Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

The Senate Committee on Business Professions and Economic Development will begin in thirty seconds. Alright. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Senate Business Professions and Economic Development Committee. A couple of announcements as you guys know that I'd like to go through so everyone's on the same page.

We will have author speak here. Witnesses, lead witnesses speak at the mic over there. And each witness will have two minutes to present their case. Afterwards, we're gonna have Me Too's. The Me Too's are strictly name, organization and whether they support or oppose the bill.

No additional commentary will be allowed. With that, we have 19 bills on our agenda. The following items are proposed for consent file item number two, AB 1640 by Assemblymember Stephanie. File item five AB 1954 by Assemblymember Ward. File item 13, ACR 210 by Assemblymember Jackson.

File item 14, AB 1767 by Assemblymember Berman. With that we're gonna have our very first speaker. File item number four, AB 1921, Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. Appreciate. I'll just start with item number five and thank you for your consent recommendation. But back to item number four, I'm, proud to be here to present AB 1921. I really wanna thank the committee and their staff for a lot of their thoughtful engagement and work on this bill.

AB 1921 really seeks to be able to protect video game users against premature shutdowns of their digital games. Video games have become one of the largest entertainment markets in the world. And recently, the rising prevalence of live service games require online server connections has been raising an concerning issue of consumer protections. Now, this bill responds to public outcry over game shutdown with as little as two weeks after launch, leaving players with nothing.

It used to be that video games remain playable so long as you had a functioning hardware and a copy of that game.

And this included multiplayer games, which could be played locally for years or decades without ongoing publisher involvement. Today, many games rely on publisher run authentication or gameplay servers, meaning that if a company discontinues service support, the game can become unusable overnight even if the consumer has a physical disc. Now, the ability of a publisher to remotely disable a product for which a consumer is paid $60, $70, $100 or more sets a concerning precedent for our digital goods.

AV nineteen twenty one really has two elements there that really seek to build some fairness in there between that user and the provider. One, that a game operator notify users sixty days before shutting down servers required to make an ordinary use of a game.

This will allow them to understand that if I'm about to sign up for that license, that I might have sixty days or less to enjoy use of that product. Or two, if I've already been licensed to be able to enjoy that product, that I better make full use of it before that sixty days is up and not walk away from the game and come back later only to find all my data gone and that game shut down.

Further, the second is that it will require a menu of options for the operator to provide a means of accessing playable versions of the games from either a menu of compliance options or offering a reasonable refund once some of those services cease.

This provides some fairness to say if you didn't get full enjoyment out of that game like used to in the nineteen eighties when you bought the cartridge and you would blow on it to make sure that that still worked and that you were still able to get, you know, continued enjoyment out of that, that there would be some recourse there for the consumer, whether they laid down $60 or a $100 or $200 to be able to get some kind of value for what they had spent upfront.

Now, to be clear, AB 1921 does not mandate that servers be supported forever. Instead, it asks the game operators to plan for the end of life of a game during its development if it relies on server support. I'm committed to continuing to work on the recent amendments regarding community servers and partial refunds to ensure that we strike that right balance between consumer fairness and industry feasibility.

As people increasingly consume entertainment via licensed digital goods, furthering consumer protections and transparency is essential, and that's all that this bill is about. With, here's a witness in support is Becca Kramer on behalf of Consumer Reports.

And I know we're, ma'am, Chair, we're in a subcommittee, but when the time is appropriate, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Perfect. Thank you.

Hi. Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Reports, proud supporters of AB 1921. AB 1921 would require that developers of video games make consumers whole if they pull online support for games, either by offering an online version of the game or providing customers with a refund. It used to be that when we bought a video game, we could play it forever as long as our hardware still worked.

But today, more and more of what we buy is tethered by software back to the manufacturer.

The software tether can enable features that can be positive for consumers, like cloud backups, but it can also compromise our ownership rights if a company can just snap its fingers and suddenly we lose our features or even the ability to access content or use an appliance at all. And there's a lot of uncertainty under the law today about what happens when a company bricks devices or content. We have seen occasional regulator action on this issue.

The FTC has sent warnings to Major League Baseball and Microsoft saying that people who bought digital content expected to be able to access it in perpetuity and that turning off digital rights management or DRM servers could be a deceptive or unfair practice. But those were just a few informal actions now somewhat in the past, and business practices are evolving.

A lot of companies are pushing the envelope in terms of what they can get away with. Some games, especially interactive multiplayer games, are marketed as subscriptions. Those have higher ongoing operational costs for the developer, and so people generally understand that this is an ongoing transaction that will stop at some point in the future.

But for other games, like single player games, people don't expect that a company will just turn off DRM support and a game that seemingly should work perfectly well without Internet access suddenly doesn't work at all. This bill would ensure that consumers get what they reasonably expect when they pay to download a game from a software store.

And for that reason, we urge you to vote aye on this bill.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to lead opposition witness. Two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and members. Jennifer Gibbons with the Entertainment Software Association. We are the trade association for the video game industry, and we are here to oppose this bill. The bill is trying to solve a problem that has not been demonstrated. It rests on two flawed premises.

One, that consumers who purchase a license for a video game should have access to it indefinitely. No other digital product is subject to that standard. Books, movies, music, software, and online services are not required to remain available forever, yet this bill would apply that obligation to video games. This is a significant change in policy that should be seriously considered. Second, the bill assumes that publishers are routinely taking games away from consumers without notice or compensation, which just is not accurate.

This example cited in in the analysis don't support the claim. In nearly every case, consumers received advance notice that that online service would end, and many of these games were available for five to ten years before they were sunset. There is this is a question of consumer satisfaction, not consumer protection. Finally, compliance options in this bill raise serious safety and, legal concerns.

Where compliance is impossible, this bill is gonna require refunds that bear no relationship to the years of entertainment that the consumer may have received.

Whether they played the game for ten years or twenty years, we would still have to provide them a refund if we can't comply with the options. The author has said he's willing to amend the compliance option since they would encourage moving gameplay into environments outside of publisher oversight, moderation, and security controls, which raises serious safety issues. However, continuing to require games to be provided indefinitely cannot be done without legal and safety issues.

ESA has suggested looking, at the approach taken by Assembly member Erwin in AB 2426 related to digital goods.

Thank you. Appreciate your time. Any other lead opposition? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to Me Too's. State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

Seeing none, we're gonna move on to committee members. Seeing nothing, Assembly member, would you like to close?

Yes, ma'am, I just wanted to ensure that there were no questions on this bill because I'm happy to really close and really underscore that we are

Oh, do you have a question? Okay. Sorry. No worries. Go ahead.

I was

Thank you, Senator.

I was struck by a member who is in his wheelchair over there hoping everything's okay. But wanted to, I did have a question about this. And we talked about this bill and really appreciate you helping trying to help clarify. One, I would appreciate if madam Chair, we could just get some response to the opposition's point about the indefinite sort of realities of using the game.

I'm unclear about that, but secondly it looks like currently and please help me understand this that a refund is given when access to the game is no longer offered.

I agree with refunding resources. You pay for something, you expect to use it. When you can't use it, give me my money back. I understand that. I'm confused about the legalities of being able to offer these different options playing on different platforms.

It seems very, very complicated and just curious is the goal to make the consumer whole? And to me, that's, you know, I'm paying a fee. I don't get the service. I get my money back. The other pieces, I'm unclear, and it seems like that there are some questions about copyright and if that's possible.

So if you could clarify those two things, I'd appreciate it.

And a couple of things there. So, first of all, I would say that right now, there is no requirement for any refunds under law.

And secondly, yes, I think the goal here of the bill is to make sure that there is some balance and some fairness here between somebody that signed up for this license, paid a substantial amount of money because they thought they were gonna need a reasonable period of enjoyment out of this, and then had the rug pulled out from under them and really are walking away with nothing.

And so whether that and I what I wanna do through the bill, what we started since the get go, is to really create that menu of options. A refund is just one option, and it needs further refinement.

What we have in print already if through some of the amendments right now is to recognize that, no, it's not fair to actually ask for an indefinite refund period. If I paid for something today, am I due a full refund ten years from now after a game then shuts down? No. You got ten years worth of opportunity and use out of that. And I would say, as a reasonable person, that that's full enjoyment.

Right? But if I signed up for today and it was gone in two weeks, well, then I kinda feel like I was, like, you know, really snookered and really sold a lemon there and probably deserved something back. So finding that time point, whether that's six months, a year, or longer is the subject of, I think, that fine detail that we're working on.

And whether or not it's from the time of, purchase, or the time of when that game was actually shut down is another sort of time point, another factor point, that is really gonna be the subject of for a future negotiation. But it's the intention of what we wanna do is to really, meet that reasonable test of what would be a reasonable period of refunds.

And I would also argue allowing for a declination of refunds so that, you know, 50% of your way towards that time point, you're only due a 50% refund. And then as you get closer and closer, you're getting closer to zero in terms of the valuation of what that refund should be. But a refund should only be one of the options for compliance.

If it is possible, as it is possible right now, to be able to use community servers, I wanna talk about some of the, conversation out there around security and copyright and other issues that are around the two, but they already exist here today.

That's an option to be able to provide that platform where you no longer as a company, as a developer, have any responsibility to maintain that, to update it, to put any more of your capital, of your investment into, you know, a continual maintenance of that.

But there are still some core content opportunity there for you to be able to enjoy. That's one option there because then you still feel like what I signed up for, I'm getting some kinda continued benefit for a period of time. Another option that we've enumerated as here in the options are to be able to have some kind of a downloadable version or an offline version that could be available through the company server.

But, again, requires no more investment, no more continued maintenance, but allows the user to continue to be able to enjoy that. My point being, you can't save your data.

You're not gonna get the system updates. You're basically kinda going back to square one, but that's kind of what you signed up for is to use the, the game as you invested in the first place and to allow that for, you know, some reasonable period of time. So there's a menu of options there that could include a refund, but also give an alternative to refunds for the, producer's use.

Yeah. I just I feel like there are a lot of different options in this bill. I'm not clear on, as a user, the complexity of all of it. I feel like maybe there's some more work needed here. But I think we are the last we are the last stop on this bill.

And so I agree with the refund. I wish the bill just focused on making that clear, as a first step and then maybe we come back and do other pieces. And so, and we talked about this. I think I'm gonna lay off the bill today but, you know, hopefully, we can get to a point where we can just be real clear about what the options are. But thank you so much for raising the issue.

Thank you. And again, I would just say, the options are there to be able to provide the flexibility for the producers they could always choose a refund or they could have some other option that again meets the principle of allowing the, purchaser to have a reasonable enjoyment of the game.

Senator Menjivar.

Ma'am Chair, if I could ask the opposition a question. Go ahead. I just if I could get clarity. In the analysis, the author gave some examples. One of them was the Concord.

It was only on for two weeks and it got shut down. And we're talking about the ability for consumer to be made whole if it gets off the server so quick. In that example, if I bought a game, two weeks later it's no longer on. Currently, right now, can I go and get a refund?

In the example of Concord, Sony did offer full refunds to everybody who bought that game, and they were notified in advance. The reason that game got shut down is because players complained that they didn't like it. So Sony said, okay, we heard you. They issued an apology, and they offer full refunds in that case. The other case in the analysis is The Crew, which was online for ten years.

So they did not offer refunds, but there was three to five month advance notice, if

I recall. So notice and refunds are standard industry call. So notice and refunds are standard industry practices. In the analysis, there's one example.

During a reasonable time, ten years maybe not twelve. Ten years, no.

But standard video game retailers will also provide refunds, within fourteen days if you bought a game and you didn't play it and wanted to return it. So there's also that option.

And can you, the author, there is one part of the bill is around the ability to go on a on a community server. The author is stating that that's currently allowed right now so long as you're if I don't wanna misunderstand what you said as a member.

That's correct. Minecraft is currently hosted by community servers, Call of Duty community server. So it's an option that is out there in existence here today.

They're illegal and they are not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. Microsoft for Minecraft has gotten a lot of criticism because of those community servers not employing the same safety standards that Microsoft does on their Minecraft servers.

So is it like the black market of video games?

Yes. In fact, we consider it piracy. We have lawsuits, two pending lawsuits against private servers right now. And The United States trade representative in their notorious markets reports on counterfeiting and piracy has named some of these big private servers as a notorious market.

Thank you so much. As a member, I don't wanna ask the same questions as my colleague because they're the same exact concerns and questions. My additional one would be what can you do for the protection around the community server aspect? We spoke about this and my concerns on that. And then I think she asked this question but I didn't hear it exactly.

The copyright in artist's songs, voice utilized on something, license no longer exist. I don't know if this is correct. So correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know if they get paid while the license is alive. And after that, that artist no longer gets residuals or what have you.

Once it's offline, their likeness and so forth is still being utilized. Do they still get compensated for that? I don't know if you can address those two things.

Sure. Absolutely. Again, this is not a requirement that community service be used. We actually added this following the Senate privacy Digital Technologies Committee because they wanted more options and they said, well, hey, you have these community servers out there as a place that maybe is already in existence here today. Could that be an option for resolution rather than a refund or a downloadable or an offline version that somebody could play?

And we said, sure, we're open to new options that make sense to be able to connect that relationship between the purchasers. But if that is something that is reaching new criticism and injecting new kind of points about safety or about violation of copyright, you know, it's not something that needs to be in the final form of this bill. I was just responding to other senators on another committee as, like, an expanding menu of options here too.

So that is something I certainly would be up for a further conversation as well, and I do recognize that within that the the narrow context of this option here. Sure.

If something is out of your control and is now hosted over here by this entity right now, could that then be downloaded? Could that information then be transmuted in a way that is using, somebody's PI, somebody's likeness, somebody's, copyrighted information and then transformed using AI or any other methods to be able to create something else of equal likeness and everything. I guess, theoretically, that is a risk that is out there right now.

Getting, I think, you know, as we want to be thoughtful about how something would play out over time here, that is, I think, a conversation that's up for debate. Probably the subject of a separate bill, what do we do about community servers over there, which maybe is rightful that one of us take that on and take a closer look about, you know, making sure that safety and copyright infringement and other issues are are are in existence in California's landscape.

But we're just trying to create that menu of options here for resolution and an opportunity, I guess, for that user.

I can imagine stuck in a hard place because other members were asking for something and now the unintended consequences of that here of the protection part. Yeah. And, you know, I think, you know, I shared the the core of should the consumer have access to something in perpetuity if it no longer exists? That's at the core question that I'm still trying to navigate as well. And I missed your opening.

Did you provide any commitments? Yes. If it came out of committee, what you would amend if on your own?

Yes. So there is already a commitment, I think, on some of these issues as well to be able to continue to work on that narrowing and, like, really scope of duration for and and sort of de escalation of a refund period and a refund abound over time is, I think, what we have taken one step already for the bill that's in print and that we're gonna continue to be able to work on should this bill be able to move forward.

And the question of community service, I would wanna, of course, go back to the Chair and the committee members for the privacy committee to make sure that at their request adding it in and now thinking through if there are some new complications there, that is something that, respectfully, we could actually take out as an option for the bill.

Senator Small Quakers, that would actually narrow it further as to refunds being, you know, one of the more, direct options that are available on but I've gotta do that dance right with all y'all. So I'm willing to do that if this bill is able to move forward, to try to be able to get these options right.

It sounds though, like, there isn't a firm where it would land. It's still it sounds like it's still conversations still happen, but there's no firm where it exactly will land?

I would say this to the world and Senator Cabaldon who might be listening that there is a commitment on my end to be able to work with you to be able to have that further refinement, but I would only do so out of courtesy and with him because of our relationships and our process.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. First and foremost, I actually do appreciate this Bill as a person who actually does game. What we've been seeing more and more is this model that has been moving to the subscription model. Originally subscription models used to be a lot cheaper and that is why so many people signed up and they would also do it in a way where it was free at first. Right?

And then the old school models of, you know, I'll go back and date myself when you bought CDs. You kept it forever. Right? And yes, there would maybe issues with patches and security updates and things like that, but people actually enjoyed having that and being able to own it, own it.

What we are doing in pretty much every single industry is moving into the subscription model, whether it's TV, whether it's software, whether it's video games, things like that, software, whether it's video games, things like that that I actually think is a there's pros and cons to it.

But I also think that we do need to make sure that people are made whole when they are buying particular game if if it's not working out. And I do appreciate the commitment from the author to kind of narrow this. This is a space that I don't think a lot of people touch. And, you know, something that I'll be very honest with you, a lot of my colleagues probably are not gamers, right.

So I know that there's a lot of gamers out there that would probably like to be made whole or even some type of threading of the needle.

So with that, would you like to close?

No. I appreciate all the conversation. I appreciate everybody for the chance to be able to dialogue ahead of this to describe, you know, the intent of the bill and what we where we're at here today in committee and the finer points, what may still need to be worked on, of course, going to appropriations and then to the floor as well, some more steps to be able to tackle those issues.

You know, I would note that, you know, in other forms of media that we have when we think about books or music, or other areas there that are also now streamed online.

There are still ways to be able to purchase things, download things, and so videos have become a way that are sort of being segmented away from other forms of media and are unfortunately being subjected to, like, you know, this take it or leave it scenario where you really are always at the behest of the server, and they are the ones that can be able to flip the switch and really provide, a, I think, a distortion and a a disbenefit to the, the consumer that is really just trying to get the full enjoyment for the amount they laid on the table that they wanted to be able to have for some reasonable period of time.

You and I probably come from the same generation. I think our gray hairs are telling us that. So we had that, you know, that enjoyment in the period, you know, in our youth. And I really wanna be able to make sure that our youth today are able to be able to have that same relationship and that same expectations. This is something that is not new to the world.

This is actively being worked on in the European Union right now. California would be the first state to mirror that work and have very similar kinds of reasonable, parameters about what we do and we don't do when a the decision is made to pull a game off of line. But I think that this, balances things fairly between the two parties, and really make sure that consumers' our, interests are are the front and center of the work that we do here in the legislature.

With that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We do not have quorum yet, so when appropriate, we'll ask for that. So thank you. We're gonna move on to file item six, AB 1965 by Assembly member Sharp Collins.

All right. Good morning, Chair and members. I rise to present Assembly Bill 1965, a bill that strengthens the Department of Cannabis Control's authority on cannabis testing, ensuring Californians are safe. When voters passed Proposition 64, they were looking to us to provide a safe legal cannabis market. Reports show that we are failing to deliver on that promise in part because of the existing regulations.

The actual framework does not provide for the Department of Cannabis Control to have adequate authority. This lack of oversight of testing labs or facilities leads to unsafe cannabis that pose risk of nausea, vomiting, seizures and also cancer. This bill addresses these issues by modernizing product safety standards and increasing transparency and enforcement. Assembly Bill 1965 protects consumers, safeguards public health, and restores faith in the legal cannabis market. Here today to testify in support is Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. Amy Jenkins, California Cannabis Operators Association. We represent about 500 cannabis licensees throughout the state. We're very pleased to support this bill, and we wanna thank the author for her ongoing leadership to try to strengthen our testing regime here in California. We have built one of the most rigorous testing systems in the country.

Maintaining public confidence in that system is critical not only to protecting consumers but also ensuring the long term success of California's regulated market. The overwhelming majority of licensed operators invest significant time and resources to comply with California's testing requirements. They deserve a marketplace where everyone is held to the same standards. For compliant businesses, this bill is also more than just regulation. It's about fairness.

When testing standards are applied consistently, responsible operators are no longer competing against those who seek an unfair advantage by manipulating or circumventing the rules. At a time when we are still looking at a 60% illicit market, preserving consumer confidence in the regulated marketplace has never been more important. California has invested years in building this system. That investment only succeeds if consumers can trust the products they purchase, and responsible businesses know the rules. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do I have any other lead support witnesses? Seeing none. Lead opposition? Seeing none, Me Too's?

Seeing none, committee members? Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. And, all of us who've, love our law enforcement, we know that any business that's running legitimately should be protected as a cannabis industry should be legally run and protected. And to the give the industry the oversight and the power to check some of the discrepancies when it comes to potency, when it comes to changing the product to a point for segments and what it'd be. We've gotta have the standards, and I think this is what this bill does.

So I definitely will support it and and move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Thank you. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And when appropriate, we'll move the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. That's good.

Alright. We are gonna move on to It looks like we have a quorum. Can I get a roll call, please?

At Wahab? Wahab here. Here. Wahab. Choi?

Choi here. Archuleta?

Here.

Here.

Archuleta here. Arguin Caballero? Grayson?

Here.

Grayson here. Menjivar? Here. Mangalore here in Nilo. Smallwood Cuevas?

Nice. Smallwood Place here. Strickland, Hamburg.

Alright. We have quorum. I'd like to get a motion on consent items moved by Senator Grayson.

Wahab? Aye. Wahab, Aye. Choi? Aye.

Choi, Aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Adegin?

Caballero? Grayson?

Aye.

Grayson, Aye. Menjivar. Menjivar. Nilo. Small equipas.

Small wood Cuevas. Aye. Strickland. Umberg.

Alright. That consent is on call. We're gonna move on to Assemblymember Patterson. File item number 8AB2141.

Thank you, madam Chair, senators, video games, pot, and mine's a little less interesting than those ones, but happy to present it as well. So AB 2141, when this legislation was brought to me, was a a personal interest because I used to actually work in a regulated industry in which the only remedy to situations in which the state or the regulator saw issues was to file an accusation against the licensee.

And since that time, that particular industry, there have been changes as there have been others that allow a cite and fine, which take away the burden of the administrative agency to file an accusation through the Department of Justice, which as you know, causes a lot of money. And one thing I read in the analysis was that the board settles, in this particular instance, in the board of pharmacy, settling accusations against pharmacies, the board settles approximately 80 of its disciplinary cases post accusation.

I would be willing to bet the vast majority of those can be settled prior to an accusation and prior to something going to the Department of Justice if the agency reaches out to the licensee.

In many cases, the agency does reach out to the licensee, they see an issue, and they would actually like to resolve it, but the current law doesn't allow that to be the case. So when this legislation was brought to me, just given my experiences, hey. This interests me a lot. And I do believe it should be applied much more broadly than just this agency.

We have been seeing legislation come through the legislature that sort of piecemeal various agencies, and that is something I'd be, you know, willing to consider and work with the committee in the future on.

But for this particular one, we're looking on the board of pharmacy, and I think it's a good piece of legislation. Obviously, we'll be happy to answer any questions when they come. Today, I have Marie Cottman to speak in support of AB 2141. She's here on behalf of the Alliance of Pharmacy Compounding, and she's a licensed pharmacist as well.

Thank you, Chairwoman Mohave and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of AB 2141. My name is Marie Cotman. I'm a licensed pharmacist and former owner of Pacific Compounding Pharmacy in Stockton, where I served thousands of patients for more than twenty years. Throughout my career, patient safety and regulatory compliance were always my highest priorities.

I participated in the board's rule making process and invested heavily in training facilities and procedures to meet evolving compounding standards. My concern was never with complying. It was that reasonable, good faith differences in interpreting highly technical regulations and USP standards could become formal enforcement matters without any opportunity for early resolution. AB 2,141 provides a practical solution. Participation is entirely voluntary.

If a licensee disagrees with the board's findings, they simply decline the offer and retain every existing due process right. When both parties agree, appropriate cases can be resolved earlier while fully preserving the board's disciplinary authority. Some have expressed concern that this bill could set a precedent for other licensing boards, but California already different disciplinary procedures. The medical board, for example, has its own specialized hearing process because medicine presents unique regulatory issues.

AB 2,141 follows that same principle by creating a pharmacy specific procedure tailored to the unique regulatory environment of pharmacy while fully preserving public protection.

Other states, including New York, Washington, Oregon, and Illinois already used similar processes successfully. Had a process like this existed a few years ago, I believe I would still be serving patients as an owner of an independent pharmacy in Stockton. I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2141. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none, do we have lead opposition? Okay. Do we have me too's?

Seeing none, we're gonna move on to committee members. Senator Majivar.

As a member, can you walk me through this? If licensed individual is doing something against, you know, unethical and so forth, they will no longer be accused, formally accused. They can dispute that, without a formal accusation. And would the public ever be made aware of that licensed unethical behavior or x y z behavior?

Yes. And, you know, first of all, I wanna mention that in instances in where there's unethical behavior and things like that, there probably still would continue to be an accusation filed against the licensee. This helps resolve the majority cases, which are very small cases. And I'll just say, you know, some of those, for example, as the witnesses mentioned is, you know, might be different interpretation on how certain standards are applied.

For example, the board of pharmacy just recently adopted, as I'm sure you know, very long and lengthy compounding regulations that are actually very, by the way, very unique to this state that change access actually to medications from this state that make it different than 49 other states.

But anyways, there's a lot of, you know, nuances to those. And a pharmacist may have a different way of maybe they fill out the applications or maybe they're compounding the the pharmaceuticals and things like that, that instead of doing an accusation, you can resolve it on on a staff level basis. But generally speaking, all settlements still have to be approved by the regulators in other regulatory agencies, those go on the agenda just like everything else and they're approved.

The stipulated settlements are approved by the board.

But the bill doesn't create a threshold of what would be eligible. So while your answer So while your answer said, we would wanna focus on some of the smaller ones, it does not preclude any higher level kind of accusations from following your behind the scenes kind of settlement. And the analysis already notes that this is already an option available where I'm trying to find it.

Under existing law, the parties already retained broad authority to negotiate and resolve disciplinary matters through sentiments without proceeding to administrative hearing, but this kinda gives the ability, like I mentioned, to prevent the public from finding out what a licensee is doing or has done. I think this is goes against transparency, against consumer protection of precluding the public from understanding what an individual has done.

Now that we've given an option without a threshold of anything to bypass a former accusation and be settled behind closed doors. If I'm misunderstanding this bill, I would love for you to counter that. Sure.

Yeah. You know, the stipulated settlement agreements are still approved in a public forum. So I don't think that wouldn't really be the case in which the public wouldn't know. The vast majority of these are very mundane issues that the board would, I'm sure, prefer to in most agencies, again, having worked very closely with one for many years, would rather resolve these without a stipulated agreement.

And while there might be some, I believe, ambiguities in the law that they might retain that ability, that's not how to do stipulated settlements and agreements in advance.

That's not how it happens in practice. That's not what occurs because there it isn't clear that that's actually what what can occur. So most of them go to an accusation with the Department of Justice who goes through a very lengthy multi year process to settle even the most mundane accusations.

I mean, sure, the settlement is public, but the formal accusation what they were accused of is not public or the alleged violations. Those are not also public at all.

The stipulated settlements always start with a list of what the issues were in the reason why there is a stipulated settlement. They actually they always start with, you know it it looks like a court proceeding. It looks just like if you're filing a lawsuit or something like that. It looks pretty much exactly the same, and it starts with what the accusation was or what the complaint was in the first place, and here's the resolution.

I keep hearing as I remember from you. It's like the mundane ones. We wanna, you know, get through those fast as quickly as possible. But there's no clear language that says these are just for those kind of cases. If that was the intent, I'm wondering why that language isn't in there.

Well, the Board of Pharmacy, which is our regulator that we've entrusted with a broad range of abilities to make decisions on whether even to file an accusation in the first place or not, if we don't believe that the that the the appointees, that the people making these decisions, that the regulator, can decide which one should go to that level, then I think we have a systemic issue in the first place. But there's no lack of transparency.

There's still gonna be a public process that goes through this. There's still gonna be public records. People will still be able to find out, you know, what's going on.

I trust the board of pharmacy that on the big ones, they're still gonna file a accusation for the interest of public safety in ensuring that those ones continue to proceed through a more serious process that it deserves.

I get where you're coming from. I still have cons I still have a lot of concern that people like to protect their own. This is nowhere near this case, but I'm just giving an example. In the military, they have fought for years to not be be able to have outside legal intervention of sexual assault cases because they're like, oh, you can trust us. We can handle everything.

No one needs to come in. And that's been an ongoing situation because they wanna take care of it themselves and protect their own. Nowhere near this bill, I'm just giving an an example of the system you're saying that, you know, we should trust the we do, but we should trust them to take care of their own and discipline their own, when in fact, system after system shows that they protect their own.

So I think this by that, on me on the principle, I cannot get behind with, which is why I won't be supporting the bill. Thank you.

Do you mind if I respond to that or

Go ahead.

Thank you. You know, what you outlined obviously is very troubling and something that, you know, is really happening, I think, in the, you know, in the shadows, right, where there's not a public process, where there are things that aren't public records. In fact, those are specifically excluded from public records. You know, and this is a completely different process in which this is a public process. These are public records.

And so while I understand that concern and that very serious concern, that wouldn't really be the case here because of the public process in which it it entails, essentially.

As members, we get our information, you know, the language in the bill, but the analysis specifically says members of the public will have less information regarding the nation of nature of violations. So it's in there.

If there's a settlement on a situate, it is a public record. I mean and, you know, what's interesting is almost all of these accusations in every regulatory agency, by the way, it's kind of interesting when they put it forward because they almost always ask for licensee license revocation. And that's really unfair for a lot of these even mundane issues. And I understand your concern about the serious ones, in which case, those would continue to be part of a public process.

But as a licensee, if you've got some kinda issue where the standards recently changed with the board of pharmacy, the compounding regulations.

And they say, hey, look. We need to resolve this. You need to do it this way. Right? And what you've been doing in the past is not the correct way in according to our interpretation, despite a lot of other states doing it that way.

That's not how we do it in California. So let's do a stipulated settlement right now. Instead of doing an accusation where we're saying, hey, we're gonna take your license away from you. And that's those costs those licensees so much money to go through that process. And so that's why I think, you know, this is so important because these are people just trying to stay open.

By the way, we don't have very many compound pharmacies left in California, by the way. Very few. And a lot of that is because, understandably, we have some of the most strict regulations in the nation. Actually, we, by far, have the most strict regulations in the nation. And it is hard to comply with those.

You know? It's hard to keep up with the ever changing tasks. And so if the board of pharmacy wants to go to say, hey. Look. This is how you need to do things, but you've been doing it, slightly wrong.

We're we need to we need to settle this right now instead of going to the Department of Justice and filing a formal accusation. So thank you, though.

Thank you. Senator alright. Would you like to close?

Well, I really appreciate the consideration and appreciate the questioning, and I do understand the concern. I take it very seriously, the transparency of the public process and, obviously, always willing to consider changes to the bill to make sure that that's the case.

But, ultimately, at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is prevent many of these accusations from happening in the first place, which happening in the first place, which cost the state of California a lot of money to resolve, generally speaking, not serious complaints. But if we wanna set a standard on, you know, some kind of threshold or something like that, I'm always obviously happy to consider that.

I think the concern would be is that does take away some of the discretion from the board of pharmacy to decide maybe it's a let's say, you know, somebody who has had several mundane issues.

Right? And maybe that one does need an accusation as a result of some of those smaller issues in many of them. So I think this does leave a lot of authority with the board of pharmacy to continue with the existing process if they choose to do so. But for many of them, it allows them to be resolved quicker and more efficiently for the state of California. And because of that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion?

I make a motion.

Senator Choi makes the motion. Can we get a roll call, please?

Motion is do passed to Senate appropriations. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, Aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Archuleta? Adeguin? Caballero? Grayson?

Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar? No. Mindval, no.

Nilo? Smolodecuevas? Aye. Smolodecuevas, aye. Strickland?

Aye.

Strickland, aye. Amberg.

Alright. That bill's on call.

Great. Thank you.

We're gonna move on to file item number nine, AB 2163. Again, just reminding everybody that we have roughly 19 bills on our agenda. So please keep your comments short. Assembly member do you wanna can he do it from there if that's easier if you could just give him the mic? Or even this mic that you could detach and hand it to him?

Yeah. I also think you can detach it. No. Just pull it forward and then the mic the mic itself.

Okay.

Okay.

Alright. We lowered the mic. It's all good. Yeah. Whatever you're comfortable with.

Yeah. You know. Yeah. And whenever you're ready.

Thank you, madam Chair, for accommodating me. I'm honored today to present AB 2163, which will establish a statewide framework to designate strategic clean energy and critical mineral development zones to support large scale geothermal energy production and mineral supply chain development. California has some of the most ambitious clean energy goals in the world. However, to achieve these goals, California must expand its base load renewable energy development. At the same time, California has some of the most abundant critical minerals in the

world capable of meeting the supply needs of our entire country. This bill, AB 2163 is about strategically identifying and prioritizing the regions that can deliver both. This bill establishes clear criteria to identify these development zones, such as critical mineral resource potential, base load renewable energy capacity, and transmission access. This means that only those areas throughout the state that have the highest geothermal or mineral potential will receive such a designation.

Recognizing the importance of areas that meet the criteria, AB 2163 requires the state to give priority consideration to projects and infrastructure investments within these zones.

California stands at a critical crossroads. Such states as Arkansas, Nevada are moving aggressively to position themselves as leaders in critical mineral production while countries around the world continue investing heavy heavily to secure the resources needed for energy storage, advanced manufacturing, and national security. The reality is that California's window to lead will not remain open indefinitely. If we wanna remain competitive, we must be intentional about supporting the regions that are best positioned to deliver these resources responsibly and at scale.

What makes California uniquely competitive is not simply the existence of critical minerals but the way we can produce them.

In places like the Salton Sea region, we have the opportunity to recover lithium and other critical minerals from geothermal brine while simultaneously generating renewable base load power. This approach has a potential to become one of the most environmentally responsible methods of critical mineral production anywhere in the world. Avoiding many of the impacts associated with hard rock mining and large scale of exploration ponds used elsewhere.

AB 2163 recognizes that not every region is positioned to support these opportunities and that the areas in which the resources, infrastructure, planning efforts, and development potentially already exist. It should be prioritized.

For my district specifically, AB 2163 is a vital tool as Imperial County and Lithium Valley host some of the world's largest Lithium and Geothermal deposits. In addition to the obvious energy development potential in my district, there are also tremendous workforce development benefits. Imperial County has nearly 20% unemployment rate. The highest in the state.

The opportunities for Energy development and the economic growth associated with such development will prove to be a major boost to a county that is often left behind as a as a as California focuses on the future.

California should not be importing opportunity when we have the resources, innovation, workforce, and natural advantages to lead. AB 2163 helps ensure California remains competitive, strengthens domestic supplies, and fully realizes the geothermal and critical minerals opportunities that exist within our border. AB 2163 received bipartisan support in the Assembly and passed unanimously out of state Senate energy, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today is Barry Bean, the assistant county executive officer with Imperial County.

Thank you. You get two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Barry Bean. I'm the assistant CEO for the county of Imperial, and I'm here in support of AB 2163. This forward looking bill helps align state investment with regions best positioned to advance California's clean energy and critical mineral future, and we're very excited about it. This past week, I attended Fast Markets Conference.

And while there, there were presentations by leaders from Brazil, India, China, Nevada, Arkansas, Texas, Africa, and the list goes on. And they were there talking about the supply chains that they are building out in their regions and the investment and the business and economic opportunities. Now is the time for our state to lead. While AB 2163 is an incredible opportunity for Imperial County, it is truly a capitalizing opportunity statewide. In fact, California is the nation's leading producer of critical minerals.

Today, the U. S. Geological Critical Mineral List has 60 critical minerals and 58 of those reside here

in the State of California. Pearl County is uniquely positioned to advance California's clean energy and critical mineral goals with an existing 600 megawatts of geothermal operating capacity, over 4,000 megawatts of reservoir capacity, as well as two permitted commercial lithium projects, 23 critical minerals in our lithium brine and a third of the world's lithium in that brine, as well as a 51,000 acre Lithium Valley plan. We have the resources and planning to lead.

I'm born and raised in Imperial County, and this opportunity is more than just an energy initiative for us. Lithium Valley is a transformational opportunity for a region that faces 21% poverty and, as you heard, over 17% unemployment.

As an economic impact analysis found, this could build over 26,000 construction jobs if fully built out, 8,000 permanent jobs, and over a $55,000,000,000 economic impact. This legislation matters deeply to us, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2163.

Do we have any other lead witnesses? Seeing none, lead opposition witness. Seeing none, me too. Seeing none, committee members. Senator Strickland moves the bill.

Would you like to close?

Thank you, madam Chair. AB, 2163 has a simple goal, to help California identify and prioritize the regions that are best positioned to advance geothermal energy, critical mineral development, and domestic supply chain security. Reality is is in Imperial County, we have the opportunity to change the very landscape of not only the county, but of California.

And you respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I respectfully ask Thank you. For an aye vote.

Can we get a roll call, please?

Motion is do passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi.

Aye.

Choi, aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adeghain, Gabrielle, Grayson.

Aye.

Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Minjiver, aye. Nilo.

Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Strickland?

Aye.

Strickland, aye. Amber.

Alright. That bill's on call. Thank you. We're gonna move on to our next item, but I'd like to at least have file item number four. Can I get a motion, please?

Say that again. File item number four, AB 1921 by Assemblymember Ward. Could I get a motion? Courtesy motion, guys.

I'll do a courtesy motion.

Thank you. Senator Strickland moves the bill.

Motion is do passed. The Senate appropriations committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye.

Choi?

No.

Choi, no. Archuleta? No. Aragin Caballero? Aye.

Caballero, aye. Grayson? Menjivar? Milo? Smallwood Cuevas?

Strickland?

Strickland, no. Umberg.

No.

Alright. That bill's on call. File item number six, AB 1965 by Assemblymember Sharp Collins. Can I get a motion?

Motion.

Senator Archuleta moves the bill.

Motion is do passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab.

Wahab, Aye. Choi. Aye. Choi, Aye. Archuleta?

Aye.

Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Adegin Caballero? Aye. Caballero, Aye.

Grayson?

Aye.

Grayson, Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, Aye. Nilo.

Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, Aye. Strickland?

Strickland, Aye. Amberg.

Aye.

Could we lift the role for absent Members on consent, which again just to be very clear, file item number two, number five, number 13 and number 14.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Consent's on call. We're gonna move on to file item seven AB 1990 by Assemblymember Gipson. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. Chair and Senators, thank you for first of all, let me start off by thanking, the Chair, for her patience and her support and allowing me to present this bill. Don't take it lightly. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1990, which protects patients by ensuring compounded weight loss drugs are honestly are honestly marketed, disclose potentially safe safety risk, and are truthful rather than misleading.

GLP one medications were originally developed to treat type two diabetics and weight related health conditions, but they're effective they but they're effective and has led to widespread popularity beyond their original indication. Overwhelmingly number of ads of social media, people are buying compounded versions of these drugs at unprecedented rates, and we know this. These compounded versions are not, and I wanna repeat, are not FDA approved and do not have the same requirements to ensure that these ingredients, our final versions, are tested for safety impurities.

In fact, consumers see these compounded versions as interchangeably with the FDA approved drugs, for example. Seventy one percent of women surveyed in 2025 by the National Consumer League believed compounded weight loss drugs shots are tested, proven to be safe if they're if they're on the market, and that's what they believe.

Over half of The US women believe compounded weight loss drugs are FDA approved. That's what they believe through the survey. Over the last several years, bad actors have exploited patients' desires to lose weight and have flooded the marketplace with compounded weight loss drugs that are unsafe. AB 1990 established a clear standard for advertising requirement by, one, pro by prohibiting advertising that contains unsubstantiated claims, two, requiring disclosure for, important safety information, including side effects, warnings for con contamination for con yeah.

And requires requiring a summary of risk information associated with FDA approved drugs containing the same active ingredients and requiring clear disclosures that products in a compounded medication that has not been FDA that have not been approved or evaluated by the FDA for safety or side effects.

Patients deserve to have patients deserve to make sure informations are healthy healthy and also making sure that whatever they are putting in their bodies are safe and they are pure. The poster I'm about to show you is a prime example with permission by the Chair. This is what we're talking about when it comes down to advertising. Hey, girly. Hate needles, but want to shed, pounds.

Willow has the has the GL one tablet, and this is marketing to young girls that we see time and time again. And this is some of the advertising that are misleading, and this is being targeted to our our children right now. And this is what we're we're trying to prevent from taking place. And this is the advertising. The poster is one example of the predatory advertising campaign that target women and young girls.

As you can see, the messaging centered on weight loss with no mention of side effects or at risk. Here with me to provide supporting testimony in support of 1990 will be and they will self introduce is the director of the National Consumer League, but also the former FDA Office of Compounding Quality, yeah, Quality and Compliance.

Thank you. You guys will each have two minutes, and you will be timed.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members of the committee. My name is Gabriela Cosell, and I'm here on behalf of Novo Nordisk in support of AB 1990. My own background includes almost a decade with FDA's Office of Compounding Quality and Compliance and prior to that, eight years with the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Today, compounded weight loss drugs are being mass produced and mass marketed, flooding social media feeds every day. The scale of GLP-one compounding is unprecedented. It does go well beyond traditional pharmacy practice, and regulators are struggling to address it. The tsunami of misleading ads is in the compounding weight loss space. That is why the bill focuses there.

Despite existing prohibitions in the law on false and misleading advertising, ads for compounded weight loss drugs frequently contain unsubstantiated claims and no information on risks or side effects of the drug as normal drug ads do. And this is a really problematic discrepancy. These ads often also fail to make clear that the drugs are not vetted by FDA for safety and effectiveness. Multiple independent surveys show that consumers don't understand the difference between an FDA approved drug and a compounded drug as the assemblyman mentioned.

The fact that these ads continue to proliferate demonstrates that we do need better specificity in the law because without it, the law isn't sufficiently discouraging them.

As a result, health care providers aren't getting key information to determine whether the risks associated with a compounded drug outweigh their unprimitive benefits and nor are consumers. A consumer seeing an ad for a compounded drug needs to understand they're not evaluated by the FDA and that they do have risks and side effects. Again, this information isn't in these ads right now.

Even if patients get information about risks in a pharmacist consultation, although this may not be common with the telehealth model today in this space, it doesn't fix false or misleading advertising. An ad without safety information is still misleading to consumers.

California should not punt on this issue. Consumers would benefit from having more specificity in the law given what we're seeing in the marketplace. AB 1990 would give the specificity and it's wholly consistent with existing FDA and FTC standards. I urge you to vote aye.

Thank you.

I think I need some help. I'm too short. Good morning. I'm Nancy Glick. I'm with the National Consumers League.

And I'm here today because the National Consumers League believes that AB 1990 may be one of the most important consumer protection bills for this country. The reason why, we are so concerned goes back to February 2025 when we issued a national alert and we told the public that compounded GLP-one drugs are not FDA approved.

We also use the words of the FDA, which is that these drugs may contain the wrong ingredient or no active ingredient at all or they may contain too much or too little of the active ingredient. This step is important because of the emergence of an exploitative Wild West marketplace where sellers use deceptive advertising to tout compounded GLP-1s as being as safe and as effective as branded medicines only cheaper.

The ads exploit consumers, and we are especially concerned about the number of teenage girls who are seeing these ads.

To give another example of what the Assemblymember presented, the same company has an ad that targets young girls, shows that birthday cake, and has the words, Hey, girl, it's time to drop two pant sizes before summer. NCL calls this market America's second obesity crisis, and we do it for a reason. It is unprecedented in size and scope. To date, there have been 1200% increase in violative ads that hinder the ability of consumers to understand the risk of compounded drugs. The result is serious.

Massive reports of dosing errors, overdoses, and serious reactions to harmful ingredients Thank you. In these drugs.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? Two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair Wahab, and Members. My name is Taneal Davis, and I'm the Chief Advocacy Officer for the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding. I'm a compounding pharmacist, a board certified sterile compounding pharmacist. APC is the National Trade Association for Compounding pharmacists and pharmacies, representing more than 600 compounding businesses and over 5,300 pharmacists, technicians, prescribers and suppliers nationwide, including many here in California. First, I want to acknowledge and thank the author for the significant amendments made to this bill.

The bill has changed substantially. What began as a broad supply chain and sourcing bill is now much narrower and focused specifically on advertising for certain compounded medications used for obesity and weight management. We appreciate that narrowing. We also appreciate the inclusion of the requirement that advertisements clearly disclose that compounded medications are not FDA approved. APC supports this disclosure.

In fact, that was part of the friendly amendments we previously submitted to the author. We also proposed additional consumer protections, including a prohibition on advertising compounded weight loss medications to minors and we continue to support that concept. But despite this progress, APC still has concerns with the bill as amended. Our concern is now focused on one piece, the requirement that pharmacies use and summarize risk information from FDA approved product labeling in advertising for compounded medications containing the same active ingredient.

At first glance, that may sound reasonable, but compounded medications are not FDA approved products.

They're individualized medications that often differ in strength, dosage form, broad of administration or formulation. Requiring pharmacies to default to FDA approved labeling creates a false equivalency between approved and compounded drugs and may require disclosures that are over inclusive, under inclusive or simply not relevant to the actual medication being dispensed. And just as importantly, the primary enforcer of this bill would be the California State Board of Pharmacy. But many of the entities repeatedly pointed to as the reason that this bill is necessary telehealth platform. Thank you.

Next speaker.

Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, thank you. My name is Marie Cotman. I owned a California compounding pharmacy for over twenty years, and I've been actively

involved in the development of compounding regulations for most of the time. I'm here in opposition to AB 1990. While I fully support truthful advertising, this bill creates burdens that will directly harm patient access to customized care. I urge a no vote based on three realities. First, it confuses local pharmacies with manufacturers.

Under federal section 503a, traditional compounding pharmacies are explicitly exempt from manufacturer labeling rules. We do not mass market brand name drugs. We prepare patient specific medications prescribed by a doctor. Forcing a community pharmacy to distribute multipage commercial package inserts just to communicate with doctors creates a de facto ban on telling physicians what we can formulate. Second, it restricts communication during critical drug shortages.

While GLP-one medications are on the FDA official shortage list, patients rely on us to bridge the gap. If a doctor asks if we can compound an alternative formulation, this bill severely penalizes my ability to provide clear information unless I fulfill unviable factory level disclosure mandates. Third, California already has the tool to protect patients. California BPC section 17,500 already bans false advertising or misleading advertising. Furthermore, BPC Section six fifty one penalizes healthcare professionals who use deceptive marketing.

AB 1990 does not stop bad actors or unlicensed out of state Internet websites such as the illegal ad presented by Mr. Gibson. Instead, it will penalize compliant licensed California pharmacies that are trying to serve patients in need. Please protect patient access to customized medications and vote no on AB 1990. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any me too's? Again, name, organization, support, or oppose.

Michelle Rebus with California Pharmacists Association in opposition.

Madam Chair and members, Monica Miller on behalf of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association in Opposition. Thank you. Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of MidiHealth in respectful Opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, members of the committee, would you guys like to Senator Minj for?

As a member, in your both in your prop, in your statement, and the supporters, there was a big focus on advertisements towards minor. However, your bill doesn't touch anything on tailoring advertisements to minor. I'm wondering why that was utilized as the focus to support this bill when this bill won't do anything in that case in those cases.

Well, if we this in terms of focusing on minors?

Yeah. You spoke a lot about, you know, look at these advertisements Yeah. Targeting minors. The supporter also talked about targeting minors. But your bill is silent on that, so I'm wondering why that was the focus of your

We use this we use this because this is all the you look at social media, this is this bill this advertisement is just another example of how they're using deceptive advertising and misleading advertising, focusing not only on minors, but also women. So I we just grabbed this to show that is very broad.

Sure. But your bill doesn't do anything around who to target and how to target. Your bill is asking to say that it's FDA approved or not and and add side effects.

I'm still not understanding.

So your bill doesn't preclude or alter how or who we advertise your p one compounded drugs to. It doesn't say that it can no longer advertise in a way that attracts to minors or it doesn't say anything around how we advertise for women. So I'm wondering why the focus is on that if your bill doesn't touch anything on that.

This bill focuses on everyone. Male this focus on females. They're they're they're targeting women, girls who falls under women, that category. This bill is broad, so it focus on everyone. And they're looking there's a market.

There's a market specifically targeting women, young girls, women, and so this bill doesn't exclude. It includes everyone.

Maybe let me rephrase my question. Your bill is asking that advertising advertisements show side effects, show that it's not FDA approved, and show and give consumer protection for the bill. The bill does not say you cannot advertise to minors or advertise in a way

Let me just

unless I'm I didn't see that part.

But it's what right. I'm trying to say that this bill targets everyone. It doesn't it doesn't preclude. It includes everyone, including women. So and children this this advertisement I'm showing you is just another example that it targets girls at a young age.

That like cigarettes. Right?

Sure. But the advertisement will still be in existence if this bill passes. Only at the bottom, it would say not FDA approved and here are the side effects.

Is that not

Right.

Please. May through the Chair?

Unless I misunderstand.

Yes. But I also just wanna highlight that in our committee analysis, we do mention that it creates a pharmacy specific advertising standard that may duplicate existing prohibitions, which already makes it unlawful to disseminate advertising that is known or other or through the exercise of reasonable care should be known to be untrue or misleading. I'll let you guys add a little bit more to that, but I do wanna highlight that it is correct. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I'll just quickly address that. The bill the California regulations do prevent false require prohibit false and misleading advertising, but there isn't any specificity in California regulations about what information needs to be in an ad for a compounded drug such that it isn't false or misleading. And that's the sort of big thing that the truck is driving through right now. And that is why we still see ads without any risk information or side effects information.

This is an issue that a really scary element of it is targeting minors, but it's not an issue just exclusive to minors. Everybody are getting these ads targeted to them. You see it in your social media feeds every day without risk information, without side effects information. That's a really problematic discrepancy compared to other drug ads that you see.

I just wanted to make sure everyone's clear. This bill is not gonna stop that practice whatsoever.

It it will add risk. It will prevent unsubstantiated claims. So in some of the ads, that one including other ones that are not minors targeted, lose 15 pounds in a week. You can lose weight without going to the gym, which goes completely against the clinically supported indication, which says you need to do it concurrent with exercise. There are tons of unsubstantiated claims.

So this bill would address that broadly in ads and at risk information.

You know, we've had a lot of bills on tobacco. Don't put dinosaurs. Don't put things that tailor that's a specific we don't want you to tailor advertising to minors. This bill doesn't do that. Yes.

It adds a layer of this what the bill this is what the drug does or doesn't do. But if it really I just felt like the conversation was going towards preventing targeting kids, but nothing in the bill was preventing targeting kids.

just wanna bring us back to what the bill actually does.

Yeah. I

Appreciate that. It should be broad, and I think the broad changes will help in that space as well.

Okay. As I remember, I'm wondering if the whole goal is to protect and ensure consumers have all the information, why are you excluding the physicians if that's another route where they get these drugs? Next. So they can get these compound drugs only, yes, from physicians and from pharmacists. This bill is only or adding the added protections only if you get it from physicians.

That's not the case. From pharmacists. The bill applies to any person that's advertising. Anyone that chooses to advertise a compounded drug, the bill applies to. It's doesn't it's not limited in that way.

May I Please. Something start.

So one of the

My analysis is about It's okay? Is that from the previous version of the bill?

Yeah. It's been amended significantly. Okay. I do also wanna highlight that this bill will go to judiciary as well.

I think I had clarity, but

If you wouldn't mind. So in National Consumers League is we specialize in the marketplace I was telling you about is almost all online. So you're able to buy things directly from a telehealth company, and it's not you don't necessarily know your doctor. You don't necessarily talk to a pharmacist.

So that's why you don't have to have a prescription.

You do have to have a there.

So I think that Yes. The Senator received her answer and clarity. So we're gonna move on. Sure. Senator Strickland.

I wanna thank the Assembly member for, what you're trying to, attack here on this issue. I just had a couple of things based on some of the opposition, witnesses. Again, what I've read here, it says, compounding medications are not FDA approved at all products.

That's correct.

So if this was to pass, prohibiting compounders from incorporating oral line up the approval to advertise, What it pretty much is gonna do is say to these folks, the bills advertising requirements would then put pharmacies in an impossible position because they either comply with state law or they violate federal law. What would be your response to that? Because they don't do that right now. And you're saying in order to advertise, you need FDA approval, but they don't do FDA approval on these products.

Right. And we're saying that when you look at, you know, seventy one percent, and then I'll also ask my witness. When you look at seventy one percent of the women surveyed, when they purchase

Understand. I understand what your testimony is. And in fact, I commend you for trying to attack this. But if FDA doesn't even do it, that pretty much says that this is gonna be outlawed completely. No advertising on any of these.

You know, and that's what your goal is to outlaw all contents.

No. We're not trying to do that, but we're trying to make sure that when people purchase these drugs that is pure and that is safe Right. And that is FDA approved.

But that's the point. FDA doesn't even they don't do this.

And not at the present time, but they're

So you're gonna put them in a position, to try to force the Federal Government, FDA to do something that they don't do?

Right. Okay.

And that we wanna we wanna make sure we wanna make sure, but we wanna make well, what I wanna make sure is that, one, that people are not putting themselves at risk.

Well, I understand where you're going. I just I personally don't want to put something in law where the FDA doesn't do this in their purview. state perspective.

Let me ask my witness.

Two different points getting made. Apologies. Thank you so much for consideration.

No problem.

No problem. Compounded drugs are not FDA approved. This bill doesn't suggest compound drugs should be FDA approved, and it doesn't suggest that compounded drugs need to put the entire FDA approved label even in an ad. What it says is if a compounded drug includes as an active ingredient where there's no risks, you might know about those risks because there's an approved drug where it has the same active ingredient. There are risks.

You gotta identify those risks in your ad. That's all it says.

But but this bill does not require FDA approval.

No. Not at all, sir. And in fact, putting risk information in ad is something FDA has already said should be in these ads.

And if I may if I may just go a step further, in it talks about disclosure. We wonder if you look at some of the advertisement right now on television and say, this drug may cause suicidal tendencies. In this drug, it may cause certain things. That's what's going on right now with drugs that are are identified to help individuals, but those that advertisement is letting you know, if you take this drug, this is what you should look for. That's all we're saying.

We want people to know that this that this drug that you're consuming, that you're taking, will have these kinds of consequences or side side effects.

I understand. So can I disclose? So can I bring up the opposition really quick? Because based on your opposition witness our testimony, I thought I did I mishear

We don't have any problem with disclosures that compounded drugs are not FDA approved. They're not FDA approved. We do have a problem with requiring the labeling of the FDA approved drug to be used in advertisements with that contain a compounded drug with the same API because it might have a different strength, a different route of administration, a different combination. It's, requiring so they get that information from clinical trials, the brand name drug companies. We didn't use those clinical trials to create a compounded drug.

They were made for an individual patient. I'd also like to point out this ad wouldn't be fixed by this bill. The primary enforcers of this bill are the California Board of Pharmacy, who has jurisdiction over its licensees, which are pharmacies and pharmacists. Pharmacies and pharmacists, by and large, are not making these kind of advertisements in his prop here. It's typically direct to consumer companies, telehealth companies, and the entities of the like that wouldn't be solved by this bill at all.

And I'd like to, again, just highlight the staff analysis. No, no, no. Page 10 of 10, this bill requires every advertisement for only one type of compounded medication to include a summary of FDA approved drug labeling side effects warnings and more stringent than California's general false advertising standard establishing mandated disclosure regime rather than enhancing false advertising provisions. Again, there is a lot of leeway given to the states. So I just want to flag that.

And Senator Choi, I think you had some questions as well.

Yeah. I understand your intent of the bill of preventing force advertising. However, that is a very monumental technical problem. So who's going to monitor that? And the judgment is that and then also to label the side effects or and nobody will will talk about the in TV advertising side effects.

So if you take this one, you'll you'll have a series of problems. So so who's gonna monitor that continuous force advertising regardless of this bill will continue? And the other side is that the other question is that the opponents already stated that similar prohibition of a force of advertising exists. What's the difference between the existing law and the UOB?

The question is to the author. Right.

Do you mind if I have my witness answer that?

Sure.

Thank you. The false and misleading advertising prohibitions don't have the specificity that this bill would add. It doesn't create a new paradigm. It adds specifics on what information needs to be in the ad. It is a baseline standard, requires you cannot have an unsubstantiated claim.

And if there are known risks, you have to put those in the ad. That's really all it adds. It doesn't require porting in an entire label into the ad.

Okay. I won't be able to

Okay. Alright. Seeing no other committee Members, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you very much for the robust conversation and appreciate the questioning. We're trying to, again, look at and place some guardrails in this very serious complex issue. That's why we brought Assembly Bill 1990 before you today. One with the misleading ads.

We are trying to attempt to put some guardrails up. When this drug was first came up, in, our society, it was poised to, address, type two diabetic diabetics. We've seen an explosion where people can lose weight, and we want people to get, you know, a lease on their health, and it has done wonders. But we also seen deceptive advertisement in our marketplace, and also we see we've seen, one, some impurities as it relates to that.

We wanna make sure that, one, that the deceptive advertisement does not continue.

We wanna put some guardrails up. We wanna make sure that one of the deceptive advertisement, as I indicated through the questioning, we want disclosure. We wanna make sure that people understand, one, what they're digesting. We wanna make sure that people understand the the effects, and also making sure that the effects and the, the complications that it could, in fact, have if, in fact, people, wanna digest this.

You would not believe that the calls have come through, people have taking these weight loss drugs and the effects that it has long term.

We wanna make sure that the the the misleading, advertisement stops and there's some reinforcements in here. And Assembly Bill 1990 allows that to happen. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote moving forward.

Thank you. Do we have a motion?

Motion.

Senator Archuleta moves the bill.

Motion is due passed to Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Alright. That bill's on call. We're going to move on to file item number 12, AB 2,783 by technically, Chair Culrow, but going to be presented by, Chair Umberg.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, you're stuck with the second string. I'm here on behalf of Assembly member Chair Kalra to present AB2783, makes two changes to law governing court reporters. First, existing law establishes the Court Reporters Board of California for the purpose of licensing court reporters. Presently, an applicant must pass the certified verbatim reporter or certified verbatim stereo steno type certification exam.

AB2783 adds completion of the registered professional reporter certification administered by the National Court Reporter Association to list of certifications that satisfy the dictation transcription component. Increased reciprocity with National Court report exams will increase the pool of qualified court reporters at a time we face a shortage of court reporters. Second, existing law established a pilot project authorizing superior court in 13 counties to study the potential use of remote court reporting, which is set to sunset on 07/01/2026.

This bill extends the pilot until 07/08/2028. Indeed, we do have a very serious shortage of court reporters, and this bill helps to, mitigate that shortage.

With me here to testify, Michelle Caldwell, president of the California Court Reporters Association, and Yvonne Fenner, executive officer of the Court Reporters Board.

I'd like to start up. My name is Yvonne Fenner. I'm the executive officer of the Court Reporters Board. We are co-sponsor of AB2783, and I'd like to start by thanking the Assembly Judiciary Committee for helping us author that. And it's important because it does address a couple of solutions to the difficulty that some courts are having staffing their court reporter positions.

The portion of the bill that allows the holders of registered professional reporter certification, which we call the RPR, comes from the National Court Reporters Association. And it's a consumer protection measure that removes barriers to licensure for court reporters in California. Existing law allows holders of the RPR to already sit for our license exam. Should of the RPR to already sit for our license exam.

Should this bill be successful in becoming law, holders of the RPR certification will not have to retest their skills portion, but instead only have to take the two written portions that are unique to California.

This ensures that court reporters that pass our license exam have the requisite entry level skills to practice here in California. We urge your support of AB2783, and I'm available if there are any questions. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Michelle Caldwell. I am a licensed court reporter in the State of California. I've been licensed for about thirty six years. I am also the President of the California Court Reporters Association.

We are a profession made up predominantly of women and women in small businesses. AB 2783 aligns with legislative efforts to continue to grow the profession and to remove administrative barriers to obtaining a California court reporting license. California currently recognizes certification by the National Verbatim Reporters Association as a means of satisfying the skills portion of the California exam. This bill would provide the exact same path for those who hold certification issued by the National Court Reporters Association.

We are excited about this parody and look forward to welcoming qualified candidates to sit for California's written knowledge exam in order to become licensed.

It's imperative to continued growth of the profession and our future in order to ensure all California residents have access to a verbatim record. In addition, 2783 continues a much needed remote reporter pilot program necessary for testing the viability of remote reporting statewide in California courts. Thank you for your time, and we respectfully request your aye vote. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition? Seeing none, me too's? Seeing none, committee members? Seeing none.

Thank you. Senator Umberg, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Every lawyer who's ever tried a case knows the importance of court reporters. And also, all of us should be aware of the access to justice issue. The absence of court reporters works a serious, serious detriment to, in particular, family law, but many other areas. If you don't have a court reporter, you don't have an appeal oftentimes.

And so it's critical that we do what's necessary to support, the court reporters, and that's what this bill does. I urge my vote.

Thank you. With that, we have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Could we get a roll call, please?

[Roll call]

How about I start?

Okay. Item number 12, AB2783 will be on call. And moving on to next one is file number 15, AB2771.

Thank you.

Again, by the committee.

Alright. I'm presenting on behalf of Assemblymember Berman. AB 2,771 is the sunset vehicle for the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education.

Specifically, this bill extends the sunset, to 01/01/2031, Titan's accreditation and approval requirements for schools and programs, requires school to notify the Bureau of certain events such as bankruptcy, prohibits school from withholding documents required for a lencher certification or relaxed, or related to examinations because the student owes a debt and makes a variety of other technical changes, and policy reforms in response to issues raised during the bureau sunset review. I'm joined by Manila Vongmani and Elizabeth Elias from the Bureau to answer any technical questions.

But with that, I think we can just move on.

Do we have a a support witness?

We're good.

Any opposition witness? Any audience support or opposition? You can line up at the microphone and stating your name and your position.

Good morning, Chair members. Sara Abu Abibs on behalf of the Institute for College Access and Success in support.

Good morning. I'm McKenna Mustaza with NextGen California and also on behalf of Protect Borrowers, Young Invincibles, and the Student Debt Crisis Center in support.

Good morning. I'm Angela Williams, a public school teacher and a for profit borrower from Brooks Institute. I am in support of AB 2771.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. If not, I will ask oh, one more. Yeah. Go ahead.

Yes. Hi. Melissa Cortese on behalf of the University of Phoenix. No official position. Have a couple of concerns around Striff, working with the author, and the Chair of the Committee.

No. Move it.

Okay. Thank thank you. Any anyone have question by the committee members?

Move it. Okay. Motion has been made up by Senator Atulera. Please please call the roll.

Thank you. Question is do passes on education. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye.

Choi.

Aye.

Choi, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adegin, Herrero, Grayson?

Menjivar? Nilo? Smallwood Cuevas? Strickland?

Strickland, aye. Embark?

Aye.

Alright. That bill's on call. I do wanna highlight that the rest of the bills are committee bills, so we are gonna move through this. And, you know, file item 16, AB 2772, Assemblymember Berman.

Thank you, Chair and senators. AB 2772 is a sunset bill for the California Council for Interior Design Certification. First of all, I am happy to accept the committee's requested amendment. While interior designers are not required to become certified in California, those who choose to obtain certification are granted the authority to use protected titles in their advertising.

In addition to extending its sunset date by four years, this bill would recognize the council's quasi public status by requiring it to adhere to laws promoting accountability and transparency in state agencies.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 2772. And with me today is Catherine Hampton with the council to answer any technical questions that might come up.

Thank you. Do we have, lead opposition? Seeing none, lead opposition? Right over there and you will be timed. Two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Wehav and members. My name is Mary Oliver, and I'm here on behalf of the in International Interior Design Association. We represent 1,800 commercial interior designers in California. We respectfully urge your no vote on AB 2772. I've been following this issue for years, and I have to ask, what is the purpose of a sunset review if none of the issues raised are ever addressed?

Every time CCIDC comes before legislature, we hear the same promises. Every sunset review identifies the same problems, refusal to conduct open meetings, weak governance, poor accountability, outdated financial reporting, and failure to provide basic information about its own certification program, yet nothing changes. Instead of fixing those problems, AB2772 simply asked legislatures to give CCIDC another four years. Why? CCIDC as a statutory creation is mandated to have open meetings and yet in two back to back sunset reviews, they have failed to address this issue.

AB 2772 now proposes allowing this voluntary entity to charge civil penalties. Without open meetings, what is the appeal process for designers who have been charged a penalty? CCIDC's director does not live in the state and the staff are not designers themselves, so they lack the basic requirements to provide any value to our profession. It has repeatedly struggled to provide accurate financial information and reliable data about certificate holders. The experiment of a voluntary structure for designers has failed.

Let's stop pretending this is working. By keeping CCIDC in statute, you are providing your tacit approval that CCIDC works. There is no justification for continuing a statutory certification body that has repeatedly failed the legislature's own expectations. To Senator Menjivar earlier point, this trust us process isn't working. AB 2772 is not a reform.

It is another delay. We respectfully ask you to vote no on AB 2772, allow CCIDC to sunset, and let California finally move toward meaningful reform. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Krislyn Lounsberry, and I am a certified Interior Designer in California. I earned my certification in 2007. At that time, the requirements including pass included passing the NCIDQ, a re rigorous nationally recognized exam that reflects the real complexity and responsibility of commercial interior designers. Today, that is no longer the case.

The requirement has been reduced to the IDEX exam, a less in-depth California Pacific exam. So over time, the standard tied to the certification has been lowered. And in the nearly two decades since earning my certification, it has had little to no meaningful impact on my career.

It has not expanded my scope of work, created new opportunities, or been requested by clients. The current system under CCIDC is not functioning in a way that meaningfully serves designers or the public. That concern is compounded when the organization responsible for certifying competency struggles with basic accountability and accuracy.

Issues like lack of consistent public access to meetings and errors in testing materials related to life safety standards raise real concerns about oversight and reliability. Meanwhile, the work we do every day has only become more complex. I work within the California building code, fire and life safety requirements, and accessibility standards. I make decisions every day that impact how people safely occupy buildings. There is a clear disconnect between the level of responsibility we carry and the system that is supposed to represent and regulate us. That is why I oppose the extension of the current CCIDC framework through AB 2772

and support moving forward with the Practice Act proposed in AB 1796. We should not preserve a system that has lowered its standards, lacks accountability, and has not delivered meaningful value. We should move toward one that reflects the real work, responsibility, and expertise of today's interior designers.

We're gonna move on to lead support witnesses.

Good morning. I'm Catherine Hampton, and I'm a board member of the California Council for Interior Design Certification. I am a certified interior designer with the commercial designation, and I have my own firm, and I pull permits. First, I'd like to thank the Chair members and committee staff for their hard work ensuring an effective sunset review process. We strongly support AB 2772

and respectfully urge the committee to approve it today. CCID approaches sunset review not only as an oversight function, but also as an opportunity for healthy self examination for improvement. Having been through sunset review for five times, we believe CCIDC's reputation as an effective, efficient consumer protection entity is well deserved. I can unequivocally share that CDIDC is firmly committed to its consumer protection mission and to continuous improvement. Any and all recommendations or directives from the legislature are a top priority and are implemented with great care.

We are proud of CCIDC's record. There's a very long list of all the program improvements, transparency measures, and public participation enhancements that have been implemented. We understand that there's an incredibly small group of practitioners out of about 8,000 who seek to restrict the market and challenge CCIDC. We welcome all feedback and are confident that CCIDC is honoring the public trust. We appreciate that this bill makes two key improvements.

One, it updates the definition of design professional to remove any doubt that plans must be accepted by building departments. And two, like the architects board, CCIDC will receive settlement judgment and arbitration award reports, which would allow them to keep a finger on the pulse of the marketplace and to make any reforms based on empirical data. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other lead witnesses? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to Me Too's. Are you a lead witness or okay. Alright.

Me Too, state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose.

No other commentary will be accepted.

Hello. My name is Holly Zahra. I am with IIDA. I'm also an Interior Designer with DG Architects. And I am, I oppose the extension of CCIDC.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members. Marcus Friedman, administrative director for the Consumer Protection Policy Center, in support.

Tracy Godby, IIDA president in Sacramento, and I oppose the extension.

Thank you.

I'm Dominique Aseke with Hayworth, and I oppose AB 2772. Thank you.

Jonathan Chow with DLR Group, also NCIDQ qualified. We also urge you to vote no on AB 2772.

Janice Plasus. I am the secretary for CLCID, which is California Council for Legislative Council for Interior Designers, and I support this.

My name is Weiwei Shah, working in the RTGA Architects, and I oppose the extension of AB 2772. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Steve Jones, certified Interior Designer since 1993, and I support this. Thank you.

Eileen Salzinger, a certified Interior Designer, and I support.

Hello. Patricia Johnson, certified Interior Designer and Sustainability Director and, Treasurer of CCIDC. I support 2772.

Hello. My name is Sophia Mong. I'm a recent graduate of CSU Sacramento with a BFA in interior architecture and the former president of the IIDA Campus Center, also at Sac State, and I oppose.

Hi. Laura Taylor, Interior Designer with DLR Group and CIDQ certified, and I oppose the extension of the sunset review. Thank you.

Damien Watson, Interior Designer at Two Furnish. I oppose the bill.

Adam Newton, Interior Designer in the Chair's District, and I oppose.

Kristen Maganini. I'm a certified Interior Designer since 2012, and I support.

Olga Zdanevich, Interior Designer and I support.

Sally Midgley, an Interior Designer at Apadec Architecture and Interior Design and I oppose.

I'm Lita Pham, Interior Designer, part of IIDA, and I oppose.

Thank you. Committee members?

All right. First and foremost, I do want to thank the author. I want to thank everyone who spoke. I understand that there is also a raffle for speaking as a me too of $500 in opposition of the bill. So just to put that on record, I do want to flag that occupational licensing also carries a significant ongoing financial obligation for many California professionals beyond the initial licensing process. In addition to education and examination requirements, many licensees must pay recurring renewal fees, complete mandatory and continuing education and satisfy profession specific training requirements to maintain active licensure.

For example, according to the California Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers, certified residential and certified general real estate appraisers currently pay renewal fees exceeding a thousand dollars each renewal cycle and must complete fifty six hours of continuing education every four years including mandatory coursework and much more. I do wanna say that California appraisers must maintain an active state license, pay substantial renewal fees and complete extensive continuing education requirements in order to remain eligible to perform those transactions.

You know, one of the things that we also wanted to say say is mandatory state licensure standing alone does not guarantee greater professional advancement, higher compensation or increased marketplace recognition in, you know, these types of professions advancement in principally driven by education experience, technical expertise, successful project delivery, reputation, credentials, client demand and much more. You know, there, I think, was a lot of conversation here about our process. And obviously, we have a sunset review process and much more.

Would you like to kind of comment on that?

Appreciate the folks who came in and testified today. Appreciate the comments of the Chair. I'd just say, you know, eliminating the council wouldn't actually eliminate the private nonprofit. Right? It would just eliminate state oversight.

It would eliminate title protection. It would eliminate, you know, the council being having to abide by Bagley Keene open meeting requirements. I don't think that eliminating the council is the solution to the concerns that are being raised by folks. And and so I appreciate the concerns that they raise. I would strongly encourage the legislature to to to to pass the sunset bill, AB 2772 for the California Council for interior design.

And I wanna be clear, the two things that have been discussed, your bill versus some of the comments, they're two separate things. Correct. Correct? Thank you.

Yes. Very much so.

With that, could we get a courtesy motion?

Yes.

Thank you. Senator Strickland moves the bill. Assembly member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Strickland. Can we get a roll call?

Motion is do passed as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab Aye. Choi, Archuleta, Adegaine, Caballero, Grayson, Menjivar, Nilo, Smolod Cuevas, Strickland?

No. Strickland, no. Umberg.

Alright. We're gonna move on to, that bill's on call. We're gonna move on to file item number 17, AB 2773 by Assemblymember Berman.

Thank you very much, Chair and senators. AB 2773 is a sunset vehicle for the Board of Occupational Therapy. The bill extends the board until 01/01/2031. Makes it easier for doctoral graduates to become licensed, authorizes the board to charge minor administrative fees, and makes other technical changes in response to issues raised during the board's sunset review. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.