June 24, 2026 · Arts Entertainment Sports And Tourism · 6,162 words · 21 speakers · 108 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Well, good morning. Everyone is in good spirits this morning. I want to welcome you to the hearing. Welcome you to today's hearing on the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports and Tourism. Many absent members should make their way to room 444 of the state capitol. We have seven items on our agenda today, with three of those being ACRs that are proposed for consent. As always, each bill will have up to two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each witness will receive up to two minutes to present. For those that are still wishing to do so, written testimony can, of course, be submitted through the committee's position portal on our website. And for those attending in person, a quick reminder that conduct which disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited. I want to thank you. And with that, we have our first Senate author. I'd like to invite Senator Cabaldon up here to be able to present SB 226. We are going to work as a subcommittee. I think we are one shy of quorum. But in the meantime, the floor is yours.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm here to present SB 266, which makes a straightforward but important clarification to the existing law regarding infrastructure revitalization financing districts by clarifying that entertainment and sports facilities are included in the law. They're not currently barred from the law, but it's not clear. These districts allow local communities to fund major infrastructure development projects using the new tax revenue that the projects on them will generate without drawing on the general fund or burden existing taxpayers. And when a community is putting together a revitalization project that has the potential to dramatically increase both economic development, but ultimately tax revenue for itself and for other overlapping local agencies and, of course, for the state, these investments make a great deal of sense. SB 226 creates the certainty that is needed for those to work by simply clarifying that sports and entertainment facilities are included in the existing IRFD law and removing any of the ambiguity so that local agencies can move forward with some confidence. Now, this is not just an abstract idea. California is preparing to submit a single bid for the Major League Baseball expansion team that the league has announced that they will be considering two in the country, one in each half of the country. And the city of West Sacramento is pursuing, along with its regional partners, pursuing that franchise, anchored by a new ballpark and waterfront mixed-use development. This is an area I've been involved in for a long time. If you've been to the A's game, this is the first I've helped as mayor to architect the financing and construction strategy for that facility. We also were involved in the regional efforts to build the arena for the Kings and so we have a lot of experience in this space I also was the assembly staffer working for the member who got this initial law passed for Treasure Island development in San Francisco. RFDs are not a common instrument. In most situations, they don't work for just regular economic development. But for projects like this that have very substantial turnaround potential, both because of the tax increment mechanism itself, but also because of the underlying, just the underlying property values that are an artifact of the history of disinvestment and poverty in communities like mine. In this particular instance, this is a mechanism that can be quite powerful in making California's bid for the MLB a reality. And so this carries statewide significance. And with one California team now departing for Las Vegas, this effort would allow our state to maintain its current number of MLB franchises, including here in Northern California. So with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote and introduce our witness on the bill today, who is the city manager of the city of West Sacramento and the former president of the California Association of Local Economic Development,
Aaron Laurel. Welcome. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon, and good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Senator Cabaldon gave a great overview there. I don't have a whole lot to add, but I do want to underscore a couple of points about some of the details around this funding mechanism. So So first and foremost, it only is used in projects where the money is generated by the project. So in other words, there's no outside property tax funding coming into this. There's no risk to our general fund. In this case, it would be a stadium and surrounding development and the property tax increment. Only the city's portion, mind you, would be put back into the deal to help with the financing costs of the stadium. On that note, also, I just want to emphasize that none of the other taxing entities that are receiving property tax from the development would be impacted. So that includes the school districts. The county can only participate if they voluntarily do so. So we're only talking about the city's portion of the tax. And that's a very important distinction here because in other forms of tax increment from the past, like redevelopment, that wasn't the case. So it's very much a local tool for projects such as this. So we're really excited about this opportunity to pursue a major league expansion in the Sacramento region and particularly in West Sacramento's Bridge District. The senator kind of gave the history on the meaning of that to us. The Bridge District is bigger than just baseball. It's a very vibrant, sustainable infill community. and we're very excited by the prospect of the stadium coming in to help accelerate and really amplify the work that we've already been doing for the past couple decades. So I'm here to answer any questions you have, and with that, I'll respectfully request your aye vote and thank Senator Kevaldin, my former boss, for carrying the bill for us. Thank you.
Great. Thank you. Great to have you. Are there any other members of the public here wishing to register a position of support?
Good morning. Ross Buckley on Bath.
One second. I'm sorry. Thank you.
Good morning. Ross Buckley on Beth the Sea of Sacramento in support. Thank you.
Seeing no other members of the public wish to approach the microphone. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? We have none on file. Okay. Seeing none, any members of the public wish to register a statement position of opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll turn this back to committee members. Questions or comment? Again, we're operating as a subcommittee.
Assembly member Ortega. I'll move the motion when appropriate.
When appropriate. When appropriate. But I do want to thank the senator for bringing this bill forward.
I won't hold it against you for mentioning the Oakland A's, formerly known as the Oakland A's. As in my previous life I actually worked very hard with the city of Oakland in trying to maintain the A in the city and remember having to you know maneuver all the infrastructure all the pieces to make it happen Unfortunately they have chosen to leave the state. And so I'm, you know, happy to support your bill today and look forward to what's to come. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other member questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. Senator, I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. You're a champion for this region, certainly your home city of West Sacramento. And, you know, I think your history on working on these kinds of projects and the legacy that you're leaving already to date. And I think your vision for what you have going forward is, you know, going to be more than than most of us in elected office would ever be able to achieve. I did have just a couple of, I think, technical questions around this, because, one, I wanted to understand. And maybe this will come, I know, before local government committee and we can dig a little bit deeper. You know, your use of your proposed use of the IRFD as opposed to an EIFD structure. IRFDs, of course, have a little bit of higher barrier with local approval to be able to establish. And so why are we choosing this method? What would be a more beneficiary method to this structure as opposed to using our EIFDs to be able to accomplish the same?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad you asked because this this the city and the bridge district were the have been the very first EIFD in California so there's an existing EIFD that's overlaid over this district and most of the city already for the for the more generalized purposes of infrastructure development and for the development that's already occurred in the bridge district and so the these will work together in order to yet you are absolutely correct this is a more difficult instrument to use which is why very few have done so that's right but But on top of the EIFD is in order to, because we're not disturbing that. Those are for infrastructure projects throughout the district and the city and already have bonds associated with them. This would be on top of that district.
Got it. Walk me through if you can. Let's say this is established. And now this is a vehicle that can be used for the financing, a financing mechanism or part of a financing mechanism for that kind of a new project. One of the things that I know we will get hit sometimes as a legislature is the idea that we've got something that is really meant for public and for beneficial, for beneficial public uses.
Right. And that really is already existing law with under the section.
When you think about your roads, your infrastructure, your stormwater maintenance, parks, libraries, yada, yada. And then now we're going to add in here, although there already is existing law here that private, commercial and industrial spaces can be used. so I appreciate this as clarification. So you've got a mechanism that while it's limited to that parcel and is generating new tax increment over time and into the future, is going to be able to repay that development of that parcel as well. Meanwhile, we have other sports facilities, SoFi comes to mind, that were 100% purely privately financed. And so how do we counter of the argument that we're using a tool that's meant for public benefit, but the tax increment and the future benefit is going towards a private sports facility?
Great question. And like you, I was around during the end of redevelopment and the abuse of redevelopment by a couple of jurisdictions and a couple of whom were dealing with sports facilities is one of the reasons why public and state government confidence in that tool dissipated. So it a really important question And the stadium that is there today was financed without that kind of investment But what I think important to remember is that for both kinds of districts EIFDs and for IRFDs we talking about investments in the infrastructure So unlike, for example, the Irwindale project for the Raiders, I think it was, or similar projects where essentially they're trying to figure out how to subsidize directly the development itself. basically write a check to the sports team or to the stadium developer. These resources are for the infrastructure associated with the project. And so they are to the benefit of the overall community because they are the sidewalks, the roads. In the case of the existing stadium, it was on septic before sewer systems and whatever, which then provided the platform for all other amenities and steps forward for the communities. So I think that's really the key answer with respect to what are we doing for the larger community. The other is that in this particular case, there's absolutely – this is not an old redevelopment strategy where you'd say, hey, we're going to declare an area for tax increment financing and we'll make some investments and then cross our fingers. This one's specifically tied exclusively to this project. And so if there's no project, there's no district. And if there is a project, then the direct economic benefit to not just the community through the availability of the facility and all the ancillary things that will occur, but it will also boost the tax revenue for every other taxing district in the region for Medi-Cal and mental health, for community colleges, and for everything else that are in the district. So none of which would be available if the project didn't move forward. So in this case, the benefits are to the community itself as opposed to a payoff to some owner, you know, in five states away.
Right. No, I appreciate that. And I think that's going to be important to underscore as that conversation continues, because you're right, there will be substantial economic benefits to the public for that kind of a new facility and that new economic driver to be able to be in existence right now. but you've got to lay down that infrastructure, and I think it's important there to underscore, one, the infrastructure component here that will serve multiple purposes, you know, beyond the facility itself but the broader community, and two, like you said, you know, this is coming out of the city's share, and we're not going to be able to, like, affect the county or school districts or others that are getting from that. At this time, we do have a quorum. I'm going to ask Madam Secretary to call the roll. Ward.
Present.
Lackey.
Here.
El Hawari.
Here.
Oh, Jeff Gonzalez. McKinner, Ortega, Quirk Silva, Valencia, Zabir. Thank you. We do have a quorum. We have a motion that I'll accept by Assemblymember Ortega. Is there a second? A second by Mr. Zabir. Well, I appreciate the proposal that you have. It's well thought. I think it will serve great purpose and hopefully the Sacramento region will not be the last to be able to use this new opportunity. With that, this enjoys a denied recommendation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. SB 226, the motion is due passed to the Assembly Committee on Local Government. Ward?
Aye.
Ward, aye.
Lackey?
Aye.
Lackey, aye.
El Huari?
Aye.
El Huari, aye.
Jeff Gonzalez?
McKinner?
Ortega? Aye.
Ortega, aye.
Quirk Silva? Aye.
Quirk Silva, aye.
Valencia?
Zver?
Aye.
Zver, aye. That has six votes. It will be out. We'll hold the roll up in for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. And we are awaiting additional Senate authors. so we only get on with our mornings. I appreciate those that got here just a little bit early so we can be effective with our day. Thank you. Members at this time, I'd be happy to entertain a motion on the consent calendar. There are three ACRs, items one, two, and three, moved by Ortega and seconded by Assemblymember Elowari. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Motions on consent are as follows. ACR 175 be adopted. ACR 204 be adopted. ACR 221 be adopted.
Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.
Lackey? Aye.
Lackey, aye. El Huwari? Aye.
El Huwari, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye.
Jeff Gonzalez, aye. McKenner? Ortega? Aye.
Ortega, aye. Cork Silva? Aye.
Cork Silva, aye. Valencia?
Zburr? Aye. Zburr, aye.
That content calendar has seven votes.
It will be adopted and will hold the roll up for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. While we're waiting, Mr. Gonzalez, we'll go ahead and open the roll for item 4, SB 226. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. SB 226, do pass the Assembly Committee on Local Government.
Yes, Gonzalez? Aye.
Jeff Gonzalez, aye. SB 226, current roll call is 7-0. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right. We have our next Senate author, Senator Ashby. You have two bills before this committee. I'll let you choose which one you want to begin with. What's your pleasure, Chair? It is sincerely your choice. You have SB 865 or 1050. Okay. We'll get them both out here.
Oh, hi. I guess I'll do this one.
Okay. They'll choose for you.
Hi, Mike. How are you?
Good.
Unless you want to do AI work with me as well.
Whatever you want.
Okay. Well, good morning, colleagues. Bright and early Happy to see you Chair okay to start All right great We are here to talk about music festivals really fun and important topic Music festivals have a profound economic impact in Sacramento, and I know abroad we call this the creative economy. So this is me trying really hard to make sure that the state of California continues to be the leader in the creative economy in this country. These music festivals that we all love and enjoy, they attract thousands of visitors every year. They generate millions of dollars in economic activity. They create jobs and contribute significant tax revenue that bolsters the local economies as well. In the Sacramento region alone, and I love to look at your staff's basis here because they usually know more than you about these particular events, but we have Aftershock and Golden Sky, which are two music festivals that are really large and they're in a park, Discovery Park. They generated in economic impact over $44 million for Sacramento. These festivals supported 13,000 jobs, generated $230,000 in just local sales tax revenue alone, and $1.1 million in state sales tax contributions. That's just one city with two music festivals. Imagine the impact across the entire state for all of these festivals. However, music festivals have an extremely high production cost, such as safety and sanitation and staff services. They have to improve the space before they can come in and then put it back the way it was when they leave, not to mention pay all of those artists. Big upfront costs. SB 865 is intended to make sure that the creative economy continues to infuse all of our districts and ultimately our lives and our communities' lives. SB 865 has received bipartisan support as it's moved through the legislature to this point and has not received any opposition. The goal here is to create a source that supports this economic development and this really important creative economy engine in each of our districts. And I have with me some incredible witnesses that I'm very excited for you to meet, ask them all the hard questions. Right next to me is my very good friend, Mike Testa. Mike is the president and CEO of Visit Sacramento.
So he recruits all the cool, fun stuff. You may have heard of the Bridge Dinner. That is a great example of his work. Mike will talk to you a little bit about the economic impact of music festivals for not only our region but across the state. And then also Dylan Welsh is with us. Dylan's the Senior Director of Legal Affairs for Danny Wimmer Presents, which, lest you think I was only focused on Sacramento. Aftershock and Golden Sky are presented by Danny Wimmer, which is a Los Angeles-based company.
So this is everybody. This is all of us. I'm very excited for you to get to hear from them today, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Welcome to our witnesses. You have two minutes each.
Good morning. As the Senator said, Mike Testa, President and CEO of Visit Sacramento, I often tell people that if music festivals were easy, everybody would do it. The reality is that every year offers multiple ways for these events to fail, from poor ticket sales to 100-plus degree temperatures, smoke from wildfires that impacts a singer's ability to sing to other elements that the organizer has no control of. The cost of losing these events, not only for Sacramento, but for the state of California, is significant. From a financial standpoint, Destination Music Festivals are vital to our economy in Sacramento by driving impact to local businesses, creating jobs, as the senator said, and millions of dollars in tax revenues for the city and the county. But of importance is that these events generate significant revenues for the state of California, south of $1 million per festival. Close to 13,000 jobs are created over the month-long build time and activation. You know, the promoter takes 100% of the risk for these events, and there's no way of knowing if ticket sales will be off this year, if they'll be better this year, again, if there's wildfires, things that impact. The reality is if the promoter loses a bunch of money, the city, the county, and the state still make all of theirs. There is no risk to any of these partners for these events. The promoter takes 100% of the risk. You know, Golden Sky, we had it for three years. It left after the third year because it just didn't pencil for the promoter. We're bringing it back next year, and some of that assistance is coming from Visit Sacramento. We want to invest in that because it was so valuable for this region, but there's no guarantee that it'll be enough of what we're doing. And so we look at those opportunities that we just don't want to lose. We've lost Soul Bloom in Sacramento. We lost the Breakaway Music Festival, things that created jobs and provided impact. The last thing that I'll say to you is Aftershock is a 165,000-person destination festival over four days, drives $40 million in economic impact. It is not branded to Sacramento. It is not branded to California. At any point, that event could be picked up and moved to any other state because the brand is aftershock. I think it is fair for the promoter to think if the state or the city or the region doesn't commit to me, why should I commit to them? And that's, I think, one of the things that we're
facing. Thank you for the opportunity this morning. Thank you. My name is Dylan Welsh. On behalf of Danny Wimmer Presents, DWP is an independent promoter that produces destination music festivals. We're headquartered in California. Sixty percent of our staff reside in California, We are the producers of two California festivals, Aftershock, the West Coast's largest rock festival, and Golden Sky Country Music Festival that will return to Sacramento in 2027. These festivals are proven economic drivers for California. A recent independent economic impact study found that Aftershock generates nearly $80 million in annual economic output and $8.8 million in tax revenue. Golden Sky represents an additional $34 million in economic output and $3.7 million in tax revenue. Producing each festival is like building a city every single year, complete with all infrastructure, staffing, safety, and public services needed to host tens of thousands of daily visitors. To produce Aftershock alone, DWP commits to $37 million in expenses before opening doors and takes 100% of the risk. DWP remains committed to investing in California festivals, but the current model is not sustainable. For the last four years, we've seen national inflation of 3.3%, and our costs to produce and operate a music festival have increased by 11% each year. We cannot pass these costs on in the ticket price, or festivals will become unaffordable to many attendees who fill hotels, support local businesses, and inject millions of dollars into our economy. SB 865 ensures California will remain competitive in attracting and retaining major festivals. To qualify, promoters must meet significant attendance thresholds, maintain long-term agreements with host communities, support local businesses, feature local performers, and demonstrate meaningful economic impact. SB 865 is an investment in supporting California jobs, California tourism, California businesses, and California's creative economy. Thank you for your time this morning.
Thank you. Are there other members of the public wishing to register a position of support?
Good morning Russ Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento in support Thank you Mr Chair and members Alex Torres on behalf of the National Independent Venue Association representing 650 venues and promoters also on behalf of the California Capital Venues Coalition in strong support
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.
Jason Schmelzer on behalf of California Arts Advocates in strong support.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members.
Walid Hajaj representing the League of California Cities in support.
Thank you. Thank you.
Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of the California travel
association and support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who is wishing to offer a position of opposition or a statement of opposition? Seeing none, we'll turn this back to committee member questions and comments and emotion. Mr. Gonzalez.
As I look at this bill, a few things automatically come to mind 20 million. Where are we going to find the money for 20 million? But I represent a small little festival called Coachella and Stagecoach. And this October desert trip to include smaller venues that are now starting to pop up because of the influx of people. Desert Rodeo being one of them where they have a smaller venue while Stagecoach is going for more of the local pieces. is just a stagecoach in Coachella bring in roughly approximately $700 million to California. A hundred million of that is going just to the local economy in Indio. So the fiscal conservative in me is like, but I also look at this and say, is this worth, is a juice worth the squeeze, right? with 700 million coming into California. Absolutely. So that's where, you know, we were talking the other day about we got to do the hard things, right? It was a casual conversation. And this is one of those things where we say, yes, let's invest because the payout of 10,000, 20,000 jobs into just into my region, a quarter of a million people just coming into the Coachella Valley. That's where I have to say, yes, the juice is worth the squeeze. With a 20% unemployment rate in counties like Imperial, this brings in a whole bunch of jobs. So my encouragement is that I want more smaller events that can couple along with these larger events so that we can grow areas like Imperial County that absolutely need it, Riverside County and San Bernardino County. So these are one of the hard things where we have to say the juice is worth the squeeze. So I thank the, the, the author for this. Thank you.
Thank you. Senator McKenna.
Yes. I'd also like to thank the author for this bill. And I have a little, I have a lot of music in my district. I have big music and big venues, but I also have a little festival called rolling loud. He's yours too. Danny Wimmer's in your, my area. It's where I love it. Like, we love music in my area. And so we have this little festival called Rolling Loud, and it brings in tons of money and tons of visitors to my area. Whenever we have people out having a good time spending money, it helps our general fund. And so it's worth the squeeze. I'm like what you're saying. Yes, it's worth the squeeze. So I encourage everybody to support this bill because this will put into our general fund. And I think that is big business when we bring these festivals in. And so thank you for this.
All right with that I hearing a motion from Mr Gonzalez and a second from Ms McKenna Any other members wishing or questions or comments Well Senator Aspey I want to thank you very much for bringing this idea forward Of course, I know you're also working on a companion issue with regard to the budget to make sure the money would be there. Always important that we're covering both bases. I recognize that these festivals can have a huge impact, but particularly to that local economy, for your local tourism, for the local hospitality industry. But the most important part of these smaller musical festivals I think that you're trying to promote is that you're giving a space for local artists to be able to have their break. And that is a great benefit to those that are just trying to sort of find themselves on the stage and hopefully get noticed and hopefully take their career and their talent elsewhere. So there are multiple wins here. And I think it's a great opportunity that we've been missing so far that you're leading on to be able to highlight that venue. and to be able to support that industry here in California for all those wins. That invites you to close, and we're happy to take a roll.
Well, thank you so much. I love this bill because it's exactly this whole committee, which we don't even have this committee in the Senate, but I wish we did because the creative economy is, it's literally our DNA in California, and you're right. This helps the artists. It helps the cities. Without Bottle Rock, Napa has almost no transit occupancy. They don't have another big event. They just have the wineries. They don't have a big event. That's their signature event. Even in San Francisco, outside lands makes a huge difference in their creative economy. This helps everyone, Huntington Beach, San Francisco, L.A., and Sacramento. And I'm really excited to see it through. I'm so grateful. I knew this committee would get it because it's all about how we use arts to grow what's happening in the state of California. Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Thank you, Senator. Madam Secretary. Please call the roll. SB 865, the motion is due past the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
Ward? Aye.
Ward, aye.
Lackey? Aye.
Lackey, aye.
El Huari? Aye.
El Huari, aye.
Jeff Gonzalez, aye.
Makinner, aye. Makinner, aye.
Ortega, aye.
Quirk Silva? Aye.
Quirk Silva, aye.
Valencia? Zver?
Aye.
Zver, aye. Right now the roll's at 8-0.
That will be out and we'll hold the roll up for perhaps some members. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And when you're ready, you can go ahead and begin your presentation on SB 1050, item number six. Hi.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. This is another important bill in the creative economy space. This one protecting workers. SB 1050, California, as you know, point of pride, home to the largest and most influential creative sector in the world. We want to keep it that way. Over 750,000 jobs power the state's creative economy, which generates over 190 billion federal, state, and local dollars. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have led to the creation of synthetic performers, human-like digital figures that convincingly appear and speak and move and perform like real people. The use of these performers in advertisements is misleading. It's misleading to consumers and allows creators to avoid the responsibility of hiring real workers. Over 75% of adults in the USA steps should be taken to regulate AI-altered content. With the evolution of AI and its impact on commercial media California really must ensure that existing advertising laws are updated to reflect new realities SB 1050 does this by requiring disclosures when a synthetic person is depicted in an advertisement The bill is sponsored by SAG-AFTRA and supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, Common Sense Media, and the National Association of Voice Actors, amongst many, many other supporters. With me to testify today is Shane Guzman, representing SAG-AFTRA and the Teamsters. and Tim Freelander, who's president of the National Association of Voice Actors.
Thank you. Welcome. You have two minutes each.
Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Shane Gussman, on behalf of SAG-AFTRA, proud sponsor of this bill, and also the Teamsters, who are Hollywood local, supports this bill. AB1050 provides for a basic disclosure when an advertiser utilizes synthetic performers. This is not a new concept. We've had disclosure requirements for many years. The bill is about protecting consumers by ensuring that they have adequate notice and that the image or voice trying to convince them to buy a product or service is not a real human being. The bill is also about protecting the artists SAG-AFTRA represents. Our view is the replacement of human actors with computer-generated synthetics, perhaps trained on stolen performances, jeopardizes jobs and devalues human artistry. Consumers deserve to know when that occurs. Lastly, we have taken significant amendments to try to mitigate the concerns of the opponents. We will continue to work through this process over the next committee and through the summer to try to get there if we can, but we need to make sure that we don't undermine the intent of this bill. It needs to work. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
Good morning, everybody. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Tim Friedlander. I'm a professional voice actor, small business owner, proud SAG-AFTRA member. I'm one of the co-founders of the Creators Coalition on AI and a co-founder of the National Association of Voice Actors, where we have over 1,700 professional voice actors across California and across this country. I'm here today because consumers have a right to know when the person selling them something isn't a person at all. The use of an unlabeled synthetic in a video or audio commercial is by its very nature untrue and deceptive. When a real performer appears in a commercial, either on screen or behind a microphone, they bring something unique, authentic human experience, but also accountability. When an AI-generated likeness or voice replaces that performer without disclosure, consumers are being misled. They are forming trust and making purchasing decisions based on a performance they believe was done by a human. The audio-only industry is massive, with the podcast industry itself projected to be worth $17 billion by 2030. California residents are in the top two consumers of podcasts in this country, with over 90% of them listening on their smartphones on the go. These audio-only listeners have no idea if they're listening to a human or a synthetic voice. And this is not hypothetical. AI tools are already being used to clone voices and replicate real performance in commercials, sometimes without their consent, and almost always without consumer awareness. And a sign of things to come, over 100 stations and a nationwide radio network replaced every voice actor,
every voice talent with AI-generated voices. California has long led the nation in protecting performer and consumer rights. Labeling AI-generated commercials is the next logical step. Disclosure doesn't stifle innovation. It builds the trust that makes innovation sustainable. Financial, legal, medical, and political advertisers know this. Audiences deserve transparency, and just like their food, deserve the right to know if what they are ingesting is real or synthetic. And I urge your support today on Senator Ashton's bill, SB 1050. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. You are indeed a very good professional voice. Are there other members of the public here wishing to register a statement of support?
Mr. Chair, member Sarah Phlox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Thank you.
Good morning. Dagny Starn on behalf of Common Sense Media and the Music Artist Coalition in support.
Thank you very much. Okay, we do have registered opposition on file. Are there two up to two primary witnesses wishing to offer a statement of opposition? Thank you, and you'll have two minutes each as well.
Can I go first? Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet, here today to respectfully oppose SB 1050, unless it is amended. We appreciate the author's goal of promoting transparency and agree consumers should not be misled. Our concerns are about ensuring the bill is targeted, workable and aligned with existing law. First, materiality. As drafted, we still feel the bill requires a label anytime a synthetic performer appears, even a synthetic background or obviously stylized use that no reasonable consumer would find deceptive. California advertising law has always tied disclosure to risk of material deception. And we're simply asking this bill to do the same. With that anchor, the recent removal of the word prominently means disclosures get attached to the content