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

Good morning. I'm gonna call to order the Senate Committee on Privacy Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection. Today will be our final hearing of this this cycle, and we have, obviously, several bills on calendar. We have two bills that are are proposed for consent, which we will take up at the appropriate time. That's file item five, AB 2504, Bauer-Kahan, and file item fourteen 2545 by Assemblymember Schiavo.

And seeing that we don't have a quorum, we'll begin as a subcommittee, and we do have an author present. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, would you like to, present AB 302? Welcome and whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair. Hopefully, your other authors are on their way. I will start, as you mentioned, with a B302. Good morning, Mister Chair and vice Chair.

I wanna thank the committee staff for their work on this bill and

you a promotion? No. I don't think so.

did I give

The vice Chair is merely noting and I should have noted for the record as well, substituting today by by order of the rules committee as our as our committee member and vice Chair, Senator Saerto, in lieu of Senator Jones.

Oh, okay.

So it is a promotion. Congratulations, Mister Sciorto. I wanna thank staff as always for their hard work on this bill and every bill. Really appreciate the partnership our committees have been able to have over the last six months on bills across the privacy space. With that, I'm proud to present AB 302, which protects minors from addictive feeds in two ways.

It prohibits a school from excluding a student from participating in any activity, including sports and clubs due to students not having or using addictive feeds. And it prohibits schools from using addictive feeds as the only means or contact with the student or the parents and guardians of the student. And this bill was really born out of my own experience as a parent.

My daughter is starting at a new high school in the fall, and I promptly learned that in order for her to participate in the tennis program, she had to be on Instagram, which floored me because I didn't understand why social media was necessary for her to be an athlete. I was obviously an athlete before the age of social media.

I made it to every single practice and, swim meet on time. And so I started to ask questions about this, and it turns out that up and down the state schools are doing this. They're using social media or Snapchat or other mechanisms in order to communicate with students rather than using email, text message, or less addictive means. And so this bill is very narrowly tailored to say that they can continue to use social media, but it can't be the only means.

I learned from one student in our local district that she was actually blocked from being in the leadership program because she had made a decision for herself that Instagram was not a healthy choice.

And so this would not they couldn't block a student participating and they have to have at least one other means of communicating that is non addictive. Pretty simple bill, and hopefully, we can move it out of this committee and ensure that students have choice on whether to be on these addictive fees or not. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any tennis players, leadership class members, or anyone else wishing to provide testimony on AB 302? If so, please come forward, you know, as lead witnesses. Okay. Anyone else wish to register their support for the bill?

And please give share with us your name, affiliation, if anything if any, but not your lobbying firm and your position on the bill. Yes.

Crystal Strait with Common Sense Media and support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Let's turn into opposition. Does anyone wish to testify in opposition to AB 302? Does anyone wish to register their opposition to the bill?

Seeing none, we'll turn to the committee for any questions, comments, or for a motion. Senator Seocto.

Thank you, and thank you for your bill. My daughter was a high school tennis player. She they managed to put together a pretty good team without all of that stuff being required. They all communicated well and, and they all did well. So, so anyway, I'm pleased to support your bill when it, when it comes up for a vote.

Thank you, Senator.

Alright. Assemblymember Baroque, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your vote when the time is right.

Alright. We will ask for the motion when the when we have a quorum. At that time, the motion will be do pass as amended, and those are the amendments that the author agreed to in the in the Senate education committee that are then forward to to us.

Thank you.

Alright. With that then, we'll turn to the next bill, which is AB 1705.

Perfect. Thank you, Mister Chair and senators. And again, thank the committee for their work on this one. This one took more conversations than the last, and I appreciate all of them. With that, I'm proud to present AB 1705, the reclaim act.

It's a bipartisan effort with my colleague and joint author, Assembly member Dixon, and it carries on her work from last year. AB 1705 establishes a meaningful accountability for platforms by requiring operators of websites where you could upload nonconsensual pornography to verify that that that they have consent for that sexually explicit content. Currently, the law ensures that if individuals are depicted in a nonconsensual, pornographic manner, they have a right to have that image taken down.

But by the time they ask for it to be taken down and it's taken down, often it has proliferated across the Internet. And so this takes a proactive approach by saying if a picture is being uploaded that contains pornography, it is incumbent upon the platform to ensure there's consent of all depicted individuals.

With that, I respect I don't know if the amendments are being taken here, but if they are, I accept them. I think that did they get processed in time? I'll be accepting committee amendments. Perfect.

Thank you very much. Alright. Are there any lead witnesses in support? Does anyone wish to register their support for the bill?

Kim Stone on behalf of the District Attorneys Association. Thank you.

Olivia Herrera, on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association. Thank you.

I felt strongly. Jhezrel Prado-English, on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support.

Alright. Thank you. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 1705?

Morning, Mister Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Technet. We do have a respectfully opposed position. We're continuing to work through amendments with the author. We just believe there should be a

little bit more delineation between a traditional website and a pornographic Internet website, so we're working through some suggested amendments and discussing with the author. So at this time, so respectfully opposed, but optimistic that we'll be able to remove opposition in the future. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Naomi Pajar on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. We echo, the concerns raised by my colleague at TechNet. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Does anyone wish to register their opposition to AB 1705? Okay. Seeing none, we'll now turn to the committee, and simply note the the amendments are are intended to, be more precise in terms of the application of the bill across all websites and and and sites that that, offer pornography, and so would certainly encourage the opposition, once the amendments are in print, to take another to take another look and continue in conversations with the author.

Are there questions or comments about the bill? I'm gonna invite you to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is right. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. And next, we'll turn to AB 2007.

Thank you again. I'm proud to present AB 2007, a measure to safeguard children's privacy and ensure parents have a say in their way their children's information is used and I'll be accepting the committee amendments on this bill as well. Youth programs are incredibly important to our children and to families every day and currently the way digital releases are set up is you get one form that signs your child up and releases their image likeness for marketing purposes.

And so parents often do not have a choice over whether to give up that private information and allow for their child to be depicted online if they want their child to participate.

In the last committee where this was heard, last week, we had a witness who came forward who was a foster parent who was told who couldn't release their foster child's image and likeness and was told, well, then they just couldn't participate in the child's image and likeness and was told, well, then they just couldn't participate in the activity.

And so this bill is incredibly simple. It just says those have to be two separate releases to give parents a choice whether their child's digital likeness will be, used. And with that, I expect I ask for your aye vote.

Any witnesses in support? Does anyone wish to register their support for AB 2007? Mister Chair, members, Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in sport. Alright. Are there any witnesses in opposition to AB 2007?

Alright. Welcome. We will have you wanna join us at the witness table? You have two minutes.

I'm registering a concerns position, so we're a bit of a tweener. But I'm Caroline Grinder on behalf of the League of California Cities and the California Parks and Recreation Society. Just registering some concerns about implementation. We really appreciate the most recent set of amendments which we think were a big step forward. But we're really looking forward to working with the author to address concerns about how we require cities and other park and recreation districts and counties to obtain this consent from parents.

Flexibility there would be really helpful. And then additionally, some concerns around the civil penalties that might be levied against our local agencies. We know our local agencies are really doing a lot of work already to obtain this consent. So it's just a matter of how we implement this. Again, really appreciate the author and the committee for working on this with us and looking forward to continuing those conversations.

Thank you.

Alright. Does anyone else wish to register opposition, concern, regret? Alright. Seeing none, we'll turn to the committee for questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Yeah. Thank you. The concerns I have about the bill are kind of the the broadness and and the how do you achieve this. And I a great example this last weekend, multiple festivals, birthday bashes going on in some of the communities. And and part one of them is the area where the kids go, and they have the hose down and all that.

So you have, like, a thousand kids. And the parks and rec and everybody else take pictures of all these things going on because in the future, those are the things that they post in their their rec guides to say, hey. Birthday bash this weekend. Do they gotta get permission from the thousand kids parents to be able to take a picture of them frolicking in the in the in the water?

If I may, Mister Chair. So I appreciate that question. And honestly, upon introduction, I think the answer was yes. But we did take an amendment, I think, in the prior committee, but I can't remember where, but it is in print here, that says that a covered entity means a program that requires a parent's signature consent form or, other form to be signed. So if you were participating in activity like that where you're not signing your child up, this would not apply.

So it's only a camp and after school program where you're actually signing forms, and then those forms right now contain that release within one form. And so we're working with the city design implementation, but really all the bill would require is through that process, which by the way, right now you are signing multiple forms, so you have a health form, you have your release form.

This would just put the digital release as a separate form so that you could opt in or opt out and still participate.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

No further questions. Alright. Would you like to close?

With that, I respectfully ask your aye vote when the time is right.

Alright. And we are at our last bill by the Chair of our cognitive committee in the Assembly of AB 2212. You're welcome to present when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning. So I'm happy to present AB 2212, the Higher Education, AI Response Act or the HEAR Survivors Act. This bill updates the definition of sexual harassment in post secondary education code to account for the role that modern digital technologies play on college campuses.

I appreciate the hard work of this committee, and I accept the committee's amendments, which remove a requirement for schools to update title nine policies and make certain resources available to students in order to receive financial support from the state.

As notification apps become more widespread, we're seeing more tech facilitated sexual harassment. As we know, our universities are often the first place that our young people are out on their own, and our universities take great steps to prevent in person harassment from individuals, but they have not caught up with the times to ensure that there is no online or tech facilitated harassment, and that's what this bill requires them to do.

With me today are Janneke Rakesh, second year undergraduate at UCLA, and Yesenia Milagosa Fernandez, an undergraduate in student life program and analyst at Mission College.

Welcome, and you'll each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Janaki Rakesh, and I'm an undergraduate student at UCLA and a member of survivors and allies. I'm here in support of AB 2122, the here survivors act. Having just finished my freshman year, it's been devastating to learn how many of my peers are on enduring online sexual harassment. One of my friends shared how another student she was talking to on app had repeatedly asked her for photos.

When she finally succumb to the pressure and sent a photo of herself in a tube top, he then used generative AI to manipulate the photo into a fully nude upper half image of her. This image was then used to blackmail her. The whole situation consumed her life, and she was debating dropping out of school. Unfortunately, her story is not unique. In early twenty twenty six, the generative AI tool Grok was producing nonconsensual intimate images of women and girls at estimated rate of one per minute.

As this technology evolves at a terrifying pace, our campus' safety measures simply are not keeping up. When this happened to my friend, she had absolutely no idea where to turn. Our required student trainings has never touched on this kind of sexual harassment, and it's mentioned nowhere on the UCLA website. With campuses lacking any clear pathways to address tech facilitate sexual harassment, students are left in the dark, forced to navigate this crisis entirely on their own. AB 2122 changes that.

It amends the California education code to ensure that tech facilitated sexual harassment is explicitly addressed and ensure schools update their policies so students can get the support they need. Because our students deserve to be recognized and protected, I strongly urge you to support AB 2122. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you and welcome to you.

Good morning Chair and committee members. My name is Yesenia Melgosa Fernandez and I am a member of survivors and allies. I also serve as a staff advisor for the Associated Student Government at a California Community College. As a survivor of sexual violence and a product of all three systems of higher ed in California, I have been witness to the disparities of resources available to survivors. Community colleges are behind in their approaches to addressing sexual violence on our campuses.

It only became a requirement two years ago to train and inform all students on their rights and resources around sexual violence and the title nine reporting process, more than ten years after the u c and c s u systems established confidential advocates on their campuses. Because of this, it's crucial for the title for title nine to be reflective of the experiences that our students are facing today and include tech facilitated sexual violence.

One of survivors and allies members shared in 2021 during college, they were harassed for over a month through dozens of accounts and messages flooding their phone asking them to send nudes among other things, making threats against their family if they didn't do what they wanted. They didn't think anyone would believe them. The institutions that were supposed to protect them failed them.

There was no clear reporting mechanism, no messaging that digital sexual harm counted, and no visible path to support. I served as an interview research lead for our 2025 statewide study of over 1,600 higher ed students in California and we found that community college students experienced sexual violence at higher rates than their peers at the UC and CSU system. Out of a 157 community college students, a 108 identified as survivors. One in seven survivors experienced online sexual harm and seventy percent never reported to their institutions.

In addition, survivors of online sexual harm reported significantly worse mental health than other survivors.

I am here leading by example for my students within the associate student government at mission college to show them that advocacy matters, that using their voice to make their school A Better place matters and to let community college survivors know that they are not alone. We must be proactive in ensuring the resources that existing college campuses provide students with the opportunity to receive support, thrive, and continue their educational journey. And I urge your aye vote on AB 2212. Thank you.

And thanks to both of you for for for coming to Sacramento today to to share your stories, your perspectives, and those of your your colleagues on campus as well. Thank you so much. Are there other witnesses, that would like to register their support for the bill?

Becca Kramer on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.

Katie Cochran on behalf of the commission for on the status of women and girls in support.

Anna Maria Santiago, policy intern with Mesa Bedwick Group here on behalf of Cal State Student Association in support.

Alright. Thanks to all the witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Does anyone wish to register opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we'll turn to the committee for questions or comments.

Senator McNerney.

First of all, I wanna thank the author for this bill and the prior three bills. I mean, there's a common theme here. You wanna protect people from the technology that's changing and impacting our lives. And, you know, these technologies are providing more and more opportunity for abuse of this kind, and it's getting more and more difficult, to try and control these.

And that's something that this committee and your committee, assemblywoman, are gonna be dealing with, from now on, I think.

And I appreciate that. So what I wanna ask about this particular bill, what exactly is it asking the trustees to do? I mean, how are they gonna react, in a way that's gonna provide additional protection?

Yeah. Thank you, Senator, for the question. And I appreciate, your comment about what's happening, online. And I think you and I have spoken deeply about how there's so much promise to what is happening online, and our students gain so much from, access to online tools, and yet they can only achieve that promise if they're protected at the same time. And so what the the bill does is actually incredibly simple.

It updates the definition of sexual harassment. Currently, it includes sexual exploitation and sexual violence, including sexual battery. This will add a third element to that, which is technology facilitated sexual harassment, including but not limited to cyber sexual bullying, cyber stalking, and doxxing. And so it will imbue into the sexual harassment policies this this element of sexual harassment. And so to the extent that they train on sexual harassment, they have policies around discipline on sexual harassment, this will have to be a part of it.

Okay. And hopefully, it'll have a positive impact and and sort of corral this. But again, we're gonna have to continually update policies to give more and more protection for these, but we don't wanna stifle innovation. So it's gonna be a challenge. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. And also thank you for your bill and your work in this in this area because, like our good Senator, was saying previously, you know, trying to find the sweet spot with the emerging technology of protection and not killing innovation and also not driving it elsewhere is, you know, it's tricky. But, when we're dealing with these issues, that's where our guardrails need to be more aggressive.

And I think that's where you've been focusing a lot of your work on is protecting our young people and our kids from this emerging technology and the other stuff, you know, we can deal with. But this has to be aggressive, and I think that's what you're doing, and I appreciate that because what I've seen are some pretty good bills in that regard.

So thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Let me just note for any members of the Senate or their staff that may be paying attention the hearing and balancing all the various hearings, we are one short of a quorum and so if you're deciding where which committee to go to first as a member of four different committees this morning, this would be the time to stop by here. The Appropriations Committee has not yet begun and the Budget Committee is proceeding fine.

So this would be the hearing we we need we really need to hear for quorum.

Alright. With that, Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, would you like to close?

I just wanna reiterate, you're coming. May have oh, there we go. And thank the students for their advocacy and showing up. They brought this bill to our office. It asked us to update this code, and, it has been an incredible partnership working alongside them and showing up hearing after hearing, speaking for their colleagues, and it really is hopefully gonna change things on campus.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is right.

Alright. Thank you for have any more bills come to you while we've just to your mind while we were here? If not, thank you very much, madam Chair. Appreciate you being with us today. Yes.

Thank you. Alright, we have Assembly member Gonzales here to present, item 9, which is AB 1837. Welcome, and you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. First, I'd like to thank you, to the Chair and the committee staff for their hard work working with us on this bill. I'm pleased to present AB 1837, which extends the authorization for public transit operators to use camera enforcement technology to enforce parking violation in transit only lanes and at transit stops for seven years. It also adds additional privacy protections into existing law and additional parameters on how the reports our privacy impacts must be evaluated.

We know this technology works and has helped to address key issues of public transit efficiency and public safety by disincentivizing parking and stopping in transit lanes.

In San Francisco, these cameras have cut transit delays by 20%. Agencies like LA Metro, my district, have just started using these cameras and have been experiencing the same benefits. Abe eighteen thirty seven also ensures that the extensive privacy protections laid out in the authority can continue. Video evidence of violations must be destroyed sixty days after citation has been paid. Any video images that don't contain evidence must be destroyed after fifteen days, and any video image can only be used for enforcing these parking violations.

If we let the authority expire, our transit lanes will continue to clog up, backing up, reducing transit efficiency, and public safety. It's essential that our buses continue to move efficiently and safely throughout our city. AB 1837 ensures that we can do just that. This morning, pride witness in support, Matt Robinson, legislative advocate with California Transit Association. Take it away.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Matt Robinson with the California Transit Association. Assembly member Gonzales did a wonderful job of covering the bill. I would just note this is a tool that more of our agencies have started to use as they have seen more parking at their bus stops as the rollout of BRT lanes has become more prevalent. That's bus rapid transit, have become more prevalent throughout the state.

But this does, as the Assembly member said, help keep, the buses moving and on time, when they are stuck in traffic or waiting to get to the curb. It not only jeopardizes their travel times, but it also makes that trip to the curb space, difficult for elderly passengers, for disabled passengers, etcetera. And so this has been a helpful safety tool as we continue to work to deploy better transit service throughout California.

As the Assembly member said, the privacy protections have been enhanced this year through our work in the Assembly. Coming out of Senate transportation, we amended the bill to clarify that you're gonna get some more reports from the existing agencies that just begin those programs.

So hopefully, that'll be helpful to you all as you reevaluate this, excuse me, in 2034. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Does anyone wish to register support for the bill?

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the following. LA Metro, Monterey Salinas Transit, SunLine Transit, the City of Santa Monica, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, SamTrans, City and County of San Francisco, CCTI, the California City Transportation Initiative, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, the Alameda County Transportation Commission, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation in Support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Does anyone wish to register opposition to the bill?

Seeing none, we'll turn back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator McNerney.

I appreciate the Assemblymember for bringing this forward. And it sounds like it's very narrow in scope, so that's appropriate. And I just want to voice an overall concern that I hate seeing more data out there that people can access and use in nefarious ways. And sounds like you've done a pretty good job of trying to curtail that. So I think I'll find myself in support of the bill.

I'll move it when it's time.

Thank you, sir.

Further comments or questions? Senator Ochoa-Bogh.

Really quickly. So I've had a I've had great concerns with regards to automating law enforcement just in general. I think, for a variety of reasons. I just I have a really hard time buying into the idea of just having digital surveillance in general. I'm not a big brother kind of a person.

But really quick, this is just for transit bus stops.

Yeah. And and bus only lanes. So a lot of transit agencies will have dedicated roadway for them to operate their buses on. And so if you park in that, like, San Francisco is a great example. LA is doing more of this.

But, you know, when you go to the city of San Francisco, you'll see the red lanes in the street. Those are bus only lanes. And if someone were to park in those, they could be ticketed for parking in that lane. It's very clearly marked, for the use of the vehicle only.

So the I guess the only other concern moving forward, and I would love to hear my public safety, you know, colleague hear his opinion on this. But I think the the other concern that I would have is that we start in this scenario and then we expand because we set precedence for something else. We set for another, you know, pilot program or another, you know, surveillance program, and that's where I'm also having hesitation on.

I don't think I've heard of an issue within my district on this particular area, but would love to hear comments on my colleague if they have any.

Alright. So I have a few similar concerns as my colleague from Yucaipa. But from a public safety standpoint, human judgment, especially in regards to parking and things like that, are it's hard to replace it. And, you know, we had another bill earlier that is, you know, the automatic parking police, and it pretty much eliminates the, you know, people that do that for a living in favor of AI technology and stuff.

And the things I think about in that case are, like, you know, they they go along and they generate a lot of tickets, and those tickets are hard to go and fight against because you have to actually go somewhere, sit, and and in this case, look at look at a picture and say, yes, that was mine or no or here was the circumstance, you know, my car broke down and that's where it landed.

And and it's it's adjudicating those things becomes more difficult. But even in the parking situation, when you're parked, you can only parked 12 inches from the curb and you're 13 inches from it, but if you have a really thin car you're actually not impeding the road like other cars that are parked similarly only legally. It's those kind of things that people can interpret and go, oh, you know what? This is kind of a little bit of a special circumstance.

In the thing here, from a public safety perspective, this is just more about having to go in and out of traffic, and that can create some public safety issues.

I don't like it when people get away with doing things they should not be be doing, and we can't have a person on every every corner looking at these things. So, you know, in this particular case, you know, it's fairly narrow, but I also see 10,000 tickets generated. And I almost feel like that's kind of what the goal is for for generating tickets. I think there are other ways to be able to do this without taking the human element out of it.

So where does I guess the question could be where does the human part of this come in where it's not such an inconvenience that somebody whose car breaks down, they can't do anything else about it, doesn't have to go through a court process or some other process to be able to adjudicate their their thing and not get fined in for something they can't afford.

It's a great question, and this also came up the Assembly Transportation Committee. The cameras are merely the tool, but every image of a violation has to be reviewed by a parking enforcement officer in a room. So they don't send the tickets out automatically. They are looked at. There can be findings of hardship.

There can be, as you said, like the the sign that is required to be there that says, if you park here, you can get a camera ticket. If that's not clear, the trees have blown over it, they can decide not to issue the parking ticket. So those protections are in there. There's also the ability for the public to ask for forgiveness on the tickets if certain conditions can be met just like your standard parking tickets.

And then I just reiterate, we aren't creating any new violations.

These are already going to be parking violations, and we have about a sixty day warning period where things have to be noticed and initial the first offense, so to speak, is a warning in that period. And so we've done our best to try to kind of thread the needle, if you will, and not go too far on one side or the other in terms of how we use those tools to help enforce the the movement of those vehicles. So hopefully that answers your question.

Not getting a ticket means you didn't get caught, and that is with every ticket. So that's and then when you're using AI means everybody gets caught, whether it's AI speed cameras or AI parking enforcement. And the egregiousness that's attached with it is more of what you're trying to to control, and that's hard to do with AI. And that's that's I think that's the main argument with with being concerned about this going too far.

And so, anyway, I don't know if you have other statistics for the pilot program that basically was what this was generated off of. Correct? But those would be helpful. And I know I mean, I'm just stepping into this committee to but we did have this in transportation also, and I had those similar concerns.

I'll say two things and then, you know, hopefully, that will, answer or address your concerns. We have when you look at the reports that have come in from the legislature, two things I'll point out. One is we have been asked to include a question on were there any complaints about privacy, about data breaches, etcetera. And all the programs that have run since '07, the answer's no. Not a single one.

The other thing is we see behavior change from the moment they get that first violation. There aren't a lot of repeat offenders in this program. So it is working. It is having its intended outcome because it is deterring people from continuing to park in those areas. So, hopefully, Senator, that's a little bit of a nugget on the the reports and what they've shown.

I would note that, those reports are now required to be a bit more detailed in sort of how we come up with that data back to you all, and so the next round you will see, I think, a more involved privacy response data sharing response. Yep.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

So thanks for the work on this, and I really appreciate the the the conversation in the committee as you I guess you can tell privacy is our first name here at this committee, so it is a very important protection that we're trying to pursue. I almost wish we didn't call this automated traffic enforcement because it's actually the enforcement part is not automated.

This is automatic this is automated transit sensing, in the same way that, you know, an officer on the highway with a radar gun, the radar gun performs a function that the officer used to do, which is counting really quickly the car lengths and what have you trying to estimate the speed in his head in his or her head, doing some math in the moment, and that automates it. But then the officer still then then says, okay.

The radar gun says this and but here's how the rest of traffic is moving. Here's what the here's what the driver is trying to avoid or not. So there's still the all the human judgment in the actual enforcement.

It simply extends the capacity of law enforcement to be able to see what's happening to the benefit both of the driver, but as I think as the vice Chair has noted, has important implications for public safety because the with both bike lanes and and bus lanes, when there are vehicles parked in them, it does require bicyclists and and buses to make abrupt movements into the into regular traffic, which is not safe for anyone.

So it isn't a it is not a victimless crime, essentially, to be engaging that behavior. And most folks do it because they don't think they're gonna get caught.

And so this simply allows for law enforcement to use that information and then make exactly the judgment that they would have made with any other sort of information about the actual violation while protecting their privacy so to me this is a sensible way for and it strikes the right balance, recognizing that there are very important public safety benefits but also transit, all the work we've been doing on transit orient developments and public transit, one of the main reasons why people say they ride or don't ride or stopped riding or were coming back to ride is, am I gonna get to my destination reliably and on time?

And one of the one of the major factors why that it's not reliable or on time in many cases will be exactly this kind of of parking in the street and that's so for our transit policy and therefore our housing policy and so much more, it is really critical that what sounds like a small issue is actually quite important for law enforcement housing and for transportation.

and the human is still the one making the decisions in the same exact way that they would have made otherwise.

It's simply that their capacity to review these cases has gotten bigger as a result of the technology. Did you have further question or comments Senator Ochoa-Bogh? Yeah. Figuring it out. Yeah.

So I appreciate the the the work on this. The when when we have a quorum, the recommendation will be to pass. There are no amendments on this bill. Mister Gonzales, would you like to close?

Just to tie up a couple of loose ends. So I represent Downtown Los Angeles, Koreatown, Chinatown. A lot of these areas are one of the most densest parts of the state. Remember, Los Angeles is a city of 4,000,000. The county is 10,000,000.

And those areas, because they're transitioning to more transit friendly busing areas and for folks on bikes, we're reducing some areas to one lane. And when you do that, that does clog the streets. When you do that, we're also the home right now to the World Cup, and so there's a lot of designated bus lanes as well. And so this is the way to be more preventative to that. Couple of background pieces here.

AB 917, Bloom from 2021, establishes the authority for all public transit agencies in the state to install forward facing cameras on public transit vehicles. So we've already had that existing bill. Secondarily, AB 361 war 2023 gave a similar authority to install an automated forward facing partner controlled device on city owned or district owned parking enforcement vehicles for the purpose of video imaging or parking violations occurring in bicycle lanes.

So that's the second part of the history of how this is infrastructure has already existed. This existing authority for camera enforcement expires on 01/01/2027.

So we want to continue the progress that Bill has made. And then just to reiterate some of the pieces here of this bill, it provides ways to reduce or waive any parking penalty with payment plans for community services. It's doing public outreach to provide information about the program for sixty days before issuing violations, and allows the agency to decline issuing a ticket if there's a video evidence of hardship. So that's also part of this bill.

And existing law also contains extensive privacy protections, which entails video evidence of violations can only be retained up to sixty days after the citation has been paid or at least six months after which images must be destroyed.

Video images do not contain evidence, have been destroyed after fifteen days, enforcing violations pursuant to AB 917. So this existing infrastructure, we've already passed in this house, which is why there's not a lot of amendments on it, but we're already sort of on track to that. And so with that, this bill is simple. When buses move, our communities move. AB 1837 keeps it that way.

There's no opposition to this bill, so let's not hit the brakes on progress. Thank you, and I respectfully ask your eye vote.

Alright. We are one shy of a quorum. So we when when we do achieve a quorum, the motion will be made as a due past recommendation. So thank you, Mister Gonzales. Assembly member Fong has item number eight, AB 2392.

Welcome, and please begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Mister Chair and senators. Last August, the Assembly Committee on Higher Education partnered with the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs to review the CSU's AI empowered initiative. In February 2025, the CSU system announced a public private initiative to become the nation's first and largest AI empowered university system. An element of this initiative included providing all 470,000 CSU students and 63,000 faculty and staff with access to CHAT GPT EDU.

A key finding from a joint oversight hearing was that AI tools including CHAT GPT EDU were being deployed without accompanying training being provided. In fact, current law does not require California's public higher education systems, the California Community Colleges, the California State University, or the University of California to provide training to students, faculty, or staff before deploying generative AI tools, nor does it establish any procurement standards or transparency requirements governing how these systems are selected and acquired.

Assembly Bill 2392 seeks to remedy the staff by convening a working group between our public higher education segments to develop responsible generative AI training procurement centers and provide training to our students, faculty, and staff. We have worked hard to engage stakeholders and to ensure that this establishes attainable standards that would benefit students, faculty, and staff across our segments, while also being mindful not to duplicate workload for the segments.

Here to testify in support is Austin Webster, representing the academic senate of the California Community Colleges.

Good morning, Chair and members. Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the academic senate for California Community Colleges here in support. AIS triple c recognizes that Gen AI has positive benefits to our faculty, our students, and our staff, including enhanced productivity, lesson planning, but its rapid deployment has outpaced institutional policies and created a documented gap between the usage and AI competency.

As the author just mentioned, joint oversight hearing in 2025 highlighted significant concerns regarding the lack of upfront training and clear privacy policies with major AI initiatives that were launched across the public segments. Many students and faculty remain uncertain about acceptable use, the boundaries of academic integrity, and how private data and prompts are collected, stored, and used by AI providers.

AB 2392's goals is to address these challenges. Training standards developed by the proposed work group will seek to clarify institutional and academic integrity policies, disclose data practices, and guide users on AI limitations, including the risk of inaccurate and misleading outputs. Additionally, the bill's procurement standards will help ensure that adopted Gen AI systems meet strict protections regarding risk assessment, safety monitoring, data mix and minimization, and labor standards. It also requires transparent written reporting to the legislature for any project that's already been, adopted.

By fostering a collaborative inter segmental approach to AI governments, AB 2392 ensures that technical innovation does not come at the expense of privacy, academic integrity, or proper preparation for our faculty, our staff, and most importantly our students.

A S triple c would like to thank the author for his efforts on this bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Are there any witnesses that wish to register their support for the bill? Before turning to the opposition, let's call the roll to establish a quorum.

Senators Cabaldon? Here. Cabaldon here. Searto?

Here.

Searto here. Gonzalez, McNerney? Here. McNerney here. Ochoa Bog?

Here. Ochoa Bog here. Padilla?

Here.

Padilla here. Reyes Umberg Weiner.

Alright. Everybody everyone's favorite June phrase, a quorum is present. Now we're wishing to register support.

Anna Maria Santiago with Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of Cal State student student association in support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Does anyone anyone wish to testify in opposition to the bill? Does anyone wish to register opposition? Seeing none, let's turn to the committee for any questions or comments.

Senator McNerney?

Hey. This sounds like a good idea. Thanks for bringing it forward. You know, AI is changing a lot of ways we're doing things, especially in education and actually asking the university, this is basically a study, ask the universities in California and community colleges to put together a plan for how the students are trained in AI and how AI can be used in a in a beneficial way.

I think that's gonna be an important step in making the educational system adjust itself to the presence of this new technology.

So I thank the author for bringing this forward.

Thank you.

Alright. Okay. It's been it's been there's a motion on the on the bill. I'm gonna support the bill today, in terms of the jurisdiction of this committee. I remain continue to have some skepticism about the overall the education part of the approach, having been both a faculty member at CSU and a community college vice chancellor.

Collab intersegmental collaboration is rarely accomplished by statutory mandate and, although I haven't been a member of the community college academic Senate, this is actually a very big ask to expect all three segments to be on the same page on a cutting edge technology with lots of controversy. So I'm I'm hopeful that it'll work, but and appreciate the amendments that were taken in Senate ed that don't precondition the adoption of any technology on the completion of this report in the first place.

I think that goes a long way. And so simply to note that when the motion as the motion has been made, it's motion with amendments, and those amendments are the amendments taken in the Senate education committee but referred to us for formal adoption. That's to remove the requirement that the working b working group be convened before providing the gen I gen AI system to provide the procurement report is no longer required before executing a contract and making other technical and clarifying changes.

So with that, Assembly member Fong? Senator Schoeburger, did you okay. Assembly member Fong, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Chair and senators. Really appreciate the comments and insights here today. And we're really looking at trying to provide this work group with all three segments of higher education. We know that having all three segments to collaborate, to work together on this cutting edge technology going forward, and so really make sure that we have training standards and to really make sure that we're keeping risk assessments and keeping everyone safe. So with that, look we're supposed to ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. So we have a motion on the bill, which do passes amendments to the committee on appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye. Saarto.

Aye. Saarto. Aye. Gonzales. McNerney.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Reyes, Umberg, Weiner. Five to zero.

Five to zero will place a call. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Okay. The consent calendar has been moved by vice Chair Sayarto.

The consent calendar is item file item five and file item 14. Please call the roll.

Senators Cabaldon.

Aye.

Cabaldon. Aye. Saarto. Aye. Saarto.

Aye. Gonzales. McNerney. Aye. Ochoboke.

Aye. Padilla. Aye. Reyes. Umberg.

Weiner.

Five to 0. We'll place that consent calendar on call. We're now gonna, take up the bills that we've already heard in order to play get a motion and a vote and a, a vote on those, beginning with AB 302 by Assembly member Bauer Kehan. Is there a motion? Moved by Senator Padilla.

Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended. Senators Cabaldon. Aye. Cabaldon. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Gonzales McNerney.

Aye. McNerney. Aye. Ochoboke. Choboke.

Aye. Padilla. Padilla. Aye. Reyes, Umberg, Weiner.

Five to zero on call.

Five to zero. That measure's on call. File item two, AB 175, Bauer Kehan. Is our motion?

So moved.

So moved by Vice Mayor Sayato. Please call the roll.

Motion is to pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Kavaldin. Aye. Kavaldin. Aye.

Saarto. Aye. Sayarto. Aye. Gonzales Mcgerny.

Aye. Mcgerny. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Reyes, Umberg, Weiner. Five to zero.

Five to zero. We'll place that measure on call. File item three.

Motion.

Is there a motion on AB 22007? It's moved by Senator Padilla. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to appropriation. Senators Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Saarto?

No.

Gonzales, McNerney? No. McNerney, aye. Ocho vote? Not really.

Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Reyes, Umberg, Weiner,

three to zero.

Three to zero. Place the measure on call. Item four, AB 2212. Is there a motion? Motion.

Moved by Senator Sayarto. Please call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriation. Senators Cabaldon?

Cabaldon, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Gonzales Mcnerny?

Aye.

Aye. Mcnerny, aye. Ochoa Bog? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye.

Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Reyes, Umberg Weiner, five to zero.

Five to zero. That measures on call. And finally, file item nine, AB 1881837 by Assembly member Gonzales. Is there a motion?

No.

It's been moved by Senator Padilla. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed. Senators Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Searto?

No. Saarto, no. Gonzales. Mcnurney? No.

McNerny, aye. Ochoa Bog? No. Chobog, no. Padilla?

Aye. Padilla, aye. Reyes, Umberg, Weiner? Three to

two. That measure's on call. We are awaiting authors. The committee's gonna stand in brief recess while we anticipate the arrival of authors. So we will we'll report back soon.

Thanks.

Alright. The Senate committee on privacy digital technologies and consumer protection will come back to order. And we are going to proceed to file item 17 by Assembly member Wilson, AB 1798. Welcome Assembly member Wilson, and please begin when you're ready.

Thank you. I'm pleased to present AB 1798. Now today, more Californians than ever are turning to genetic testing to better understand their health. These tools allow individuals to detect risks early, pursue preventive care, and make informed medical decisions. This is exactly the kind of proactive health conscious behavior we should be encouraging.

But instead, our current system creates risk and uncertainty. And that is why my bill, AB 1798 prohibits life and non healthy disability insurers from using non diagnostic genetic information to deny coverage or increase premiums. The bill also addresses the growing role of direct to consumer genetic testing, which is considered nonmedical and is not currently used in underwriting.

It prohibits insurers from seeking or using genetic information that individuals obtain on their own, ensuring that consumers remain in control of deeply personal data they chose to explore for their own health. At the same time, AB 1798 is carefully balanced.

And this type of policy is already being implemented in states like Florida. It does not prevent insurers from accessing medical history or asking about family history. It simply makes clear that genetic data, whether obtained directly or indirectly, cannot be used to make underwriting decisions. In other words, insurers can still evaluate the risk, but they cannot rely on the data that is uniquely sensitive, speculative nature, and often uncertain.

And I wanna know before I go into, some amends is that it's extremely important to to know that genetic data is fundamentally different from traditional medical data.

As emphasized by the American Medical Association, it is often reflects only a possibility, not a diagnosis. Many genetic markers indicate risk that may never materialize, and in many cases, the science is still evolving or correlational, not causational. And so I'd like to thank both the Chair and his committee staff for their collaboration on this bill and confirm I'll be accepting the committee amends.

I recognize that we won't be able to take them in this committee, and so we're still working on the technical data, sorry, the technical language. But the, basically, the amends, the spirit of the amends, note three things.

At no point is the full genome ever available, to insurers. That's extremely important given the fact that, that is not only sensitive to the individual but to their entire family. And that when the insurers are doing medically underwritten policies with the insured content consent, the insured can provide the results of genetic tests to the insurer to rule out an adverse finding, based on the medical file and that adverse finding adverse, like, underwriting.

And I know this was important to the Chair in considering that the point of privacy and consumer protections is having the person in control of their data. And if they're in control of their data, if they would like to share it, being allowed to do that.

And also, removing the 1.5 cap from Assembly that was given in Assembly committee. And so I so first of all, I thank the opposition for their continued engagement. They have been, from the moment that we introduced this bill, and I'm thankful that we're in a better place through that conversation.

And just noting that California law already limits what insurers can use when fairness demands it, such as prohibiting using characteristics like race or sexual orientation, even if statistically relevant, because civil rights outweigh purely accurate accurate accurate considerations. I've never messed that up.

if it's many times I've ever been on this bill. And that tells you I have not had enough caffeine today. Anyway, members, if we agree that people should not pay more or be denied coverage because of who they are, then we must also agree that they should not be penalized for what's written in their DNA.

And so this bill is about and has always been about balance, recognizing that innovation is amazing and leads to great successful outcomes, and that genetic testing also can lead to better health. But at the same time, we we as a state need to protect privacy, promote early detection, and reinforce trust in both our health care and our insurance system.

I'd like to now introduce my two witnesses, Alex Meixner, vice president of state policy with ALS Association, and Josephine Figueroa, deputy commissioner for the California Department of Insurance. We also have someone here for technical questions as well.

Welcome, and you'll each have two minutes.

Thank you very much, Mister chairman and members of the committee. My name is Alex Meichner. I'm the vice president of state policy for the ALS Association here in strong support of AB 1798. So, you know, Assemblymember Wilson just did a terrific job of laying out the case for the bill, so I'll spend a little bit of time talking about some of the, pushback that we've heard that I think might be a bit misguided. First, the contention that this bill would raise premiums.

We know that there is no evidence to say that this bill would do that, and we can say that with confidence because the state of Florida, another large state, has had a similar bill on the books working well for the past six years and has not seen any significant raise in premiums. Additionally, similar laws are on the books in other countries like Canada, Australia, you know, South Korea, England, France, you name it, and they are also seeing a strong result.

Secondarily, it makes sense to look at the fact that if taking away the ability for insurers to use genetic information would raise premiums, then premiums should have fallen over these last several years as insurers have had the ability to use those, that genetic information, and we've seen no evidence of premiums falling. So if they didn't fall, then they likely wouldn't rise either. Second point, one of the things that we've heard is that genetic information is relevant medical information, and that simply isn't the case.

These are two broadly different categories of info. When we're talking about genetic information, we're talking about speculative data on what may or may not happen. Genetic tests generally cannot tell you with accuracy whether you're going to develop a certain condition, when you might develop that condition, and when and how severe that condition might be.

They can also not tell you if, let's say, in the ten to twenty to thirty years it might take for you to finally develop that disease, there might be medical advances that might turn a fatal condition into a chronic one or cure it altogether. Those advances need to be taken into account as well.

We can't price in surety of a fatal condition when in fact medical science may take that from the always fatal category to the chronic or cured category in the ensuing years. Finally, I think it's important to to take a look at what's at stake here, not only for folks who might have some concern about genetics regarding potential ALS gene mutations, but also for all of us. Getting your genetic testing used to be very niche. Right?

It was done when ordered by a doctor only in some in some cases.

It is becoming much much cheaper. It is will soon be the standard of care to which point we will all have our genetic codes living in our medical files.

I'd ask you to wrap up your two minutes and forty seconds.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. I urge a strong support for this bill.

Thank you. Figueroa.

Good morning, Chair cabal and members of the committee. Josephine Figueroa, deputy commissioner and legislative director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara. As a proud sponsor of AB 1795, commissioner Lara would like to thank assemblymember Wilson for her leadership in authoring this important measure which protects californians genetic information in life and disability insurance underwriting. Genetic information is fundamentally different from traditional underwriting factor.

It is immutable, deeply personal, and often only indicates a remote or uncertain possibility of future diseases rather than a reasonably anticipated risk.

It also raises unique privacy concerns as genetic testing does not just reveal information about one person, it also provides details about the blood relatives connecting the whole family. This makes protecting privacy even more important than with most other medical data. Most people do not worry about facing discrimination because of their blood pressure or cholesterol results, but they do have concerns when it comes to genetic testing information.

Californians should never have to fear that genetic testing results will be used against them when applying for life or disability insurance. Instead, individuals should be encouraged to get tested early and take proactive steps to protect their health.

Early testing not only helps people stay healthier, but it also contributes to stronger, more sustainable risk pools for insurance. Federal law already prohibits genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment. AB 1798 extends this same longitude in genetic testing of any type that predict the potential for future disease when performed in the absence of symptoms or clinical diagnosis. These are tests taken by healthy individuals and insurers will continue to have full access to all other traditional underwriting tools.

And importantly, there have been no disruptions to insurance markets in other jurisdictions that have adopted similar protections.

Insurers can still underwrite effectively and remain profitable without using genetic testing results from healthy people with symptoms. On behalf of insurance commissioner, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you both. Does anyone wish to register support for the bill? So please approach the stand up mic and share with us your name, your affiliation, if any, but not your lobbying firm, and your position on the bill.

Chloe King on behalf of the children's specialty care coalition in support. Thank you.

Chris Khan representing the ALS network in support.

Park Manetti in support on behalf of Oakland privacy.

Gilbert Lara on behalf of Biocom, in support.

Alright. Thank you to the witnesses in support. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. There are two witnesses in opposition.

If you would provide them with the the witness table. Welcome and you will each have two minutes as well.

Yeah. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Matt Powers with the association of California life and health insurance companies. I'm here today in opposition to seventeen ninety eight, but want to thank you, Mister Chair, your staff, the assemblywoman, her staff, the sponsors, for continuing to engage with us on the proposal.

Appreciate the conversation around, amendments. We haven't seen any of those, so I'm gonna limit my comments to the bill in print. We're certainly not opposed to the idea that genetic information is sensitive. We absolutely believe that information should be treated with the strictest confidentiality. But in the life and disability insurance context, genetic information is not fundamentally different from other medical information with predictive value, such as cholesterol, EKG, HIV status, or family history.

We also strongly push back on the idea that making predictions is somehow unfair. Prediction is the basis of insurance. For medically underwritten policies, everything we consider is predictive. Genetic testing

clearly has predictive validity. Everything we consider is predictive. Genetic testing clearly has predictive value. Otherwise, doctors would not recommend lifestyle changes, additional monitoring, or follow-up testing based on those results. That said, carriers must follow the science.

More importantly, I want to focus on the arguments that you have heard about fears of insurance discouraging people from participating in genetic research. The reality is that many people are deeply confused about the role of genetics in insurance. In many of these largely hypothetical surveys, the main reason people decline genetic testing are fear of the results themselves, not the logistic and logistical barriers. General fear of discrimination rates lower, and in many studies, there's no clear distinction between general discrimination and insurance discrimination.

But rather than litigate this, we propose amendments to completely remove the research results from insurance consideration.

As drafted, the bill still allows those results to be considered for policies above $1,500,000 That means even if this bill passes, as it is in print, Californians may still receive a generalized disclosure before participating in research stating that participation in the study could affect their insurance. Given that much of the concern around this bill is focused on not discouraging groundbreaking research, we agreed that research results should be completely off the table.

However, when a consumer know is choosing a medically underwritten policy, we need to know what the patient's doctor knows. This is critical. But if consumers are concerned about fully opening their medical file, there are other options, including accelerated underwriting, guaranteed issue products, and group coverage where there is no traditional medical underwriting.

I was like, do I have to ask you to come to a close?

Sorry. But I'll turn it over to my colleague here just respectfully, ask, for amendments to this to allow access to the medical file.

You're also over, but within one bill, we try to provide reciprocal. But if you're listening for another bill, we're not going to $2.40 for everybody, but thank you very much.

Alright.

To the second witness.

Thank you. I hope to provide today a unique and balanced perspective because I've spent almost equal time in my career as head of underwriting, chief medical officer for an insurer, but also as a practicing neurologist taking care of patients for over ten years. At the heart and beginning of the life insurance application process is the process of informed consent. This gets to the very basic principles of life insurance underwriting.

The first is that this is an entirely voluntary process to produce to purchase a financial instrument that may be worth millions of dollars.

The second is that the very basics of pricing the product are based on an individual's life expectancy. And the most important principle which has lasted for two hundred years, which this bill would completely upend, is that life insurance underwriting is based on a free, open, transparent exchange of information between applicant and the insurer. Why is this aspect so critically important? One, it's the basis of the affordability of the product. How much should we be charging you?

How much should we be reserving if we have no idea what medical medical information that you are withholding? Second, it gives us confidence to offer policies that are larger in nature to protect the entire amount that a family may have earned throughout their course. But perhaps most importantly to me, it allows us to be fair in our risk assessments. You see, when I look at applications, I see that individual with genetic conditions.

But right next to that application is a mother of three with multiple sclerosis or a police officer with a spinal cord injury.

None of these individuals asked for their condition. None of these individuals is that condition now reversible. It's a heart of them. Under what system would it be possibly fair to charge these individuals who all have the same life expectancy wildly different premiums?

And what's even worse is that those individuals who were open, honest, and disclosed that information in the life insurance process would now bear the burden of the premium for all of these conditions that we are now carving out, not only for California, but every individual who decides to come to California to purchase a policy which would be deemed unsustainable and unfair in every other state in the union.

For the very first time that I'm aware of, California would be establishing different classes in tiers of medical privacy in life insurance underwriting. We'd be telling individuals with mental health conditions, with prior substance abuse, with dementia, that your level of privacy is now somehow worth less than an individual with a medical condition. At the heart of an informed consent is the principle that a consumer owns their own medical information. This bill would strip that from the individual California consumers. In particular, how so?

If we had an individual there who ended up, because of a concerning test, had it be negative genetic testing, they would not be allowed to bring that to the process.

Thank you. Alright. Are there other witnesses who wish to provide, register their opposition to the bill? Again, name, affiliation if any, no lobbying firm, and your position.

Good morning. Sherry McHugh, representing the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers. We are opposed unless amended and look forward to continuing to work with the author to see if we can address our concerns. Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Loper on behalf of the American Council of Life insurers. Similarly, I oppose unless amended, but look forward to reviewing the amendments discussed today.

Right. Thank you. If there are no other witnesses, then we'll turn to the committee for questions or comments. Mr. Insurance Committee Chair, would you like to lead us off?

Thank you, Mister chairman, and and thank you for your, work on this and the committee's work on this and to the author for bringing the bill and for your willingness to, accept the principled, amends taken here in committee.

One of the things that we grapple with with the advent and the benefit of the application of new tech and the insights that it brings is also the challenge that from a policy and equity and justice standpoint and from a social responsibility and moral standpoint that we get the balance right. And it isn't just purely due respect to the concerns legitimately raised by the opposition from an operational standpoint. They're simply not rote and they're simply not clinical. Right?

There are other broader considerations here that have to be put together in context to make sure that we get this right. There are concerns, and I argued this, you know, certainly in my own committee, there are distinctions, and you could apply it in the realm of privacy to the prior and existing practice of evaluating and underwriting medically underwriting, whether or not to you know, how you price risk and how you price a policy. That is dramatically changed, and it impacts privacy rights. Right?

We have a a window that is broader and prospectively much broader, even potentially abusive if we don't get this right.

There is a place for this to be available to inform folks, but there is also a place to protect the individual liberties and privacy and reasonable expectation thereof of anybody who is who is waiving and consenting to their medical chart to be examined. So I think that the amends that are suggested here are appropriate and responsible, and I think the bill should move forward. Thank you, Mister chairman.

Thank you. Senator Mcnurney.

Well, I thank the author for bringing this forward and for working with the committee. I wanna tell you a little bit about, an experience I had, about a decade ago. I was in the House of Representatives, and we were debating the affordable care act, and it was very controversial. One of the issues was, do we want to include preexisting conditions? So are people that are suffering from diabetes, are they gonna be excluded from health insurance?

And if not, how do you price that so that it's fair and the way to prices is to make the pool of people bigger and bigger. And that passed. We passed that bill. It had an incredible effect on American ability to have health insurance. But we paid a huge political price for that decision, and we still do.

And I see this in a similar light. You mentioned genetic data is very different from other health data, and it is. If you already have a preexisting condition, then that's taken into account in your life insurance policy as it should be. But genetic data is different than that, in my opinion. Does it imply risk?

Does it imply that, when, that does it exclude the opportunity for new, new advances in medical technology and medical science? And I think it would. So I appreciate that the author is still open to amending if there's ideas that help the build, but I'm gonna be supporting this at this point. Thank you.

Alright. I have had extensive conversations about the author, and this comes from a great deal of expertise and experience. And I also wanna say a lot of what the opposition said, probably most of it, I think, is is maybe right. I'm not sure it's right now, though, and that's part of the challenge that we're facing here. I know I was an early sign up for ancestry.com.

I've just uploaded my genetic data, all kinds of other things. And I'm not sure I agree in the long term that genetic data is necessarily more sensitive than the STD test. I might have taken, you know, after a night out of the club. Right? There there there's a lot of things in our medical records I don't want to be shared.

So I'm not sure. Like, categorically, it's it's more sensitive. And the prediction issues, I think, are still to be resolved there. If I get a there's a if an MRI or a CT scan shows a tumor and we don't know if it could turn turn malignant, then that is that's probabilistic. It's not for sure one way or the other.

And so and and it may differ in the percentages compared to a genetic test, but it's not fundamentally different. So I could certainly imagine a world in which this information, some of it, not the full genome and and not some of the other genetic tests that are out there, could be useful even on the life insurance side.

At the same time though, this is a societal question, and yes, the information could be helpful, but we're gonna hear another bill later, and I don't know if it's appropriate for I mean, would life insurance be rated slightly more precisely if you knew that I wasn't breaking properly in my vehicle? And couldn't life insurance benefit just a little bit more if it had my telematics data?

If the life insurance company had access to another bill that we're gonna have up later, couple on ticketing for concerts, it knew I was attending a lot of concerts late at night, which might suggest there's a fear of being overrun by a crowd or not sleeping enough.

Is that relevant? So there I mean, there's no the this isn't the insurance committee, but it is a committee about, like, how much of our privacy, should we be giving up? And that is a that is a policy choice, and it is one that that evolves over time. And, there are things in the life insurance, data that are that twenty years ago people said absolutely not. Now they're normal.

This may be that in a few years from now, but it isn't today. And it does matter because that anxiety about it is leading some people to not test, in ways that would be, potentially very important for their own health.

And so I personally think that there's there is, as I said, some value to the what the opposition is arguing in many ways, actually, but this requires social and cultural change as well, as well as examining the trade offs about which data, how perfect is the is my life insurance record compared to my privacy rights, society is not ready for genetic information to be a primary determinant.

I think also just more technically that there's a reason why the genome language is in there is it's that that level of genetic information is never necessary, for this purpose and and encourages fishing expeditions and and relative matching and other the sort of things I didn't think enough about when I signed up for Ancestry myself. So the genomic information more generally isn't appropriate.

And we're still learning even in the industry, and in and in medicine about things like polygenic risk scores, that can be for a specific condition, but they can also be for general lifestyle recommendations, both of which would appear in the medical record. We just don't have the the tools, the definitions, the protections that are there at a scale to do really anything but what the Assembly member is proposing to do in this bill. And so I intend to support it today.

Of course, encourage, you know, continue to work with the with industry to help us get down that path, over time, but this seems to me a a well tailored, well balanced, solution to where we and society and patients are right now and what the need is for additional for folks to get out and get the testing that can help to save their lives and make their lives better. So with that, is there we we can't take a alright.

Assemblymember Wilson, would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your comments, both to you, for this committee, as well as Chair Padilla. Noting that something that the opposition noted that I wanna bring up, because one, I appreciate the dialogue that we've had. This is an important industry that really is there for families at a dark time at the loss of a loved one. One of the things that was noted was about multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury or other things.

Those are about disclosure. And I would say if somebody had some type of testing that was a diagnosis even before they got the chart, they would be required to disclose. And so nothing in our bill for both the current language or proposed amended would change that. And so here we are standing at the intersection of innovation and policy, and the choice we make today will shape how Californians experience the future of medicine.

California has always led the nation in recognizing that innovation must be matched with responsibility.

As genetic technology advances, so too must our safeguards. And as the Chair, accurately noted, as it advances, it also evolves in our, relationship to it, including our policy relationship to it. And so AB 1798 is balanced. It ensures a future of trust, access, and protection, not fear. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And thanks to all the witnesses. Is there a motion on the bill? It's been moved by Senator Padilla. The motion's do passed.

The amendments will be worked out for in on the way to the Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to appropriations. Senators Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Saarto, Gonzales, McNerney?

McNerney, aye. Ochoa, Vogue, Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Reyes, Umberg, Weiner.

Three to zero.

Three to zero. We'll place that measure on call.

Alright. We're continuing in file order with, file item six, AB 1349 by Assembly member Brian.

I think he wants to go 1883.

Oh, sorry. We're gonna take 1883 up first, which is file item seven due to the travel, timing for a witness, I believe. So AB 1883, Mister Assembly member Ryan, please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and senators. I'm proud to present AB 1883, a bill we've been working on for two years, which will prohibit the use of the most invasive forms and potentially discriminatory surveillance systems in the workplace. Before I begin, I wanna thank the Chair and the committee consultants for working with me and my team, happily willing to accept the amendments. Workplace surveillance is not a recent phenomenon, but today's workplace surveillance tools differ in their scale, their speed, and invasiveness.

Employers used to have to monitor video feeds to track workers.

Now AI and tech advancements allow them to compile massive amounts of data points and analyze them in real time. Current technology includes devices to monitor worker speech, collect neural data, and systems that use emotional recognition. Employers can use these surveillance data use this surveillance data to predict behavior and at times, punish workers for exercising their protected rights. Employer surveillance takes various forms. Call center workers, for example, may be required to use tools that imply employ emotional recognition and generative AI to analyze interactions.

These systems send constant nudges to alter worker behavior and provide data to supervisors for corrective measures. Workers face risk of bias, discrimination, and error, usually without knowing they are being monitored in this way or how the algorithms assess their tone, their accent, their word choice. This bill prohibits the use of the most unreliable and potentially discriminatory tools of surveillance, emotion recognition tools, and surveillance tools that collect neural data.

Joining me to testify are Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation and Nicole Pion, a teleservice care representative at Kaiser Permanente.

Welcome, and you'll each have two minutes.

Hello, Mister Chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, a proud cosponsor of AB 1883. The surveillance technology that exists today in today's workplace is clearly more powerful than ever before, but the principles guiding the creation and the need for worker centered guardrails remain consistent, and labor has been at the forefront of making workplaces safer and more humane for decades. And today, it's absolutely no different.

The Assembly member just described how emotion recognition methods are conducted on call center workers at MetLife and at Humana, and shortly, my colleague will share her lived experiences dealing with these often inaccurate tools.

But unfortunately, these tools do exist outside of call center workers. Developers such as Morphcast and Hume AI sell emotion recognition software products capable of monitoring Zoom meetings and worker interactions to provide managers with a real time analysis of a worker's positivity or excitement throughout the day. And not only are these practices invasive, but they are likely due to to discriminate workers who fail to arbit who fail to meet arbitrary and potentially racially biased communication standards.

And as we know, these tools are not free of biases, yet employers still deploy them in workplaces across the state with a false sense of confidence and perceived accuracy. In addition to monitoring worker emotions, employers also have access to tools that purportedly are capable of analyzing neural data to determine if a worker is tired, concentrating, or if they're stressed.

Developers like Emotive sell hardware to allow employers to understand a worker's true mental and cognitive state, all for the purposes of improving ROI, and supposedly improving and supporting worker morale. These surveillance methods rely on questionable tools to make bold claims of a person's mental state, and the likelihood of an inaccurate reading is very high. Yet, despite these questionable outcomes, workers are still susceptible to employers claiming they can understand their emotional and mental state.

With recent amendments, AB 1883 prohibits employers from using these AI powered tools. AB 1883 does not prevent employers from using actual surveillance methods and tools for safety purposes.

Tools that provide interpretations of a worker's emotional state does not create a safe working environment. It creates an invasive and dystopian workplace. And for these reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. And welcome.

Thank you. My name is Nicole, and I'm a full time TSR teleservice care team representative at Kaiser Permanente a a c c advice and care center in Sacramento. And I have been there for four years. I'm here today to testify in support of AB 1883. My colleagues and I are one of the first critical line, links between patients and medical care systems.

Our number one top priority is high quality patient care for all. We promote access to care in everything we do, which is essential and critical to preventive care and early detection, chronic disease management, and promoting overall health equity. We as a whole as TSRs are concerned about Kaiser's recently released emotion recognition software that is designed to help agents as myself identify areas for improvement with empathy and sympathy in which you are scored on each and every call.

It's a clear barrier to the high quality of patient care that we provide. In my experience, I have a naturally hoarse voice my entire life, as I'm sure you guys can tell me speaking now.

I provide top notch care and have a great rapport with patients, but the software continuously responds to my voice tone by telling me that I lack emotional empathy and give suggestions on how I can correct it throughout the call with pops up pop ups. I feel it is very discriminatory, but it also seems almost impossible to avert the real time feedback from an AI program. I know I provide superb care to every patient.

This makes it so frustrating, not to mention very distracting when you are on with a member and distracted that you can miss pertinent information that they give to you that can ultimately cause a delay in care. Imagine if that was your loved one or if that was yourself.

It is so disheartening, the fact that I'm being judged by artificial intelligence for something beyond my control, my natural born voice since a child. Emotion recognition software does not serve California's health care needs. It is a clear barrier to high quality patient care, and it's destructive to the work environment. Thank you.

Thanks for being with us today. Are there other, witnesses who wish to register their support for the bill? So please come to the stand up mic and share with us your name, your affiliation of any, not your lobbying firm, and what your position on the bill is.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals in strong support.

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

Good morning, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California, proud co sponsor of the bill, as well as here in Sip on behalf of the engineers and scientists of California Unite here at Utility Workers Union of America, California Conference Board of Machinists, and, the Amalgamated Transit Union, all in support. Thank you.

Violet Spidler expressing support on behalf of Tech Equity Action. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, con members. Tracy Rosenberg expressing support on behalf of Oakland privacy.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Brooke Brennan in support on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Privacy Rights Coalition.

Mister Chair and members, Brandon Chu on behalf of SCIU California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Good morning, Mister Chair and senators. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters and the Omidyar Network in support. Thank you.

Good morning, members. Carmen Balber, executive director of consumer watchdog in support.

Nelson anyone else in support? Alright. Witnesses in opposition, we have space for two lead witnesses up at the witness table. Welcome, and you each will have two minutes.

Good morning. I am Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition to AB 1883. While I appreciate the author taking amendments, there are still considerable concerns with the bill. I want to raise three specific problems with the bill. First, AB 1883 defines worker to include independent contractors.

I want to again reemphasize that independent contractors are not employees. They are not part of the employer's workforce in a way this bill assumes, and applying an employee style style surveillance restrictions to a contractual, arm's length business relationships creates confuse confusion about who owes what duty to whom. This rewrites the terms of private contracts the legislature was never a party to, relationships parties freely entered into, and freely negotiated. Second, the bill includes a private right of action.

That means it's not regulators making case by case joint judgment calls.

It's plaintiff's attorneys and possibly tens of thousands of cases deciding what counts as a violation. Combined with the bill's fake definitions, that is a recipe for costly, unpredictable litigation, not compliance, particularly for small businesses. Third, consider what thiS Bill actually bans in practice. Under SB 553, employers are required to have effective means to alert employees to a threat in real time for workplace violence prevention plans.

Many use AI enabled security systems that detect raised voices, distress, escalating aggression, and facial recognition in workplaces or parking lots in order to trigger an alert before a situation turns violent.

This is precisely the kind of emotional inference AB 1883 prohibits. ThiS Bill would ban the exact safety mechanisms SB 553 requires employers to have. For these and other reasons, we urge your no vote.

Hi, Chair Cabaldon, members of the committee. I'm Jake Parker with Security Industry Association. Our MEMBERS INCLUDE MORE THAN 200 COMPANIES BASED IN CALIFORNIA PROVIDE SAFETY AND SECURITY PRODUCTS IN WORKPLACES THROUGHOUT STATE LIKE SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, TRANSIT FICILITIES AND OTHERS. WE APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS MADE SO FAR INTENDED TO CONTINUE ALLOW TECHNOLOGIES TO BE USED FOR SAFETY PURPOSES but even with the latest amendment, it still outright bans certain technologies.

While the language also suggests there are certain safety technologies that do not qualify for the exception, this really just defeats the purpose of it.

Specifically, we're concerned that with the breadth of the ban on any technology that makes inferences about an individual's emotional state, that this could encompass AI driven workplace safety technologies that are widely deployed. Modern security systems include smart sensors and video features that CAN PROVIDE ALERTTS TO STAFF WHEN A POTENTIAL EMERGENCY SITUATION IS HAPPPENING. THIS ALLOWS PROACTIVE RESPONSES VERSUS Just SIMPLY RECORDING VIDEO. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT CAN BE CONFIGURED TO TRIGGER ALERTS.

A distress call for help, especially in an unintended area like a parking garage or a college campus, aggression against nursing staff in a hospital room, physical violence against an employee, a fight starting in a school hallway, and also detecting visual signs of medical distress like heat exhaustion or falls.

Even though these technologies may be considered to detect emotional indicators, there is a very clear and important difference between THESE THAT ARE DESIGNED SOLELY FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY PURPOSES AND USED IN AREAS WHERE WORKERS ARE COMBINED WITH, EMPLOYEES OR OTHERS AND YOU CAN'T Really SEPARATE THEM, VERSUS OTHERS THAT MIGHT MEASURE INDICATORS OF PERFORANCE OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES at their output in general disposition, all the things the proponents have mentioned concerns about. So we appreciate the recognition of the importance of safety tools.

However, the bill must be clarified to ensure that no tools addressing workplace safety issues or preventing worse workplace violence are prohibited. This way, you could actually address this exception, and fix this issue without changing any of the stated intent of the bill in any way. We urge you not to advance the bill unless those issues are are addressed.

Thank you to you both. Witnesses wishing to register their opposition to the bill.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Chris McCallie here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. CJAC is respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Jim lights on behalf of the California airports council, we are also opposed unless amended.

Good morning. Betsy Armstrong on behalf of the county health executives association, respectful opposition.

Good morning, kendra begley on behalf of the California Associations of Recreation parks districts and city of San Marcos in opposition.

Good morning or early afternoon Chair and members, Melissa Kosachuk with western growers And we align our comments with those provided by cal chamber in opposition. Looking forward to seeing how those amends shape up. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the California moving and storage association as well as the California transit association in opposition, and look forward to continuing our conversations with the author and sponsors.

Good morning, Chair and members. Robert Boykin with Technet in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and members. Eric Blair on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, currently opposed. Appreciate the amendments by author and sponsor and continue to look at it. Thank you.

Jean Harris here today on behalf of the urban counties of California. I'd like to align my comments with my colleague at CSAC.

On behalf of the Rural County representatives of California, align my comments with CSAC.

Good morning, Chair and members. Jacob Brent with the California retailers association in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of prism and the counties of Kern and Fresno in opposition.

Good morning. Matt Easley on behalf of the California chapters of the Associated General Contractors in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Ophelia Segghetti with the California Special Districts Association in opposition and respectful opposition, and I've also been asked to register in opposition on behalf of the California the Association of California School Administrators. Good morning, Chair members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and also on behalf of the Self Storage Association in respect of all position. Thank you.

Good morning. Sherry McHugh representing California Credit Unions respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you.

Mister Chair and members, Don Gilbert on behalf of San Francisco International Airport. Opposed unless amended to exclude commercial airports. Thanks.

Megan Loper on behalf of the California Distributors Association, in opposition.

Good morning. Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials. We appreciate the amendments we'll be reviewing it, but currently opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Farooq on behalf of California Hospital Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair members. Apologies. I missed the support testimony. Just wanted to register the support from California Nurses Association in support of this bill. Thank you.

Seeing no further testimony, we'll just turn to the committee.

Let me first, though, just to summarize the amendments that are that are that the authors agreed to accept that will be taken in the labor committee, which if the bill passes out of this committee, the the amendments will be processed there just due to the timing of multiple committees this week and those those amendments do substantially narrow the bill as the author has indicated to remove several of the prohibitions in the bill to focus it specifically and exclusively on inferences or predictions about an individual's emotional state or collecting neural data.

All the other provisions related to, facial recognition and other and other limitations are would not be in the bill any longer, as well as some tightening of the language on the on the federal federal contracts and federal laws. Those are the principal amendments that are that are in the package today. So with that, members of the committee, questions or comments or a motion?

Alright. It's been moved by Senator Padilla. Senator McNerney.

Well, I think the author, I have a bill that's similar to this in many ways, and it's it's important to have technology sort of corralled and useful to to provide benefits, not to provide surveillance and workplace potential harassments. I I can't I'm gonna have to support this bill. I I I appreciate the author. And that you're willing to take amendments also, I think, is very important. This is the process by which we improve our bills.

Thank you.

Further discussion or questions? Alright. I'm also gonna support the bill today. I I think there there remains some some of the outstanding questions about this relationship to other laws that the legislature has enacted with respect to safety. My, my my hope and expectation is the the author and the sponsor will continue to work on those issues.

They are they are not trivial, they are important, but the bill has has come a long way, and it and it's really focused on on on this important area.

I mean, we have a lot of these kind of bills in committee where there may be something different in a few years, but this is a period where where, you know, we are passing other legislation telling AI agents to not be so sycophantic because they they just can't so too many of them can't seem to function in the world without excessively complimenting and praising and giving telling us whatever we want to hear.

There I don't think the general public is in the in the place where they could feel that they can trust AI at this point to be able to accurately and without discrimination assess, for actionable purposes the emotional state of a human being. And so this is a this is a a very narrow measure. I should also add the amendments also apply the apply this only to artificial intelligence, tools, not to all, surveillance.

So it's intended to to to be in that spot where the both the technology and the culture and society are changing, and it could be a different story in several years from now. But as as of now, the technology isn't there to be able to accomplish this. Hope the author will continue to work on the the safety issues.

If there is a fight on the floor, that that that is that is you don't need a you don't need somebody's emotional state if their punch is being is being thrown in order to determine that you need to take some action. And so let's we let's be as precise about what the potential challenges are, but appreciate the author's work on the bill I'm gonna support today as well.

We have a motion by Senator Padilla. Please call the roll. Oh, sorry. Brian, would you like to close?

Absolutely. In listening to the opposition, I'm reminded of a Benjamin Franklin quote, which was something along the lines of those who would give up essential liberty under the guise of temporary security deserve neither. This bill has been narrowed to prohibit the use of the most invasive, least reliable, and most discriminatory tools available today. It is about protecting people and keeping workers safe, and therefore keeping all of our privacy safe, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to labor, public employment, and retirement. Senators Cabaldon?

Cabaldon, aye. Saarco, Gonzales, McNerney? Aye. McNerney, aye. Ochoa Bog, Padilla?

Aye.

Aye. Padilla, aye. Reyes, Umberg, Weiner.

That was three to zero. I'll place that measure on call and proceed next to item six by Assembly member Brian AB 1349.

That was three to zero. I'll place that measure on call and proceed next to item six by Assembly member Brian AB 1349.

For witnesses purposes, we are having passed the hour of 11AM, just to maintain our progress on the hearing. If I can please ask all witnesses to not make good morning oh, I mean, good afternoon jokes. Let's let's use all the time on policy issues if you don't mind.

Assemblymember Bryan, welcome.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and Senate colleagues. I'm here to present AB1349. I first wanna begin by thanking the committee consultants for their incredible work on this bill. In addition to the Department of Justice, who provided amendments over the weekend and met with us for hours and hours and hours to make sure that we, got them right. After literally, after meeting with the DOJ, I went to a concert at the Hollywood Bowl, the roots picnic.

I saw De La Soul, the roots, t Aye, bun b, and Nas, some of my favorite rap artists. And I reflected on when we bought the tickets for this show. When my friends and I were buying tickets to The Roots Picnic at the Hollywood Bowl, we checked online, we saw how much they cost, and then it freaked us out. And then we saw somewhere else that they actually weren't on sale for another week.

And we did some investigating and found out that this was a deceptive website selling speculative tickets.

Tickets they did not have yet for a concert that had not gone on sale yet at a price greater than what they would eventually go on sale for. This bill bans that practice. It essentially bans that practice. It's a harmful practice for consumers. It's also harmful for venues.

Because in the most extreme cases, fans show up to venues believing that they've bought in a ticket, leaving especially the small venues on the hook for having to turn them away because that ticket isn't real. AB1349 also bans websites that mimic official event platforms and confuse consumers by

using terms like sold out, consumers by using terms like sold out before tickets have even gone on sale. It increases the penalties for violators to make sure that consumers are always at the front of mind. This bill prioritizes transparency. It protects consumers. It supports fans and artists and the experiences that we all share.

With me to testify is Trevor Swenson, the founder of Dynamic Talent International, and Joe Rinaldi, managing partner of the Music Box in Downtown San Diego.

Welcome to you both, and you at least have two minutes.

Chair and Members, I'm Joe Rinaldi, president of the National Independent Venue Association's California chapter, more than 650 independent venues, promoters, festivals, and the small businesses that make California's independent live entertainment economy possible.

Excuse me. Is the microphone on?

First, I'd like to thank the Chair of the Committee, the Assemblymember, Bryan, and his team for the many hours of thoughtful engagement on this bill, including conversations over the weekend. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to continue working through these issues together. I also wanna be clear about who we are. Our members are not Live Nation or Ticketmaster. We're independent venues, independent promoters, and independent festivals in the communities across California.

We are the local theaters, music halls, clubs, and event spaces that compete every day against the largest players in our industry. Our members have consistently advocated for more competition, more transparency, and stronger consumer protections because that's what allows independent businesses to thrive. We are proud to support AB1349 because speculative ticketing and deceptive resale practices continue to harm consumers, artists, and independent venues alike. But we also know these platforms have become incredibly sophisticated.

Their business models often rely on technology and practices that make enforcement difficult and allow bad actors to stay one step ahead of regulators.

We've already seen why that matters. Arizona enacted HB 2194 to prohibit speculative ticketing. The sale of tickets a seller does not actually possess, yet despite that prohibition, platforms such as StubHub continued to face criticism of respective listings, prompting Arizona lawmakers to publicly call on resale platforms to comply with the state's consumer protection laws and stop exploiting loopholes that undermine enforcement. That experience is instructive to California.

As this bill continues to move forward, we believe there are several provisions including those related to transferability and other implementation details that deserve continued collaboration.

Our goal is to make sure California gets it right the first time and closes the kind of loopholes that have limited the effectiveness of similar laws elsewhere.

I ask you to wrap up, and I, I, I, I think I'm hearing the magic words at the end, but just to be sure.

We appreciate the author's willingness to continue working with all stakeholders, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote so we can continue advancing this important consumer protection measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome to the Metamers. My name is Trevor Swenson. I, again, am the CEO of Dynamic Talent International, and we do have offices here in Sacramento, California. We're a boutique agency that books everything from small little venues all the way up to stadium level artists. I am pro capitalism in support of companies making revenue with great ideas through innovation in the marketplace.

Speculative thinking has become a problem since starting my journey in the entertainment industry, and the outlines of the current bill, AB1349, is crucial to control over, handing in, the end of that situation. When a secondary platform allows sellers to list inventory that they do not actually hold, consumers suffer. Just look at what happened last two weeks with the World Cup. It's been an absolute tragedy with that. The bill says one thing, you cannot sell a seat until you actually have it.

It targets the scheme. When an event goes on sale or is about to go on sale, the practice of holding the tickets that has not even been purchased is removing them from the inventory should be stopped. The artists, groups, and the event doing the work are creating the buzz that generate the ticket revenue. And then when the art when the entity steps in, takes the tickets, holds the tickets, the artist and the entity does not receive that actual revenue of the upsell of that event.

Major genre, that my agency works with is Japanese and Korean markets, where in those markets, scalping is illegal.

It's a highly regulated aspect where they can't actually do it in those countries, and it's been very well controlled and received by the public. We appreciate the committee's work on this bill, and we look forward to continuing the work, with this the rest of this. And again, thank you everybody for having me.

Thanks to you both. Are there is there anyone in that wishes to register up support for the bill? Please come forward to the mic.

Hello. Kendra Begley on behalf of the city Thousand Oaks in support.

Miss Chair, Members, James Jack on behalf of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness. We removed our opposition based on the amendments currently in print and now support. Thank you.

Jordan Curley on behalf of the Music Artist Coalition and deep appreciation to the author and the Chair for their work.

Jim Cornett, owner of Parlows, The Startler Room and Cafe Colonial Small Capacity Independent Venues in support.

Randy Nichols from the National Independent Talent Organization in support.

Connor Gussman on behalf of SAG-AFTRA in support.

Gabriel Dacto with the San Francisco Venue Coalition in support.

John Gungeon of the Independent Venue Channel 24 in support.

Alex Torres here on behalf of Hot Hunk Tavern in Novato and Sonoma as well as San Diego Venues, The Belley of Botswana Beach in support. Thank you.

Ross Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Arts Advocates in support. Thank you.

With that, we'll turn to opposition. Are there two lead witnesses in opposition to AB1349? Welcome, and each of you will also have two minutes.

Chair and Members, thank you for having us. My name is Juanita Martinez, and I'm here today on behalf of California Live Events Equity Alliance. CLIA is a consumer facing organization whose members support affordable access to live events and fair competitive ticket marketplace. California continues to play a leading role in ongoing antitrust litigation involving the ticketing industry, and the governor has recently proposed additional resources for the attorney general to continue their important work.

For that reason, we believe all ticketing legislation should be evaluated through the lens of how it may affect ongoing litigation and future remedies.

As policymakers, we should be careful not to inadvertently codify business practices that are currently being challenged or undermine California's consumer protections and antitrust enforcement efforts. Based on the recent amendments, CLIA believes the bill is moving more into a consumer friendly direction. We are particularly encouraged by provisions addressing speculative ticketing sales and fraud while preserving important consumer protections. We also appreciate the addition of section two two five zero two point six, which protects ticket buyers and resellers from retaliation.

Those protections are essential to promoting competition in a highly concentrated market.

Today, states such as New York, Utah, and Virginia provide similar protections for resellers, and several states also protect consumers from retaliation for purchasing tickets on the secondary market. One of the current problems we are seeing with the World Cup is a delay by the primary ticket seller in allowing tickets to be transferred. Sometimes not until the day of the game or even after the game has begun.

We believe there is still an opportunity to further strengthen this section by ensuring tickets are transferred, which is what the state of New York does and to require this to happen within twenty four to seventy two hours of purchase. Together, giving consumers a clear right to transfer their tickets and guaranteeing their customers receive them before an event begins would empower buyers and sellers with greater flexibility and access to the full marketplace.

We appreciate the Chair, the committee staff, and the author for their thoughtful engagement and look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders on this bill. Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members, Austin here with on behalf of Internet Works. We have an oppose unless amended position on AB1349. We're supportive of the ban on speculative ticket sales in the bill and deeply appreciative of the work that the Senate B and B Committee has done and the author has agreed to, which would remove the provisions that would have codified Ticketmaster's terms terms and conditions into California law.

Ticketmaster, which currently controls approximately 80% of the primary and over half of half of the resale marketplace, has pushed those same provisions in 25 states ever since the lawsuit bought that by the Biden administration and 40 state AGs. That lawsuit was ultimately continued and won by California and 30 other state attorneys general and promises to remake event ticket the event ticketing marketplace after the remedies phase ensues early next year.

It can't happen too soon. Internet works will continue to work during the remaining process on the technical clarifications such as clarity between actors and the definitions, and to make sure that the URL provisions in the bill are consistent with existing trade trademark law to ensure that there are penalties consistent with the marketplace's actual control. The bill is amended and the Senate BNP would also prohibit retaliation against a lawful transfer of ticket.

We would like to see the term defined since there is no right right to a lawful and much less a timely transfer under California laws there is in other states such as New York. Thank you.

Thank you both. We'll now turn to anyone that wishes to register their opposition to the bill.

Robert Boykin with Technion in opposition. Thank you.

Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, respectful opposition.

Jamie Minor registering on behalf of our colleagues over at Game Time, SeatGeek, and Tippick TickPicks. Thank you.

Seeing no other witnesses, we'll turn to the committee. Any questions or comments? Senator McNerney.

Okay. This is kind of a feel good bill, really. You don't like seeing people taking advantage of technology to extort higher prices. So what what are the chances that this is actually gonna work? I mean, suppose this gets passed and signed into law, is it gonna be something that can be enforced?

Or is it gonna be another law on the books that doesn't really do anything?

No. I think this will absolutely be enforced, and I think that is why the opposition is still here, although many have have peeled off. I also am committed to this issue. So if loopholes are exploited and there are gaps that are proven like has happened in Arizona where they find creative ways to continue to allow this practice to continue, then you and I will be right back here having a conversation on how we close those loopholes.

Alright. Well, that was my major concern.

We are trying to get it right the first time, and so we spend a lot of hours with this committee. We went through three policy committees on the Assembly side. We're gonna go through the gauntlet on the Senate side. In addition, with the opposition's conversations about the DOJ and their antitrust litigation, I personally spent hours and hours with the DOJ on this bill, including as recently as Saturday night. And so we are putting the work in to make sure that this is done right.

Alright. Thank you.

Senator Padilla.

Bill is moving in the correct direction. Appreciate the work as articulated. The author taking amends moving it forward. I'm happy to move the bill.

Senator, when this committee was created, I was, getting all suited up to be able to save the world from AI and robots taking over everything over. And the first five meetings, I had were on, ticketing for De La Soul and Taylor Swift. And, so I, I, I, I, I, I was gonna say I appreciate the bill being here, but I know there'll be more later and more next year.

You know, I've spent the since last week when the bill arrived at our at our desk, just full disclosure, I'm the, I'm the, the actual legal professor in the Senate, so I read every single referee journal article on ticketing around the world for the last five days, all 72 of them since 2022, trying to make sense of all the claims and all the prior legislative efforts and what and what they all what they all mean, and I didn't walk away with a whole lot of optimism and hope around the larger set of issues, in part because and it be it also be has become clear to me that a lot of this is is art it's cultural and it's a problem for us.

Like Japan and Korea, France, they they have laws that match their cultural norms, which are almost never enforced because they don't have to be, where in many of these places many places folks don't they they they reckon their their preference is that that ticket prices be cheap, but, but it's a lottery whether you get to go or not.

Here, we want there to be cheap, but we also absolutely wanna go no matter what, and we want and, and therefore, we it's, it's acceptable here in a way that it isn't in many other countries for this entire secondary market and bidding and everything else to occur.

And so the laws are really a reflection of their culture and so it's very difficult to assess are they working compared to us because people it's, it's just very much frowned upon in many of these other countries to offer a ticket for sale above face price or to buy one. That's not our norm here. Our norm is in some sense quite the opposite.

Let's get you know, I'm I'm going to this type of concert come hell or high water, or I'm gonna sell it and I wanna make as much money as possible. That's a challenge for our for our legal structure and for enforcement, and we do have a lot of laws on actually, on many of topics that are in this bill that has to Senator McNerney's point, you know, there folks find ways around them, they are hard to enforce, and that's why the bill is is before us.

I, I am gonna support the bill today. I, I hear the issues around the legal market and, and the lawful right to transfer and all of that. Those are important questions.

They're not this bill though, and I would encourage folks to well, actually, no. I don't encourage you, but if, if you do another bill on that topic, you know, we will see it here and we'll get it, it's fair hearing and, and debate as well. But that's that would be a major change to this bill for it to to become about establishing a legal right to to to to a ticket transfer and to timeliness and all of that that's not here.

So we have paid close attention at the committee to the relationship between this legislation and its potential relationship to the ongoing litigation to try to assure, and as the author has as well, to assure that that there are no conflicts, that we're assuring that we're still maximizing the, the scope of the potential lit litigation to the extent that it that that the results are what are largely anticipated, but given that the author's done a lot of work in order to advance that as well.

So there are a set of amendments that are proposed here that would be taken if the motion if, if the do pass motion, prevails today, the bill will go on to the Judiciary Committee, and the amendments will be taken there, simply because the committee meets tomorrow and we don't have time to process them in between.

And so with that, I'm I'm recommending an aye vote as well. We have a motion

From

Senator Padilla. And, miss, Assemblymember Bryan, would you like to close?

Absolutely. I first wanna say, in the six sessions I've been here, I don't know that I've ever testified with opposition witnesses who I respect more greatly than the both who are sitting here. And many of the concessions that have been offered in this bill to date are in part because of their effective advocacy in communicating what is a difficult and complex issue.

I will say when we introduced this bill to ban speculative ticketing, three weeks later, the president of The United States did an executive order banning speculative ticketing. He copied me, but it brought Donald Trump and Isaac Bryan together, which was crazy.

And then we moved this bill out of the Assembly floor. And that afternoon, governor Gavin Newsom tweeted out that he and Kid Rock both agree on this issue. I will say up until this point, it has brought Isaac Bryant, Donald Trump, Kid Rock, Gavin Newsom, Drake and Kendrick Lamar, the Dodgers and the Giants all together around a singular issue. And I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Alright. With that, I certainly would encourage you, Mister Bryan, to to have some other bill ideas then for you. I appreciate that. If there's no further debate, then please call the roll on AB1349 to

pass. Motion is do passed to judiciary. Senators Cabaldon

Aye.

Cabaldon, aye. Sayarto, Gonzales, McNerney? McNerney, aye. Ochoa Vogue, Padilla? Padilla, aye.

Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Umberg Weiner, four to zero.