures that before a person loses the right to control what happens to a piece of information because it is public, that the information really is public, not that they accidentally forgot to toggle some privacy setting or that a business has a mistaken belief that something is public when it is not.

Ambiguities like these in the law make the law harder to understand, harder to implement, harder to enforce, and less able to protect people in what is a pretty scary time. So SB 435 is a very much needed clarification and simplification of the distinction between public information that individuals cannot delete, modify, or prevent from being shared, and private information where those rights remain intact under our comprehensive state privacy law. Thank you, and please support SB 435.

Becca Cramer on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearing House also in support. Under current law, the CCPA defines personal information as anything that identifies, relates to, describes, or is reasonably capable of being linked to a consumer or household, but the CCPA also gives businesses significant discretion to interpret any information published online as publicly available.

As a result, data brokers can legally access and sell information about where we live, shop, work, study, and travel, along with information about our reproductive health, our marriage, our citizenship status, and so much more. When paired with AI tools, this data can build a comprehensive profile of a person's life, allowing agency or allowing folks to identify, surveil, and track with precision undocumented immigrants, people protesting the Federal Government, and so many more. Additionally, this loophole allows government agencies to bypass the Fourth Amendment and increasingly surveil Californians.

SB 435 addresses the loophole and the definition of publicly available information. It does not impact First Amendment protections for information that is truly publicly available. Instead, it removes the ability for a business to over classify information as publicly available. SB 435 is a critical piece of pro consumer legislation that will protect consumer information and increase the privacy and security of all Californians. For these reasons, privacy rights clearing house supports SB 435 and respectfully requests an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to add on in support?

Hello. Justin Brookman for Consumer Reports in support.

Thank you. Is there any primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up.

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

Thank you. Now opposition. Two minutes whenever you are ready.

Alright. Thank you, madam Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Technet. I've also been asked to register opposition on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. And, while we understand the intent and circumstances that have inspired this bill, we respectfully oppose SB 435 because it upset the careful balance the CCPA struck between consumer privacy and the free flow of information.

Under the CCPA, publicly available information is excluded from the definition of personal information, which reflects that customers have ways to restrict access to some of this data, that their privacy interests diminish when that information is lawfully rendered publicly available, and that the public has an interest in widely available information as it is protected by both the constitution and the Public Records Act.

These protections are not without limits as the Public Records Act and many others require privacy interest in public records and others be weighed against the public interest in disclosure. However, by deleting the reasonable basis from the definition of publicly available, SB 435 overrides these tested frameworks by suddenly declaring information that business is reasonably believed to have lawfully been publicly disposed to once again be non public, even absent any new privacy concerns that would justify reclassification.

Additionally, the bill deletes the third prong for publicly available information that has been made available by a person to whom the consumer has disclosed the information if the consumer has not restricted the information to a specific audience. In other words, even if the consumer provided the information to another person with the understanding that it would be made public, such as a bio for a conference, where the conference organizer then posted publicly, that information could retroactively be reclassified as private.

While the bill proposes a seemingly simple change, it would directly impact our associations and members who have spent years and significant amounts of resources designing and building their compliance processes to accurately and effectively distinguish between what is publicly available information and what is PI under the CCPA. And by upsetting this careful balance between privacy and publicly available information, this would undermine company's ability to comply with CCPA and fulfill consumer requests and rights.

Finally, it is worth noting that this bill raises the exact same policy questions as the prior version from last year, which were rejected by this committee. And for those reasons, we respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you. Is there any other people in the room in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to oh, sorry.

Naomi Pajarano on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Now, any members of the committee? Miss Irwin.

Yeah. I Aye, unfortunately, can't, support the bill. I didn't support it last year. And and I understand the issues that are that you're trying to resolve. I think that the the bill right now is, too broad.

And I was the original author of defining publicly available information. And the changes that we made were legitimate issues that were both practical and constitutional. I think that, you know, we should give serious consideration that that CCPA, since it has passed, industry has, for years, had to figure out how to, comply with it. And this would be, a new standard that I think could be difficult to comply with.

I also am afraid that it might be more businesses to additional, track if they are trying to figure out, you know, it was this information initially publicly available.

And I would, you know, I guess this is a little public service announcement. We talked a lot about data brokers, and I think very important to make sure that everybody remembers the doctor Becker and Senator Becker's bill that passed. I have already, registered in the DROP system. I would encourage anybody that is here to to register for that because the amount of information that data brokers have about all of us is really frightening. So it's very easy.

Go on to the .gov website and and, put your name in there and and make sure that I think it's by June or July that your information is is removed. So, Aye, I think that would be the most positive thing that everybody could do right now for, their own personal privacy.

Thank you, miss Erwin. Any other members of the committee? Well, we do not have a quorum. So when we do, we will vote on that bill. But thank you, Senator, for your time.

And with oh, with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. You know, I think we've talked about this a lot. Our data is being sold without our knowledge, number one. Literally, everything we put into the website is being tracked. There are databases and data warehouses being developed across this nation that actually put citizens in harm's way.

I wanna be very clear about that. You know, we often kind of point to other nations with, you know, a big brother mentality, and we are seeing it here in this nation. And these are small efforts to, again, protect the privacy and the rights that we have as Americans. And, you know, the reality is if we do not set these safeguards, industry will never comply. Industry will never actually say, hey.

You know, we're not gonna do this because it potentially may harm somebody. Their bottom line is the dollar bill. Right? Our bottom line is serving the 40,000,000 Californians and making sure that they are safe in this nation, that when they sign up to have an account, literally, you cannot even use certain websites without having an account and inputting all your data. We have seen individuals be harmed, literally even murdered in our streets because data was sold and readily available.

Our data, a week's worth of our data, as you and I, a week's worth is literally just a couple $100. Right? And that is very, very devastating to any of our safety and our rights. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. We have been working on this bill to amend it to be a little bit more, amenable to some of the concerns.

I will highlight that, and it is, again, very much needed. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. And we will take a vote when we have a quorum. And to the senators that are here, we are very grateful. We will hear Mister Becker, we will do your bill if you are ready. K.

SB 923. Whenever you are ready, Senator.

Okay. Thank you.

I know it's a busy day here today. Businesses today routinely augment consumer records with data purchased from third parties to enhance targeting and profiling. For example, a retail company might collect basic information directly from the consumer, but then purchase lots of other information, that's detailed demographic data, purchase history, other things to kinda augment that and build a rich, profile. And that could contain information like where you live or where you work, where you travel, health information, relationship status, so much more personal information.

While most businesses must provide multiple methods to submit privacy requests, online businesses only have to, right now, provide an email address.

And the reason this is important is that because businesses are already required to delete information when this when people request, it's just that it's very hard to do so right now. If it's just an email address, it can go into countless back and forth and, and never get done. So this bill addresses that part by requiring a web form.

But then it also strengthens the CCPA in other ways by expanding the right to delete to cover all personal information that a business holds on a consumer and by requiring that online businesses, again, provide this web form or similar method to submit a request to delete their information in addition to the email address. So this is about keeping Californians in charge of information and making the personal personal again.

Recent amendments clarify the list which is intent that existing data retention exemptions in the CCPA for fraud prevention and security do apply to this bill. I do wanna note several states have adopted privacy laws in the wake of California's works. I wanna thank everybody here on this committee as well. And this is a bill is another opportunity is for us to really set the standard in personal information. With me, I have Marie Mahoney from Cal Privacy and Becca Kramer from the Privacy Rights Clearing House.

Becca Cramer Mowder still here on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearing House in support. When Californians enacted the CCPA, our state set the standard for the country. The right to delete was one of its core pillars, the idea that Californians could require businesses to erase their personal information. Most Californians still believe that is what they have, but it is not. The deletion right only applies to information a business collected directly from an individual, not that covers and that covers far less than what people actually expect.

Most of the personal information being bought and sold about you, about your family, about every Californian was not collected from you directly. It passed through a chain of data brokers, trackers, and aggregators that you've never heard of and never interacted with. Your address, your health inferences, your financial behavior, your relationships, all assembled without your knowledge, all bought and sold without your consent. Data brokers underpin nearly every privacy disaster of the modern era. They can facilitate stalking, discrimination, fraud, and the targeting of vulnerable people.

Yet right now, Californians cannot use the right to delete to touch any of that data because none of it was collected directly from them using the delete methodism in the CCPA. PRC cosponsored the Delete Act and the DROP request and opt out platform DROP is now live. This was a critical step, but DROP only covers registered data brokers and it only works through the centralized platform. SB923 fixes the underlying statute, so the deletion right means what Californians always thought it meant.

16 other states already do what SB923 proposes.

This includes every state with a comprehensive privacy law except for Utah and Iowa. California should not be one of the three states lagging in an issue where we so often lead. SB923 is a straightforward fix for a gap that should have been closed years ago, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Members. My name is Maureen Mahoney with the California Privacy Protection Agency. We are the proud sponsor of the bill and in full support. And since the author and the lead witness have done such a great job of explaining why this bill is so important, I'd like to use my time to address some of the arguments in the opposition's letter led by Cal Chamber, which requests amendments to give businesses the option to treat a deletion request as an opt out of processing.

So putting the data into some sort of lockbox rather than deleting it.

And we respectfully disagree with this approach. An opt out of processing isn't the same as deletion. Retention creates risk because when information is retained, it's subject to breach and misuse. And when an individual's data is breached, they're more likely to become the victim of identity theft or other harms. And second, in our view, this bill is operational as written.

The bill specifically states that businesses can retain a deletion record and the minimum amount of information necessary to ensure that consumers' personal information remains deleted, so businesses can create a suppression list. And the CCP is amended by this bill also explicitly states that businesses can retain personal information as long as it's reasonably necessary and proportionate to defend against fraud.

Nevertheless, the opposition states that they need to retain the data is opted out of processing for security and fraud purposes, but it's not clear how an opt out of processing would address their concerns in this respect. Processing is a defined term in the CCPA. So if there's an opt out of processing, then you can't use that information at all.

And finally, there's further evidence that this deletion right is workable. Businesses are already meeting this exact deletion standard in states such as Maryland, Delaware, Indiana, and New Jersey. And it's true that other states like Virginia have taken the weaker approach recommended by the opposition. It's not clear why California would have the weaker standard. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have other people in the audience in support?

Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy and also registering support for Tech Oversight California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Justin Brookman, Consumer Reports in support, also, for Consumer Action and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we now have primary witnesses in opposition?

Thank you very much. Do we now have primary witnesses in opposition?

Two minutes, whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechMed. I've also been asked by my colleague to register a position on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We're respectfully oppose unless amended to SB 923. Our primary request is to explicitly include the exemptions in 1798.105, particularly when this bill appears modeled upon other states like Virginia--that's been mentioned--that have expressly adopted two methods of compliance for this bill.

We have requested that SB 923 be amended in line with these states to allow a business to provide an opt-out of processing for nonexempt purposes. From an operational and legal perspective, this language is essential to prevent confusion, to ensure technical scalability, and to allow businesses to fulfill obligations related to fraud prevention, security monitoring, and legal compliance.

Including an opt-out from processing is important because it signals to the company that they cannot use the information unless it is for an exempted purpose, such as fraud prevention or a product recall. Without this mechanism, data received again from external sources, like business partners, could inadvertently reenter systems requiring repeated deletions, even if the company does not further process that information.

In effect, this increases the chance of accidental violations and significant compliance burdens despite the fact that the consumer's data is as good as nonexistent. Furthermore, large-scale deletion across distributed systems and backups is costly and operationally complex, whereas an opt-out mechanism provides a scalable solution that ensures compliance with consumer rights. Second, businesses must retain certain information for things such as fraud prevention, as mentioned, security monitoring, and compliance with other laws. Strict deletion requirements could be seen as conflicting with such obligations.

Allowing companies to opt a consumer out of processing for nonexempt purposes enables them to retain only the necessary information about that consumer without using it for marketing, analytics, or other nonexempt activities. This limited retention is especially critical for fraud and ensuring that SB 923 is enforceable in a manner that protects consumer privacy while remaining feasible for businesses.

We provided suggested amendments that would resolve our concerns, and recent amendments add findings and declarations that appear intended to address them. However, these declarations merely restate the policy objective of extending deletion rights to personal information obtained from third parties and preserving existing statutory exemptions. Until this language is included in the operative sections of the bill, we must respectfully remain opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room in opposition?

Ashonte Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in a respectfully opposed unless amended position. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Naomi Padron with the Computer and Communications Industry Association. We, too, have a respectful position of oppose unless amended and would align our comments with TechMed and the Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. I will bring it back to the committee. Anybody? Oh. Ms. McKinnor.

Yes. I would like to thank the author for bringing this bill. You know, Senator, today we've heard three bills on protecting people's privacy. It must be a problem, you know? And if the data brokers are the ones that are deciding what's sensitive information, what's information that we can-- they can keep and sell, that's not good. The public should determine what that is and when to delete. So we have to figure it out. It might be hard to do, but we have to figure it out. And with that, I will be supporting your bill.

Thank you, Ms. McKinnor. Anybody else? Ms. Irwin.

Yes. Well, we were just-- I was just advertising the delete app right before, but until I read this yesterday, I did not even have any idea that if the information was not directly for the consumer that you wouldn't be able to delete it. So I-- and then I was especially shocked to hear the statistic that all these other states have already done this. So I would-- will definitely be supporting the bill. I will say that I'm always about what's implementable, so I would encourage you to continue to talk to the opposition because we do wanna make sure that they are able to comply, but I love that Drop Act, I guess it's called. Or is it Delete Act?

And I think that all legislators should pass that information out to their constituents to make sure that they are able to protect their privacy, because it is true in this day of AI, all that information can be consolidated, and it's pretty scary what certain groups might know about you. So-- and like I said, I will be supporting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Irwin. Anybody else? Well, Senator, if our committee members would get here, we could vote on this bill. So if you're listening and you're a part of the Privacy Committee, come join us. But with that, would you like to close?

Yeah. I wanna thank the comments. Appreciate the suggestion of folks advertising the delete mechanism. The first deletions will happen August 1st, so thank you, Assemblywoman Irwin for that, and I thank everyone for their comments and for all the work of this committee. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I-- you know, as was mentioned, we do-- we think we clarified it, but we'll continue to talk to the opposition. We wanna make sure that they're able to implement fraud prevention and that it's clear that the exemptions are already applied. So we'll work to clarify that.

Thank you so much, Senator.

Thank you.

Senator McNerney, come on down. And if your name is Carl DeMaio, Josh Hoover, or Joe Patterson, please come join us. Whenever you are ready, Senator.

Well, good afternoon, Vice Chair Macedo, distinguished members of the committee. Today, I'm presenting SB 947, the "No Robot Bosses Act" of 2026. I wanna thank the committee for their work. I am accepting the committee amendments. Basically, we need to decide what decisions algorithms can make that will affect person's lives and livelihoods.

Technology, including AI, has that role right now, and there are no real guardrails in protecting people from what might seem like arbitrary decisions. Other rooms are being used to make hiring and firing—not hiring, but firing—and discipline decisions. Humans should be involved in these decisions. Humans have judgment, context, and compassion.

SB 947 since—sets—common-sense standards. It requires a human review when an automated decision system assist in discipline, termination, or deactivation decision and advanced predictive analysis. No one should be punished for something they haven't done yet. Too many working families are working paycheck to paycheck. We cannot leave their livelihoods to systems that can be biased or have hallucinations.

California workers deserve dignity and a real person using judgment and compassion, making final calls about their jobs. I appreciate that many of you have spent time speaking to me. I have taken your words and ideas into consideration, including several amendments, such as removing the private right of action. That was a big one. Removing the provisions related to customer ratings, so customer ratings can be used in the current version.

Removing the prohibition on algorithmic wage setting and narrowing the definition of predictive behavior analysis. These amendments do make an important balance to guardrails protecting workers, while protecting California economy. With me today, I have Ivan Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, and Shane Gusman, from the Teamsters. And I will now yield to Ivan.

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, a proud cosponsor of SB 947. This committee has already seen a number of bills sponsored by the Labor Fed to establish worker technology rights for the twenty first century, and the "No Robot Bosses Act" serves as an integral part of this package.

Since last year, a resume builder report indicated that about 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical employment-related decisions such as wage determinations, layoffs, and even firings. The report also indicated that of those employers that use AI to make—to impact the livelihood of a worker—about 20% allowed the AI systems to make the final determinations without any human input or oversight.

So today, employers are still capable and clearly eager to automate managerial decisions, yet automated management continues to pose serious harms to workers. Algorithmic management often results in endless speed and efficiency increases, and workers are likely to become fatigued, leading to injuries and immense stress. This is seen in Amazon warehouses where their unpaid time system is used to flag workers who happen to pass their allotted time—their allotted time off—even by a few minutes.

As the system flags these workers, reports have indicated that firing paperwork is automatically generated to quickly terminate a worker.

And no workers should have their livelihood stripped away because an algorithm is incapable of understanding the nuances of everyday human life, and no employer should simply be rubber stamping in a ADS output for the sake of efficiency. These issues also exist, unfortunately, beyond Amazon warehouses. In health care, a platform known as CareRev has forced nurses to sign up for shifts through an app and has created an environment where nurses can be swiftly dropped from a shift, merely hours before their expected start time, and this is the landscape that workers are currently dealing with across the state.

As the Senator described, SB 947 does not ban the use of automated decision systems, but instead creates necessary guardrails to ensure that there is meaningful human oversight.

Lastly, I'd like to note that the corroborating evidence process has always been a central component of this bill and of SB 7, and while we are open to continued conversations and have clearly taken numerous steps to address areas—areas of concern—I'd like to reiterate that our position has remained consistent from this year and last year's version of the bill. Thank you. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, a proud cosponsor of this bill, along with the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinist Union, Utility Workers Union of America, Unite Here, all in support of the bill. As we have discussed on multiple bills in this committee, there is very swift growth of utilization of AI management tools in the workplace across almost every industry. At the same time, the public and workers are becoming increasingly uneasy with the unfettered use of this technology and its potential negative impacts.

It is in—it is in that context that we believe it is paramount for the government to step in and set appropriate guardrails to protect the public.

In this instance, requiring human oversight in the most important management decisions is a best practice that should be uniform across industries. And why? Because technology—this technology is not perfect. There can be erroneous inferences, discriminatory inferences, and just plain mistakes. It lacks professional and human judgment.

There is, of course, a place for techno—technological—innovation in the workplace, and there will always be uncertainty around how innovations will play out for workers. But not all innovation is positive. And just because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean we should. Here with SB 947, we have a real opportunity to ensure a level of humanity in the most important decisions affecting workers. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there others in the room in support?

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, in support.

Thank you.

Cleo Blutenthal, on behalf of the California Community Foundation, in support.

Thank you.

Samantha Gordon, on behalf of Tech Equity Action, in support.

Thank you.

Becca Kramer, on behalf of Greenlining Institute and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support.

Thank you.

Judy Yee with the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support.

Thank you.

Navneet Puri, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Thank you.

Ryan Mira Montez with the California Teachers Association, in support.

Thank you.

JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association, in support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association, in support.

Thank you.

Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy, in support, and also expressing support for Tech Oversight California.

Thank you.

Barbara Walker, mom of three, in support.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Kenny in support.

Thank you. Is there anybody in the room in opposition? Come on down. Two minutes each whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon. I'm Andrea Lynch, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition to SB 947. While we appreciate that the author has taken amendments to the private right of action, provisions related to use of customer service ratings, and use of ADS for compensation decisions, there are still critical concerns with the bill. Independent contractor is still defined as worker, and I want to again reemphasize that independent contractors and workers are categorically different.

The independent cooperation language creates real compliance problems for employers.

The data access provisions are overbroad, and there needs to be further alignment with CCPA language. Further, in Assembly labor, there was mention of addressing the preemption provision, yet it remains in the bill. We hope to have continued discussions to address these out—outstanding—critical concerns. And for these and other reasons, we respectfully urge for your no vote.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed to SB 947. In the governor's message vetoing last year's SB 7, which contains similar ADS post-use requirements as this bill, he stated that the proposed solution failed to directly address incidents of misuse. Public employers appreciate the concerns with the slow creep of technology into everyday life.

However, public employers have not been provided by the sponsors with specific concrete examples of alleged abuses of these technologies in their workplace that this bill would address.

Local agencies have used ADA systems for decades, such as SCADA systems and water treatment, and are cautiously testing the use of artificial intelligence tools, from commonplace office software technologies to pipe leak detection, of systems that are AI-enabled. These are used to deliver affordable essential services, protect critical infrastructure, and to keep our communities safe. As with SB 7, this bill fails to directly address incidents of misuse in the public sector.

The lack of need in the public sector is further demonstrated by the unique frameworks providing safeguards for public sector employees. For example, this bill prohibits the use of ADS systems to interfere with labor and employment rights.

However, public employers are already prohibited from deterring or discouraging union, union membership under the government code, and unions have standing to bring claims for violations. Most public employees have existing due process rights before significant discipline may issue. Many public employees already engaged in collective bargaining over technology, and public employers are accountable to the voters. Against this backdrop, SB 947 imposes significant burdens on public employers.

As the definitions of AI and ADS are sweeping, this covers both technology that is legacy technology as well as new and emerging technologies. Ensuring compliance with this bill will be a tremendous burden on HR departments and IT professionals. The notification and data sharing obligations will burden local human resources and IT departments, increasing their costs and diverting them from their core responsibilities. Small agencies will struggle to comply, and the bills enforcement provisions leave public employers exposed to significant lit—litigation—risk.

And for schools, this is a drain on Proposition 98 funding.

We appreciate the concerns underlying the bill, but for public employers, the burdens far exceed the potential benefits, and we respectfully ask for your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there others in the audience in opposition?

Good afternoon. Eric Lohr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, and the Association of California Healthcare Districts, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau, in opposition for the reasons described by the witness from Cal Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Carlos Gutierrez, here on behalf of the California Grocers Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Marlon Lara from the California Restaurant Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sarah Bridges, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Stephanie Jimenez, on behalf of Bay Area Council, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Madison Dwelley, on behalf of the Business Software Alliance, in an oppose unless amended position. Look forward to continuing conversations with the author.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Melissa Kosicek with Western Growers. We align our comments with Cal Chamber in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Michelle...on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials and on behalf of my colleague at the Association of California School Administrators, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Sarah Deghead, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Jean Hurst with the Urban Counties of California, also respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Emily Dell with California's Credit Unions, in opposition.

Thank you.

Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully opposed, but do greatly appreciate recent amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress. Also respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Technet, Prism, the California Coalition on Workers' Compensation, and the counties of Kern and Fresno, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. With that, I will bring it back to the committee. Ms. McKinnor.

Yes. Again, I'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill. You know, when I think about hiring and think about when I first started working and I was a younger, younger person and I was a mom, I used to work for the county of Los Angeles. And my hours were like nine to five or eight to five, whatever, nine to five. And, one of my—one year, my son, my five—my fifth grader—wanted to play basketball after school program.

And there was nobody to take him to the after-school program, so I went to my boss, and I asked them, would they give me—let me come in earlier and get off earlier? And she did. She let me come in at six, came in at 6:00 AM. I still did my eight hours, but I was able to leave and go and take my kid to, to basketball practice, and he didn't have to walk by himself. And so, these are the kind of things that we don't think technology can look at.

Technology, if they're using algorithms and they're, they're judging employees and they're not thinking about people who work there, or the—our families—especially in our public entities, that their families and their moms and their people that sometimes needs a little help with adjustments, but they do their job very well. We should make sure that technology is not causing people to get fired. That is not—that's not good. It should be a human being there, a human boss, like it's always been. They shouldn't be—we shouldn't have AI and technology, using algorithms to give people a raise, to fire people.

That's just not the way we do it, I think, in this country, in this state. And so, I don't think we should let AI come in and and start to do that. And with that, I'll be supporting your bill.

Thank you, Ms. McKinnor. Mr. Ward.

Thank you. I wanna thank the Senator for staying on this issue. Even though SB 7 was vetoed, I know that you've been able to drill into that and look a little bit more narrowly about ways that you continue to further this issue because it's critical, and I'm I'm proud to be a coauthor of this bill as well.

For all the righteous reasons, I think building on Assemblymember McKinnor's comments, you know, we have grave discomfort with the idea that there are gonna be decisions made that will interrupt and disrupt individuals' livelihoods, their, their, their, their good work and their dedication to a job, that they are somehow gonna be at the whim of a decision-making system that is imperfect. That system will tell you probably what you want it to tell you with some inputs that are going into it.

But, you know, let me be a little tongue in cheek and maybe give this kind of a little bit of an example. You know, if I'm an employer, public or private or otherwise, and I wanna say, okay, I've gotta make some, like, decisions here, and I wanna be able to either give a raise or maybe dismiss an individual.

And I—the most important thing to me is how many TPS reports they're putting out because an individual, like, you know, is able to have a higher number here as opposed to individual b. But individual b actually shows up to work on time, and maybe that individual has had been able to contribute to other activities in the workplace as well that, when you look at the totality of what's going on in the workplace, that individual is actually a little bit more productive.

You, you you failed kind of at the outset because you're looking at certain metrics that you think are more impromptu, but you're not looking at the totality of what that worker's contributions are into the workplace. These are difficult decisions, but they do require human oversight, human partnership maybe. That's not to say that this bill is ever going to interfere from you being able to use tools to be able to help make decisions, but underscore that word.

We wanna make sure that it's only being used to help make decisions, not actually make the decision because things can get missed, and individuals are gonna have their lives disrupted inadvertently and inappropriately because of a limited set of information going into that decision making. So, you know, with regard to, you know, individual b, I noticed that that person would always get here on time, and there's, there's no senators behind you as well.

So, timeliness is important because it makes the whole operation actually go pretty effectively. So, I do believe that there probably are continued areas that you will continue to engage with opposition on.

But I know you're not gonna cross the line when it comes to some fundamentals that you're trying to achieve through this bill that—I hope we get to the governor again—and I hope that he would see the work that you've done on in the narrowing because I think it is a good line in the sand of what we wanna see, wanna do when we're thinking about employer and employee relationships and, importantly, these critical decision makings.

And I would just note as well, great respect to all of those that feel very strongly about wanting to be able to use this. Again, nothing prevents you from being able to use this in the workplace as you're thinking about integrating that into decision making.

But, again, with the partnership and the help of a human counterpart, whether it is the CEO or your HR director or somebody else who's well qualified to look at the total totality of big picture, and I'd have to underscore that until just the recent years, this wasn't even a factor, right, in making a great workplace, a productive workplace, the ability to make these decisions.

But we felt that by following employment law, we were able to make responsible decisions when making very difficult decisions about what to do with somebody's employment status, their work hours, their work conditions, or, or, or otherwise. So, I wanna applaud you again for moving forward on this bill. Continue to work with opposition on areas that are gonna make the idea should it come law implement correctly, and, you know, appreciate it.

I'll be certainly supporting it today.

Thank you, Mr. Ward, and thank you also for the warning to our senators who have bills to be heard. Come join us. Ms. Irwin.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And, and, Senator, I appreciate the conversations that we've had over this bill last year and this year and all the work you're doing. You know, right away, you end up in the Senate, and you're doing work on cybersecurity and AI and, appreciate how thoughtful you are. And I, I do think that the work that you've done on the bill is significant, removing the private, private right of action. I think, you know, that was a, a lot of concern for folks.

I do think there's a big distinction between contractors and employees, and hopefully, you'll continue to look at that. But I wondered if you could address—I mean, there's a lot of public agencies that that expressed concerns, some discussion about SCADA systems. I'm, I'm just wondering, would you be able to address some of what was brought up by the, the representatives for the public agencies?

Well, good. I thank the assembly woman for your question. And I think the other comments that were made. First of all, I wanna say, if you're an employer without a technology, you're gonna follow a current employment law. It's been established over a century or longer.

We're moving into a new field where, where we're having decisions being made by non-human entities and we're gonna have to establish the rules of the road for this. It's not gonna happen overnight. This is certainly something I think is fundamental. Don't let machines make a decision without a human being in the loop. You can have an employment decision being assisted by an ADU, but you don't want that decision to be unassisted by human beings.

So, human beings need to be able to assess whether the decision is reasonable or not. And then, in terms of some of the, some of the questions, I know one of the questions was the preemptive provision. We, we wanna look at that and we've made some narrowing on that. But we don't want some algorithm to decide that you're gonna do something prior to you doing it and you getting punished for that. That's absolutely unacceptable.

We're not gonna cross that line. And the labor negotiations, we certainly want the labor to be operating independently with this, with regard to contractors and employees. And there's—there was a question about public sector employees, and I think that's a legitimate question. We'll be working with that. And if you look at, at the, the road that this piece of legislation has traveled, we've, we've, we've gone back and forth.

We've taken amendments. We're open to ideas, but we have basically a bottom line—don't, don't let AI make people's lives more difficult. AI should be safe and beneficial, and this is a step in that direction. So, I, I hope that answers some of your questions.

It certainly does and, and, and continued—continuing—again to work with all the, with the part private sector and see if there's some agreement that can be found moving forward, I think would be important. But I, I agree with the goals of what you're trying to do and certainly will support the bill today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Irwin. Ms. Ortega.

I won't say a whole lot since I already saw this bill as Chair of Labor and Employment. And, and once again, wanna commend the author for continuing to work on this issue. I think we, you know, if you ask a worker today how they feel about AI in the workplace, a majority of workers will tell you that they're not happy, that they're worried about how AI is impacting them.

And so, this is a bill that really addresses that concern of those fears that people are feeling right now, not just about AI in the workplace, but, you know, or replacement of jobs because that's the first fear that I often hear is, like, I don't wanna be replaced by a robot. And this addresses the end—the other aspect—which is I also don't wanna be fired by a robot.

And so, I really appreciate you bringing this bill forward and look forward to supporting it and, and—as it moves along. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Once again, we do not have a quorum, so we cannot take a vote. I'm talking to you, Privacy Committee members. If you would come and join us, but with that, Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. I would. And I, I appreciate the discussion we've had in the comments. Again, you want you want human beings to be involved in decisions involving human beings. And as I mentioned earlier, this isn't gonna be the final word.

If we get this passed and signed in the law, it's an important step in protecting humans, but it's not gonna be the last word. We need to sort of map out and it's gonna go through the process. How do we incorporate algorithms and, and automated decision-making systems into the workplace? So, with that, I will ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much for your time, Senator. And tell your other Senate friends, we're a really good time in this committee, so come join and present their bills.

[Background]

Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Here first to present SB 1114, which is the SOGI Data Privacy Act. As you know, privacy is absolutely fundamental to dignity, safety, and equality. SB 1114 is an attempt to ensure that those protections remain strong for LGBTQ plus communities.

We are grappling nationwide with challenges around data access by the by federal agencies to a variety of sources, private and public, at the state, local, and commercial levels. And federal agencies are demanding information from states so that they can target communities, in particular, the LGBTQ plus community.

Now in California, we have placed a high premium on, and increasing the amount of data sharing and data collection for the LGBTQ community in order to target services, to understand outcomes, to hold programs accountable. And we're very proud of the our progress in that space.

But we also want to assure now that that those robust data systems that we have created for the purpose of program planning and making sure that we're doing a good job aren't inappropriately captured by federal agencies that don't have any right to them for other purposes. Now the federal government at the beginning of last year declared that it was going to stop collecting any LGBTQ plus related data, that they just didn't want it, and they ordered federal agencies not to collect it.

So at this stage, I think our position is if you don't if you don't want the data, don't ask us to give it to you and compromise the safety of folks that from with data that is it's not. The data itself is not sensitive. The only thing that's sensitive is the abuse of it by folks that are that are sharing it across different federal agencies.

And so this bill simply requires federal, state, state agencies and universities to not share data with federal agencies in these in these sensitive data categories unless there is an enforceable court order to do so, or it's a direct and explicit legal requirement of the law, not simply the request of an agency.

And it is this has been co-sponsored by several of the organizations that have been active in the work to build these data systems. And to that end, I'd like to introduce our witness on the bill today, Dannie Ceseña, Director of the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. As mentioned, my name is Dannie Ceseña. Pronouns are he/they, and I am the Director of the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network based here in Sacramento, Los Angeles, and in Oakland. As we know, data is a powerful tool for equity.

In 2015, California passed the landmark LGBT Disparities Reduction Act because we recognized a simple truth. You cannot fix disparities if you refuse to see them. Collecting voluntary demographic information has allowed our state to identify community needs, distribute resources equitably, and build higher quality public services for LGBTQ plus Californians.

But today, the very data collected to support our community is vulnerable to being weaponized against them. We are witnessing the unprecedented and deeply hostile federal climate targeting LGBTQ individuals, particularly transgender and gender expansive youth. This isn't a hypothetical fear.

Just last year, the federal Department of Justice issued criminal subpoenas to hospitals and clinics aggressively demanding the private medical records and names of transgender minors receiving care. We have also seen federal attempts to rate state benefit systems for personal data. Without explicit guardrails, the sensitive information that Californians share in good faith with state agencies and educational institutions could be seized and used for federal surveillance, discrimination, or enforcement. SB 1114 draws a clear line in the sand.

It establishes essential privacy safeguards by prohibiting state agencies and public universities from disclosing personally identifiable sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex and intersex status data to any entity outside of California's government. It ensures that unless there is a valid California warrant or a mandatory federal reporting requirement, this deeply personal data stays protected. It also exempts this data from public record request unless it is completely de identified. California must continue to be a beacon of safety.

We cannot allow data collected for community wellness to be repurposed for community harm. SB 1114 strikes the precise balance that we need, allowing us to measure the disparities while fiercely protecting individual safety. As a proud supporter alongside Equality California, I respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 1114. Thank you.

Thank you. And while we have a quorum, Madam Secretary, will you call the roll?

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

And Mr. Hoover just joined us as well. We have a motion by Mr. Lowenthal and a second by Ms. Wilson. Is there anybody else in the room in support?

Hello again. Tracy Rosenberg for Oakland Privacy in support.

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Hi there. JP Hanna. I've been asked to provide support on behalf of Health Access. Thank you.

Ryan Saffarian on behalf of Equality California in support.

Thank you. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? You have two minutes whenever you are ready.

Cheyenne Kenney, Our Duty. This bill would seal government records that reveal a person's sex. You know who benefits from that? Not me. Not any woman. The beneficiaries are men who use a, quote, unquote, female identity as a key to unlock female spaces and hide with the help of our government. California already houses men in women's prisons based on self declared gender identity.

When violence happens, it gets reported that a woman raped an inmate with her penis. We will not stop reporting on the trans identified males you move into female prisons. Did you know that 70% of trans identified males housed with female inmates have been convicted of sex crimes?

Of course, you did. But you don't care. If a man says he is a woman, he can lie to himself, and the government will go along with that lie. We cannot, if we cannot access accurate records showing a person's sex, we cannot track violent male offenders who change the recorded gender to disappear into female facilities. We will not stay quiet.

We will not be kind. We will protest male athletes pretending to be female. Don't tell me this is about protecting a vulnerable community. The first openly trans identified elected official in the US was Barry Laughton, aka Stacie, a New Hampshire state rep. He was just sentenced to 33 years in prison for directing his partner to take explicit photographs of children as young as three years old at a daycare. They exchanged thousands of messages discussing using those kids for sex. Three year olds. You want these perverts hiding in our midst? Vote no.

Before you begin, can we please make sure that we're sticking to the merits of this bill? You have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Barbara Walker. I'm mother of three with Women Are Real. This bill hides government records that reveal a person's actual sex. That's not a privacy protection. It's a cover up, and real women and girls pay the price. Here's what happened at San Jose State University. For three years, a man played on the women's volleyball team. The head coach knew and said nothing. Some of these young women only discovered the truth after they had already been sharing hotel rooms and locker rooms with him completely unaware.

One player said, we were lied to. Another said, we're being silenced. When they tried to speak up, they were warned to stay quiet and threatened with losing their scholarships. Another player lost her scholarship to the male player, Blaire Fleming. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, sex is not fungible. This is what happens when sex is hidden.

Title IX exists to protect women in sports and education, but Title IX investigations require access to records that reveal a person's actual sex. SB 1114 makes that nearly impossible. Under this bill, any government record that might reveal someone's biological sex could be sealed, shielded from public records requests, from federal audits, from accountability of any kind. The woman at San Jose State deserved to know the truth before they walked around naked and shared a court with a male.

Every woman deserves to know the truth. Title IX was written for them, not fake men. If we cannot access government records showing a person's sex, we cannot enforce the laws that protect on the basis of sex. Every protection is illusory. Vote no on SB 1114. Sex matters and the truth matters. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room in opposition? Seeing...

My name's Elizabeth Kenney. I represent natural born women's civil rights and privacy and protection. Our daughters and our granddaughters should never have... Excuse me?

Just your name and position on the bill, please.

My name's Elizabeth Kenney, and I'm in opposition of this bill.

Thank you so much. I will bring it back to Ms. Wilson.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you authoring this bill. Having had an opportunity to hear from opposition and noted the layers of disinformation, misinformation, and just plain not accuracy. Excuse me. Excuse me. I am speaking as a legislator. You are a member of the public. You have had your time to speak.

It is now the time for the Members to talk. Hold. Hold on a second. You will not disrespect these chambers. It is time for the legislators to speak. And if you are asked a question directly, you may answer it. But unless that happens, you will have to be quiet or the Chair will remove you from these chambers. Do you understand that?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. With that, there were lots of layers of misinformation, disinformation, and lies about what this bill actually does. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, this bill allows the state to still collect information. However, if someone outside of the state requests that information, it does not permit the state to give that information unless by a warrant. Is that accurate?

That is exactly accurate.

Is there anything else you would like to opine on in relation to that?

The bill has nothing to do with prison. This has nothing to do with locker rooms. No one has a right to demand that the governor, government tells tell them about someone else's sex, gender identity, or other characteristics. You want to know? Ask. If you don't get, like, the answer or you don't get an answer, that is purely between two human beings.

But the government is not a database collector for the purposes of engaging in any of the kind of behavior that the opposition was describing. This simply says the data that we have that we are using to make sure that health care services, that civil rights, and other issues are protected for that individual, that that data is not abused by outside entities or the federal government.

Thank you. I appreciate the bill. I think it's motioned, second. And happy, I encourage my colleagues to wholeheartedly support this bill.

Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Other Members of the Committee? With that, would you like to close, Senator?

I would simply ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Well stated.

Okay. We'll go ahead and do the next bill, and then we'll vote on all the bills at the same time with quorum is what the Secretary would like to do. So the next bill, if you're ready.

If we have a quorum and a vote, why would we not vote on this bill?

Sorry. Miscommunication. Okay. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

Item number six, SB 1114 by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call]

That bill has... I'm back. That bill... The bill has eight votes. It is out, but we will leave it open for absent Members. Thank you, Senator. I'm sorry I wasn't here.

Thank you.

Is he presenting for Senator Stern? Oh, perfect. Okay. 1159. When you're ready, Senator.

Alright. Thank you so much, madam Chair of members. When when we first drafted this bill, it was an interesting theoretical question about what the state of the law might start to have to look at. And that is that our systems of public participation in California and and several other laws to assure public engagement, are in essence, they are partly designed for friction.

We don't think about it often this way as we tell ourselves we want more and more people to participate, but they kind of depend on not everybody participating at once.

And what happens when, bots, an AI agents can can essentially act as though they are people in the process that processes that we have set up for, for human beings. That was theoretical when the bill was introduced.

Shortly thereafter, though, in The United Kingdom, a new platform called Objector AI came out, and that platform, was developed because the developers believed that the universe The United Kingdom was just approving too many projects, mostly housing projects, and that, and that there needed to be a way for people to sort of just automate their opposition to

all housing projects, without having to housing projects, without having to lift a finger or to say anything or to write a letter or to show up. And in that form, it wasn't it's it was it would it might have been annoying, but it's not a problem, to the extent that it's amplifying your own voice over time. But then what we've seen since that time is two things happen.

One is in reality, in, here in California, in Los Angeles, at the Los Angeles Air District, a proposal was taken up, related to appliances. And regardless of your opinion about the actual item, there was a proposed regulatory action, and over 20,000 communications were received by the district about it.

The vast majority of those in opposition. But of the over 20,000, about 20,000, turns out were not human being generated. They were generated by an AI system. And in this case, particularly troubling, that they were often often spoofing real people whose names and identities were being used but were not real. And the the board, rejected the proposal, and and cited as part of that rationale was that there was overwhelming public opposition.

But in reality, there were very few human beings that have participated at all, and of those, it was not overwhelmingly in opposition. So this was the first instance of what can happen when artificial intelligence systems are able to engage in the statutory processes that we have created for human beings to participate in and hold their own governments accountable. Now this was a a the case of a of a of a someone took credit for this.

A company that has been deploying these systems, they took credit for it. That's how we knew.

But there it but it's but the potential is even worse because over the intervening months, the the expansion of agentic artificial intelligence, and I'll have Bill on this, I think, next week as well. But where AI agents and swarms of AI agents can take actions in the real world, where they are only loosely connected to an objective that a human being sets without being where the, but without the task itself being, approved or authorized or directed by the human being.

And so what this bill is intended to do is to assure that, local governments and citizens can respond because, you know, a city in my district take say, the city of Suisun City, where our where my my one of my favorite Assembly members was the former mayor. If Suisun City receives receives 50,050 thousand, you know, letters, or and emails thirty six hours before City Council meeting on an item. How does the city clerk in Suzun process those at all?

How does the mayor or council member understand what that means? There there aren't 36,000 people that live there. And so or if you are one of the residents of Suisun City and you actually wrote a letter yourself, how will it ever be seen in 36,000 items of AI slop? And, we've seen other instances where AI is producing, in real time, synthetic human being video that can then appear on Zoom, testifying before, commissions and councils and boards of supervisors.

And so the challenge is real that the that these systems that have the ability to mimic human beings, even when they are not directed by a human being, have the the potential and now we're now seeing it in reality, choking local governments to the point where they cannot function and swamping out actual human participation.

Some of the other areas where this is a problem that are covered by this bill are the, for example, the Public Records Act, which it's which requires within ten days of specific action. And so if an AI agent acting autonomously submits 100 public records acts requests a day, you could effectively disable a local agency. So what the what the bill says is something that's not remarkable.

It simply says that for purposes of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act and several other civic engagement acts, the it's the simple legal proposition. When you receive something that's from AI, it's not it and it's not a human being, then it doesn't the local agency or the state agency doesn't have to treat it as a human being.

It's a simple proposition now. As you this committee, more than anyone knows, it's not as simple an execution, but it is a simple proposition, and that's what the bill seeks to establish.

The committee amendments, which I'm happy to accept, and thank the the the Chair and the committee for for drafting them, Make clear that the use of AI to, you know, at your own direction as a human being, you know, so I and maybe I wanna send five letters at once, or I wanna I wanna draft letter that I will then sign, or I will I will send, or it's gonna prepare my remarks to yell at the planning commission about. All of that's fine.

Like, the use of AI to in to enhance and amplify your own voice, your own actions in some form, is absolutely fine under under under the bill.

But they but they sort of the autonomous operation, through an AI system, whether it's spoofing an actual human being or not, that is that is not fine. And local governments and state agencies should have the the right to be able to not treat those as human as as persons for purposes of these other laws. Now the last question I know that will be there that, particularly in this committee is, well, how will how will the city of how will the assumed city clerk know?

And there are two answers to that. First is, that that I I know several of you are helping to solve that problem right now with with more and more, of the tools that are being able may being made available to in more and more instances, whether it's the AI Transparency Act or otherwise, to allow people to be able to detect, when AI is the principal, creator of something, including some of these materials.

So there are technological and regulatory and legal changes that are happening that will make that clear over time. In the meantime, cities and counties and state agencies will have to be extremely careful, because, for those of you who are in local government, your city attorney will tell you, you better be airtight sure that, that this that this communication is is AI. And you might determine that in several ways, like asking it. Some some AI bots will just tell you the answer.

But you will it will be the it it creates the legal principle that then the local government will have to make a judgment about whether they feel certain that a court would uphold their determination that that is not a human being, while we continue to work on developing the technology and policy tools, that will allow for it to be pre identified.

So that's the that's the bill in not in much bigger than that,

maybe in a that maybe in a watermelon in a nutshell, and it is it it is supported by a broad range of of organizations that are committed to public participation, public process on all ends of the spectrum, and wanna assure that in that the precious civic engagement that we're able to generate in in this state is reserved for the human beings for which it was designed. And with that, I would ask for an aye vote. Two witnesses with me today.

First is the vice mayor of of the city of Vacaville, Mike Silva.

Thank you. Good eve afternoon, madam Chair and committee members. My name is doctor Michael Silva, and I'm the vice mayor of the city of Vacaville. And I'm also professor of biotechnology at Solano Community College. Let's talk about what this bill means in practice on the ground in cities like mine.

When an AI generated public records request arrives at our city hall, our city clerk, Michelle, has ten days to respond. Ten days to locate records, involve the city attorney, coordinate across different departments, and deliver an actual accurate response. This response is essential to maintain public trust through transparency. In the meantime, a small Vacaville business owner, Sophia, is waiting on a permit and doesn't get a timely callback.

Nick, a journalist from the Vacaville reporter with his own public records act request, probably for me, is pushed off and delayed.

Meanwhile, a mother, Kim, she takes time out away from her children to ride her council member pleading for enhanced crosswalk safety to make sure their kids have access to school safely. That family did everything right. They believe in the process. They showed up. If the system will fail them, if our local leaders and I are reviewing 10,000 comments.

I don't want our constituents voices buried by bots. I hear this from local elected officials across California. Many of us fear being overwhelmed by AI generated content. How will we make sense of public feedback on city projects that there's no way for us to Distinguish real people's problems from AI generated noise and natural turf campaigns? We have already seen this with the South Coast and Bay Area districts.

That small business owner, that journalist, and that mother each deserve to be heard. Each of our constituents deserve to be heard. SB 1159 make sure that they are. I respectfully urge this committee to support SB 1159 and help us ensure that we will represent the hardworking people of California and not bots.

Thank you. Thank you.

Gabriela.

When you're ready. Good afternoon, madam Chair and committee members. My name is Gabriela Fazio. I'm a senior policy strategist at c. Sierra Club and our environmental justice partners spent years advocating for clean air standards at the South Coast air quality management districts.

Standards that would reduce smog forming pollution from gas powered furnaces and water heaters, preventing thousands of premature deaths and asthma cases. We organized the community, submitted comments, and engaged the process exactly as California's transparency and public participation laws intended. The network was wiped out by a consulting firm that used an AI platform to generate over 20,000 comments opposing those standards. The voices of our communities and the years worked behind them were buried under a flood of artificial noise.

Similarly, at the Bay Area Air District, a consulting firm used AI to generate false public comments opposing clean air rules, many of which were submitted under real residents' names without their knowledge or consent.

These campaigns were coordinated and deliberate. Someone hired a firm, signed a contract, and directed the effort. Today, autonomous each AI agents can be created and deployed by anyone without a consulting firm, without a contract, and without an immediately responsible party. No coordination required. No paper trail.

One in minutes. If California does not act now while the problem is still identifiable and the perpetrator is still traceable, we risk losing the ability to respond at all. The integrity of every public participation process is in this state. Every environmental review, every rule making, every local planning decision is at stake. SB 1159 draws a clear and necessary line.

California's public participation laws were written for people. This bill ensures they stay that way. We are dry vote. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Juliana Tetlow on behalf of California Association of Nonprofits in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Eric Lohr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Sarah De Ket, on behalf of the Rural County representatives of California in support.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California as well as for my colleagues representing the boards of supervisors of the counties of Contra Costa and Yolo in support.

Good afternoon, madam Chair. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam Chair. Vincenzo Caparelli here on behalf of California Association of Council of Governments in support. Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress in strong support.

Good afternoon, Chair members. Isha Iyer on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, California Municipal Clerks Association, City of Bakersfield, City of Beaumont, City of Belmont, City of Carlsbad, City of Corona, City Of El Cerrito, City Of Merced, City Of Rancho Cucamonga, City Of Redwood City, City Of San Mateo, City Of Thousand Oaks, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and council members in strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the county supervisors, that run the counties of Napa, Shasta, and Fresno in support. Thank you.

Anyone here in opposition to this measure?

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second.

Come on up, miss Rosenberg. You're always gentle with your opposition. She disagrees. Live up to that.

But, anyway, hi, everyone. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We are a statewide coalition that focuses on guardrails and safeguards in the interest of privacy protections, civil rights, and community consent. Firstly, I do wanna say that I really appreciate the amends from the committee that have been accepted and thank everyone for all of that work. And, weirdly, that the privacy specific concerns that we have raised have pretty much been mitigated by the amendments.

However, there are still a few concerns about the bill that I'm just gonna take this opportunity to share. Public comments are not quite the same thing as public records. The right that sort of is being protected by a public comment is based is, you know, is a right to be heard. It's not a right for a certain action to be taken.

I would love when I come and talk to you that that would mean that you would have to do what I'm making a public comment asking you to do, but it doesn't work like that.

It's just a right to be heard. But the PRA is an affirmative right to secure and view a record that is, you know, essentially the business of the people, and we're not sure it makes sense to kinda treat them the same way in the same piece of legislation. So in our view, the CPRA should come out of this bill. It's kind of a different kettle of fish from the different kinds of sort of public comment processes that we've been talking about here.

And, And, of course, what happened to CARB and some of the other examples that were given.

The last thing I'll say, and I think the author kind of pointed this out, those AI deception tools that everyone is working on, They work now reasonably well on pictures and deep fakes. They don't work quite so well with text, which is what which is most of what we're dealing with here is a number of college students that have been accused of plagiarism that they didn't do can kinda tell you.

So relying on these tools heavily may get us into some places where we don't necessarily wanna be because, of course, the goal is not to shut out legitimate civic engagement. So I do think we have to be careful. So that's my objection, and, I will ask you to vote no even though I think you probably will all vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here in opposition? Megan Varvay with Kaiser Advocacy, registering opposition from the First Amendment Coalition.

K. Bringing it back to the dais, Mister DeMaio. You are up first.

Thank you. There's no doubt that Public Records Act requests can be burdensome, but the burden is so important that we understand that there is a payoff. It is the public trust and confidence in our decision making, the public right to know. And I know that it's annoying having been a local elected official having to deal with the the PRA request. There is a there is a a cost.

There is a an expenditure that we have to make for open government. But it but the value is exponentially greater. I have no problem with the refinements to limit the abuse under the Public Records Act. And, also, there are limitations we can put on public participation in open meetings, screaming, disrupting. There are limitations that we have a right to, enact even under the First Amendment.

But I've also seen some really bad bills go through this body, that overly restrict First Amendment rights as well as the public right to know. And there are some bills currently being considered that fallen in that category that I hope are are gonna be reconsidered. I appreciate the committee amendments. I think the the the first one that says that it clarifies that individuals can use AI to facilitate their own engagement with government agencies. I like that, but I wanna kind of acid test it.

In the old days, we would get we still get postcards that advocacy groups and and special interest groups will preprint, distribute to people, and they just say, can you sign it and put your address and mail it in? And let me just say for those of you who send those in, they're worth exponentially less, in terms of feedback to an elected official than a handwritten heartfelt, correspondent, piece of correspondence. But we don't say you can't do that.

We say, okay, you know, we take all forms of public input. Can someone, even with the amendment, can someone under this law, be sent by an advocacy group, a portal that they can put with their consent, their information in, and then the AI builds a letter for that individual that they then have to review and then consent that they would like to submit that as their comment.

Is that protected speech under this law?

I think that's the question, Mister. Through the Chair?

Yes. Right. That that that is from from the beginning, but the amendment really reinforces the the theory here, which is that when the the the issue is even the signature on a postcard or the digital equivalent, if if if the human being did the action at all, right, in any in any form, even if it takes them one second and they didn't really think about it, that's not that's not our concern.

It's the the human being, direct in the most remote way possible this engagement, then it's not covered by the by by by the law. Because the law doesn't say the the bill doesn't say if the if the agency suspects that it's not human or they weren't human enough or we don't have a photo of them doing it.

It really and the burden will be on the agency because the the bill says that it had to have come from from an from one of these AI systems, not that they that not that they think that it did. And and I will I will say something I should know, which is our that our you know, some of our supporters from the local government says, hey.

You know, shouldn't you what what if we put in penalty of perjury for every you know, for all of these things? And that's a road I'm not willing to go down. Like, we're not trying to create more friction for people to prove that they're human.

The burden here is on the is on the is on the the receiving agency to say, we'd we know that this is not this is not a human in any way, not that it's a human that's used. So for sure, you know, going to a form and and typing in three words and it populates the rest of the letter and you hit send, that's a 100%, allowed, under under the under under this bill would be interfered within in no way possible.

So as long as it is an individual who's real, who consents to they can still use AI to construct their thoughts and make their their case. Because, you know, there's a lot of people who when they're asked, you know, do you oppose this project? They say, yeah. I oppose the project. And then you say, well, good.

Send a letter into your legislator. Send a letter into your city council. And they can be intimidated by that. But if an advocacy group says, you know, if you oppose it, then we have a tool that will help you put your thoughts together, but you still have to say, yeah, these are my thoughts, and I would like to submit this as my comment my public comment. I wanna make sure that we continue to protect that.

By the way, the penalty of perjury would probably not survive a Supreme Court review because it it would seem to intimidate someone into not expressing under their First Amendment rights their their point of view. The second question is as it relates to the use of e AI to construct, more complicated public records act requests. One of the things we try to ask, requesters is can you please narrow your request?

And, when I used to do this in a prior prior life of training people on how to use PRA, I would say, if an agency comes back and asks you to limit your request, they're not being mean to you. They actually may be trying to help you get the information you need and marshal their resources effectively.

Can under this law, if it goes into effect, can a PRA be constructed by AI on vast amounts of data, even if it's a very cumbersome PRA request? Can AI still be used to make the request if there is a an individual who consents to the submission of the request?

Yes. Okay. If the individual consents, directs, in in any of those ways that that it's it's no longer subject to the language of the bill.

With that, I'm happy to support the bill, and thank you for the committee, offering some of those clarification amendments.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Anybody else? Questions, concerns, thoughts? Seeing and hearing none, I wanna thank, the Senator for working with us on this. I think that, the clarification are helpful.

I also appreciate you taking the language around disability access, which as we move towards these types of policies, I wanna thank the disability rights community for bringing up that AI for quite some time has been a tool that allows people to have access who otherwise wouldn't. And so that's something we're trying to make clear in a lot of these bills, and I appreciate you doing that here. With that, would you like to close?

Just to pick up on that real briefly, which is that and and connects to the the the last dialogue we were having on this is that, these tools have the potential to really, enrich civic engagement too, use use properly, that they can help folks, bring to life stories that they would have struggled to tell otherwise, to make connections, to link to evidence and academic research, that they have the power to to really uplift the quality of our civic debate.

But that debate ultimately has to be between human beings. That is the essence of a democracy and a society. That's all this bill hopes to accomplish. And with that, I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we have a motion and a second. So let's call the roll.

Item number seven, SB 1159 by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is do passed as amended to judiciary committee by Raquel Ham. Aye. Raquel Ham, Aye. Masito.

Aye.

Masito, Aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, Aye. DiMayo.

DiMaio, aye. Hoover. Aye. Hoover, aye. Erwin?

Aye. Erwin, aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Ortega.

Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye.

Petre Norris? Aye. Petri Norris, aye. Ward. Aye.

Ward, aye. Wicks Wilson.

That bill has 11 Votes its out, but we'll leave it open for absent members. Thank you, Mister Cabaldon. We are waiting for Senator Stern. You are our last bill. So Senator, if you want to be heard today, now would be the time to head to committee.

Yeah. But we will yeah. We're gonna do add ons while we wait briefly for Senator Stern. I will give you maybe fifteen minutes to get back to committee on if you're coming. Oh, okay. We hear he's on his way. Good news. Okay. Let's do add ons. We're gonna we're gonna oh, we're gonna do everything. We're gonna start with the top.

[Roll Call]