Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Committee

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. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Good afternoon Welcome to Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection. We are so popular today, so we're glad you're all here. We will be missing Assemblymember Wicks today, but we welcome Assemblymember Bennett in her place. We have 17 bills on the agenda today. One on the consent calendar, which is a Senator Umberg bill, SB 96. And we will take a motion on that once we have a quorum. Members, feel free to stop by so we can get that quorum going. To effectively manage our time today, we'll be living testimony to two witnesses in support and two in opposition. Two minutes for everybody presenting. it's required that primary witnesses have communicated with the committee staff and submitted to the committee their supporter opposition prior to today's hearing after the support witnesses we will make time for everybody to give us their name organization and position if you do not have time to give us everything you want to say please use our portal online we love to see people's comments and we do read those letters and process those thoughts and that is still available to people even after today's hearing. With that, don't disturb. Be polite. Keep decorum. And we will... We're just going to go for it, Senator Umberg. So we're going to take up SB 574, Mr. Senator Umberg's bill. When you're ready, Senator.

do you have a witness?

you're it we'll take it

you are enough so with that we will take any other individuals here in support of this bill SB 574 come on up Name organization and position Tracy always here Yeah Good afternoon Chair and members Tracy Rosenberg Oka Privacy in support of the bill Anyone here in opposition to this bill Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee member.

Nope.

Well, I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. But if artificial intelligence can generate obvious errors, can generate obvious bias, and so when a lawyer sees that, when a lawyer sees obvious bias, they have to eliminate it. They also have to make sure that they don't submit personal information. So if you're putting somebody's social security number in a complaint, you need to file it under seal. If it's not necessary, you shouldn't be putting it in a complaint, that kind of thing. So an attorney is responsible to make sure that whatever document they submit, because everything, as we know, is subject to being scraped from the web. So you don't want documents, pleadings, et cetera, filed that may be used for nefarious purposes, inappropriate nefarious purposes.

being used to train the model for other people's purposes. You could, but virtually everything that's filed is accessible to the public. It has to be accessible to the public. And so unless you file it under seal, anybody can view it and access it.

Thank you, Salim. May I note that I love that Assemblymember Irwin's daughter is now her lawyer advisor. It's amazing.

No, I'm pleased that you're both hanging out with

Yeah. Well, thank you. And the time is right. We'll take a motion. And thank you, Senator, for this and the many years of bills you brought to us. We will miss you.

Not in the assembly. This is the last time you're speaking before me for sure in the assembly.

OK, fair enough. Then we'll see you then.

OK, thank you. Okay. Okay. So we're looking for some senators and, frankly, some assembly members here at 444 for the Assembly Privacy Committee. Senator Padilla would be next on our agenda, but if any senators are wanting to get out of here on the earlier side, this is your opportunity. Hop on by. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Okay, we have an author because Assemblymember Pellerin will be presenting Senator Rubio's bill SB 1276 so we will hear this time. I'm excited.

Good afternoon, everyone. Again, my name is Laura Drino, and I am with the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and handle everything involving crimes against children. I'm here in strong support of SB 1276. I've been a prosecutor for almost 33 years now, and this bill closes a real gap in the law by harmonizing the law of mandatory reporting under CANRA and Penal Code Section 311.3, Child Sexual Exploitation. As a prosecutor who's tried many of these types of cases over my career, predators do not stop adapting. They use new technology to exploit children. They use new platforms to exploit children. and increasingly technology has changed the way that offenders access and consume this type of material They now access child sexual abuse material through live streams and digital media rather than traditional downloads And we've seen a lot of cases growing in Los Angeles in this area, especially on some of the newer apps like Discord. We've had many cases. Our law must reflect that reality. A child being sexually abused on live stream is no less a victim because the abuse is viewed in real time instead of from some downloaded or saved file. The trauma is the same for that child. The exploitation is the same. And the demand created by every viewer is the same. 1276 makes it very clear that knowingly watching a live stream of a minor engaged in sexual conduct is sexually exploiting that child under penal code section 311.3. Also important is to harmonize 311.3 with the Child Abuse Reporting Act. The definition of sexual exploitation needs to be consistent for prosecutors, for law enforcement, social workers, teachers, and mandated reporters across the state. No offender should escape accountability because technology moved faster than our statutes. The opposition is saying we need to focus our criminal laws on behavior which harms actual victims and not on severe punishments based on whether a person has a deviant sexual interest. This bill is focused on actual victims. Children's photos are being taken off in addressing the AI issue. Children's photos are being taken off public social media sites. Many parents or people are public on Instagram, on Facebook. They post pictures of their family, of their children. Those photos can be taken off of real children and then used to generate AI images and video and live stream of the face of this child engaging in sexual conduct. conduct. There have been cases where there's AI-generated conduct of a young girl orally copulating an adult male. That's a real child. That's that child's face that is now out there for people to view for the rest of their life. So the opposition saying that it doesn't harm a real child, it does. The trauma from that will last for that child's lifetime into adulthood. So let's not excuse this as a sexual deviance. This is child sexual exploitation of a child. California must be clear that child sexual exploitation in any form streamed, digital, AI generated will be reported and prosecuted. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Hi there. Dawn Kepke on behalf of the Child Abuse Prevention Center in support.

Good afternoon. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Actually, I'm in support. I Carlos Olorzano with the Latin American Caribbean Business Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco Support because we know how it is happening with all the children that come in and cross over here Thank you Thank you so much Is the opposition here I know we have opposition on file

So, Senator Irwin. Yes, and thank you very much for working to close this loophole, and I completely disagree with the opposition that there is no harm. So I appreciate you bringing the bill forward for Senator Rubio. I was wondering, I thought that there were technical issues. issues. Obviously, when something is downloaded, it's easy to prove that it's in possession. So are there technical issues with trying to prove that somebody was streaming child pornography or

Okay. And I also want to say the work you do is so extremely difficult, but it's so incredibly important, the lives that you are basically saving. So thank you for that.

Thank you, Assemblymember Irwin. And I just want to express my gratitude to it must be really hard to do this every day and see these cases. And but we need people to do it. So I really appreciate you taking this on for the people of Los Angeles, but probably to the point of this bill far beyond because a lot of this is happening online.

But I know that that's something some platforms are, you know, working on. but it is, it's easier for the platforms to see when people are downloading or doing different types of activities than it is the actual live streaming. Um, but you know, that's kind of beyond, beyond my knowledge. Right. No, I was just curious about the criminal behavior. Cause I would think the facilitation of this type of crime should also be a crime if you ask me. Um, and it seems like obviously, you know, would you be able to instantaneously know there would be some delay, but in the age of AI...

Unfortunately, we've had two cases of children right here in Los Angeles that are being sexually exploited, live streamed and told to after sexual conduct to harm themselves, commit suicide, all of those things. So it's really dark.

This is obviously an incredibly important bill that I am eager to support today. Assembly member, do you want to close on behalf of Senator Rubio?

Thank you. When the time is right, we'll take the motion and the vote. We have two senators, I think. I think Senator McNerney is sitting behind you. So, Senator McNerney, you are up first with SB 813. When you are ready, Senator, we are ready for you.

Two minutes each when you're ready.

Yes, we are. I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here in support of this measure? Seeing no one. Do we have primary opposition on this measure? I know we had registered. Yep. Come on up.

There's already amendments in the analysis, right?

Okay, cool.

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Delaney?

at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else here in opposition to this measure? Must be really busy around here. I just love you. Nobody's coming up for anything.

Thank you.

I was like, if they're doing that, I guess we should too. Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity. Thank you to the Senator and to the Chair for all the work on this bill. We've removed opposition and hope to be able to move to support soon. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions, concerns, thoughts? Okay. So I had a question.

Do you want? We have similar concerns. I'm happy to. So I think while we do appreciate taking a voluntary approach, I think what the concern comes down to is what is voluntary in practice when your competitors start to do these things, it becomes de facto something that you feel you have to also do. So it becomes mandatory in practice. Right. It's that market pressure.

Great. We've got that. Perfect. It's on the record. So if there are no other questions,

Thank you, Senator. And when the time is right, we will take a motion and a vote. Thank you. I see Senator Padilla. Thank you for your patience. You are up next. And you're presenting four bills. You're going to be here a while. Hi. Should I just camp out next to you? I think you should camp out. Are we going to start with SB 300? I defer to you on which one you want to do first. I'll take them, Madam Chair, if it's okay, I'll take them and file her. Perfect. So SB 300. All right, Madam Chair, thank you. And members, I'm pleased to present SB 300. Last year, the legislature passed SB 243, which was one of the first of its kind, to set safety standards for artificial intelligence chatbots in the nation. It's a vital step, but a first step, towards regulating a technology that has the capacity to cause irreversible harm to users, and particularly children. Since this issue was first brought to the legislature, a growing body of research has examined the prevalence of chatbots exposing minors to sexually explicit content, using this sensitive subject matter to increase engagement. Leaked internal documents, for example, from Meta confirmed recently that their own risk standards say it is permissible for their bots to engage in sensual, inappropriate conversations with minors. Open AI announced the impending rollout of ChatGPT's new erotica feature, and Elon Musk's Grok has created non-consensual sexual deepfakes of users, including minors. As we learn more and more about the possible harms caused by this rapidly evolving technology, it's imperative to continue to build on existing regulations. Under this bill, operators would be required to prevent, affirmatively prevent, a chatbot from exposing a minor user to sexually explicit content of any kind or encouraging or facilitating such exposure. The bill is a result of negotiations and commitments made at the end of last session to update and further strengthen protections passed in SB 243. SB 300, these protections contained are part of a broader conversation that are taking place across state houses and across the country, and I continue to be committed to ensuring that California has the most robust and thorough protections in the country for minors who access companion chatbots. I'm pleased to be joined today by John Bennett, the Executive Director of California Initiative for Technology and Democracy. Thank you. Mr. Bennett, when you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Bauer-Kahanna members. My name is John Bennett and I am the director of CITED, the California Initiative for Technology Democracy, a project of California Common Cause, speaking today in support of SB 300. I'd like to thank Senator Padilla and his staff for their openness to engage in dialogue with us since the end of last session regarding ways to strengthen the provisions of SB 243. With the passage of AB 1043 last year which established age verification requirements it has become clear that the standard for protecting children must be elevated to a knowledge standard Furthermore OpenAI announced last year that it intended to offer erotic content for adults through ChatGPT a plan the company has since paused indefinitely, but which demonstrated that these systems are capable of distinguishing between users seeking sexual material and those who are not. Age verification and content classifications are related but distinct technical challenges. But if these companies could build systems sophisticated enough to identify adult users seeking this content, they can and should build systems that can prevent children from being exposed to it. These concerns have been compounded by revelations about a chatbot integrated into meta social media platforms in which internal documents reported by Reuters showed the company-owned content standards permitted its AI to engage in romantic or sensual role play with minors, and that this was not a technical malfunction but a deliberate policy choice. These chatbots are integrated into platforms reaching hundreds of millions of users, underscoring the need for SB300. We appreciate Senator Padilla's leadership in bringing forward this measure. We believe SB300, like SB243, is an important step in the right direction. And the comprehensive guardrails such as those in SB1119, as well as the chair and an assembly member WIC's AB2023, are essential to fully protecting children from the harms of companion chatbots. We look forward to continuing to work with the Senator and the members of this legislature to develop and support the strongest possible guardrails for this rapidly evolving technology. For these reasons, CITED respectfully urges your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else here in support of this measure? Aim, organization, and position, please. Jay Jessamon from the Transparency Coalition in support. Thank you. Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against Media Addiction and also for Common Sense Media in support. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here in principal opposition to this measure? I'm Jalen Woodard. Oh, sorry, please. Yeah, Mr. Board came away. Go ahead. I'm Jalen Woodard with the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Thank you. Crowded up there. I think I said I should just camp out. Okay. We'll see you in a minute. They should at least give you an aisle seat, Mr. Boykin. See what? They should at least give you an aisle seat back then. All right. Good afternoon, chair members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet here today testifying in respectful opposition to SB 300. We worked closely with the author last year on SB 243, a significant bill that created a novel framework governing companion chatbots. Two other measures, AB 2023, passed this committee, and SB 1119, also moving through the legislature, are building upon that work. So we understand the desire to act early on developing issues. But our opposition today is about how and when the law is expanded. SB 243 took effect only earlier this year. There has been no enforcement, no regulatory guidance, and no judicial interpretation. SB 300 will materially revise that framework before anyone else has seen whether SB 243 works as intended. But also, let me be crystal clear about what we are not saying. Our members deploy extensive safeguards to block sexually explicit content from reaching minors. and they are fully committed to doing so. Nothing in our position resists that obligation. The narrow concern I'm laying out today is the liability standard. SB 300 replaces a reasonableness-based standard with an absolute duty to prevent and pairs it with an undefined prohibition on facilitating the exchange of such material. Combined with the private right of action that's already in statute, those changes risk a de facto strict liability regimen, where a single output that slips through a good-faith system is treated the same as an operator who did nothing at all. We do credit one clarification. Limiting the minor obligations to cases of actual knowledge is sensible, and we do not oppose that. Our objection is confined to the PREVENT standard and a facilitated the exchange language. Building on 243 is a laudable goal, and the author and his committee are already pursuing that, but rewriting the underlying standard months after adoption sends a wrong signal and creates an ever-shifting set of obligations. Consistent with our position from last year, TechNet remains committed to working with the author, the stakeholders to protect children, while keeping the law workable, fair, and durable. But for these reasons today, we respectfully urge caution and oppose SB 300 at this time. Thank you. Anybody else here in opposition to this measure? Name, organization, and position? Aidan Downey with the Computer and Communications Industry Association and respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay, perfect. Thank you. We have people out in the hall, so I'm trying to give it a little bit a minute. So no more questions. We'll bring it back to the dais. Ms. Irwin? Yes. So I voted for your bill last year. I voted for all the other chatbot bills. But I do think that the opponents have a reasonable argument. I'm trying to figure out, was there an agreement last year to get your bill through with the reasonableness standard? Or was the agreement that you were going to work to strengthen the bill this year before it was actually fully implemented? Madam Chair, to the Assembly Member, there was not an agreement with respect to the amendments that you see that constitute the bill before you. The circumstances that have changed since then is growing data, as in my testimony, about this particular level of exposure and the particular elevated level of risk here, specifically sexually explicit content by minors, and tightening that up. That was part of our position in prior conversations and continues to be. Okay. Did you? Yeah, I didn't see it as an agreement. I was like, we got to a good place. My position is on changing it from the reasonableness, like they're trying to make sure none of it is seen, to like a strict saying, make sure none of it is seen. And that connected with the liability creates an issue for some of the companies. But would there have been an advantage to see how it was implemented first? Madam Chair. With a lot of the bills that we pass, often we wait to see how it's implemented, how it's regulated, and then look at how we go further. So it just seems like it might be premature, is my – Senator? Madam Chair, and to my esteemed colleague, who I have great respect for, respectfully would just, I think, disagree with the premise. I think here the legislation seeks to strengthen the bill in ways that get to a very discreet and specific but very high-risk set of circumstances. And in my view, it is never too premature to enact the appropriate level of deterrent and legal culpability and standards. Commence for it with the risk and the nature that we're addressing here, both the evidentiary standards and the exposure. I mean, I would argue, you know, even that, you know, many would argue that the product here is already maybe subject to California strict liability statutes. There's some debate around that. I think being very specific about actual knowledge is important, but that is also commensurate with a higher level of accountability legally and otherwise. Thank you, Assemblymember. Seeing no further questions. I just want to say that I think this, I really want to thank you for your work on chatbots. We've obviously worked closely together now for quite some time on this question. And I think what important to note about this update is that we have more information in our hands than we did at the time that we passed our bills The information you cited about OpenAI move towards erotica which as you said they have abandoned, but that was, I think, after market pressures, was announced, I think, 24 hours after my child chatbot bill was vetoed by the governor. Was that timing incidental or intentional. We'll never know. But we didn't know that at the time. So I do think we have more information about the direction that these companies may be going in, the harm they may be causing, and that we need to make sure that we're moving towards a space of safety. And frankly, your bill last year was, and I think you've said this, the floor. And so it's not as if it is incredibly aggressive in these additions, I don't think, make it so. And so with that, I'm happy to support it today, but would you like to close? Again, I'll defer to the chair's comments just now and accept that as my closing comments. I appreciate the collaboration at the right time, Madam Chair and members. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. So when we have a quorum, we will do that. We will move to your second bill, SB 903 on mental health professionals. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present SB 903. I want to begin by thanking the Chair and the Committee for working collaboratively with our office. We're accepting the amendments. As technological capacity continues to grow and new tools are introduced into the mental health space, We must ensure adequate guardrails are in place to maintain a human-centered approach to keep safety and ethical considerations in the forefront. We have already seen real-world consequences of inadvertently regulated AI and mental health care with chatbots powered by AI algorithms on the market claiming to provide therapy. Websites where these bots are available often use taglines such as 24-7 AI therapy. Therapist is always at your fingertips or AI therapy in your pocket. or even claim to specialize in cognitive behavioral therapy. Many people, including children, have turned to these chatbots for mental health support, and however, research continues to indicate that often these tools do more harm than good. A Stanford University study found that AI therapy chatbots may not only lack effectiveness compared to human therapists, but could also contribute to harmful stigma and dangerous responses. Clinicians across the state have also raised many concerns that chatbot therapists pose data and privacy concerns, have a limited understanding of client backgrounds, can cause client over-reliance on chatbots, give incorrect treatment recommendations or interventions, have an inability to detect subtle communication cues such as tone and eye contact. Although this technology has already begun to be integrated into treatment, a recent survey conducted by the American Psychiatric Association found that 80 percent of their members are very or moderately concerned that mental health professionals don't receive adequate training to incorporate AI into their practice. Last year, I authored SB 579, which would have created a working group to assess the ways in which AI is used in mental health treatment and establish best practices. That bill did not progress, but now we see dangers expanding. The time to act is definitely now. Some examples last year in Illinois the legislature passed the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act and states across the nation are moving towards similar bills This bill would build on those efforts to protect individuals seeking therapy and psychotherapy services by ensuring that AI chatbots cannot be advertised as therapy It sets standards for use in therapeutic practice by requiring informed consent disclosure and requiring a human licensed clinician be in the loop. It would also reinforce that the use of AI tech and psychotherapy records must comply with existing confidentiality laws and protect the data privacy of patients. Throughout the legislative session, we've engaged with stakeholders, and I'm committed to continuing this effort to craft the most effective and operational piece of legislation that can set a national standard for the regulation of AI use and mental health treatment. AI has the potential to increase clinical capacity, but only if it is utilized in a way that maintains a human-centered approach and keeps safety and ethical considerations front and center. It draws a very clear line. AI can be a tool in the hands of licensed professionals, but it cannot be the professional itself. With me to testify is Benjamin Eckert, Public Policy Director for the National Union of Healthcare Workers, and Tyler Rinde, Director of GA for the California Psychological Association. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Benjamin Eckert, Director of Public Policy for the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which represents nearly 6,000 licensed mental health clinicians at Kaiser, Sutter, Rogers, and more. We're proud co-sponsors of SB903, which will protect both patients and providers from the risks of unregulated AI and psychotherapy. First, it protects patients, the consumers, from the technology itself. Even the most advanced AI models are prone to hallucination, confidently delivering a wrong answer. In psychotherapy, that wrong answer might be a diagnosis or treatment plan. In fact, our members have seen this firsthand in settings where AI is already in use. Also, AI has a well-documented tendency toward bias because it is trained on the data of our own history. When a technology can implement millions of decisions in an instant, we risk cementing into our future unequal and unjust structures from our past. Second, SB 903 protects providers and society at large from worker displacement and gradual dispowerment. In May, Governor Newsom signed an executive order directing the state to prepare for the economic disruption AI will bring to the workforce. Displacement is one risk. Disempowerment is a newer one. Evidence is mounting that when we hand everyday tasks to a machine, our own skills atrophy. In coding, in research, in clinical practice, for a state already facing a mental health crisis, we cannot afford for our clinicians to grow dependent on machines. That is why the requirements in SB 903 matter. They require a licensed professional to review and approve AI output. not to sign off once on a tool and walk away. It's more than a rubber stamp. It asks a clinician to bring their professional judgment to bear. That protects consumers from hallucination and bias, and it keeps a human professional in the loop with their skills sharp. Even so, SB 903 leaves a wide door open to AI that genuinely supports care, the documentation and workflow tools that ease clinician burden and can expand access. The bill simply draws sensible guardrails around the rest. Grateful to the author for leading on this issue. grateful to the committee for the thoughtful analysis and constructive engagement with the author and co-sponsors. And for the benefit of the patients our members serve, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Tyra Rinde on behalf of the California Psychological Association. We represent over 2,000 licensed psychologists and are proud co-sponsors of SB 903. We're grateful for Senator Padilla's commitment to protecting Californians and appreciate the thoughtful analysis by the committee. SB 903 establishes clear reasonable standards to protect individuals seeking mental health services Increasingly consumers are encountering tools that resemble therapy but lack the training accountability and ethical obligations of licensed professionals Right now, there is an AI chatbot on the website character.ai titled Psychologist with over 210 million interactions as of this morning when I checked that says, hello, I'm a psychologist. What brings you here today? In small font, it says this is an AI chatbot and not a real person. Treat everything it says as fiction, but it is misleading to consumers. This is dangerous, unethical, and there are numerous devastating stories of the harms from chatbots. In contrast, our member psychologists have completed a doctoral degree, complete over 3,000 hours of supervised professional experience, pass the licensing exams, complete a continuing education every two years, and are subject to oversight by the Board of Psychology in order to practice in California. Mental health care involves deep understanding of human thought, emotion, history, social context, culture, and risks. AI, by its design, relies on patterns in data and statistical associations. They cannot reliably identify or respond to crises or subtle cues that experienced clinicians are trained to detect. These limitations pose concern for patient safety when the tools are presented or used in ways that mimic therapeutic relationships. Importantly, the bill does not prohibit the use of AI, but critically ensures that there's a human in the loop overseeing the use of AI in a mental health care. For these reasons, we respectfully ask your aye vote on the bill. Thank you. I mean, these two witnesses were both almost exactly two minutes. I'm incredibly impressed. Anyone else here in support of this bill? Name, organization, and position. Thank you. Sumaya Nahar on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, one of the proud co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you. Hello. Carly Stelzer with the California Behavioral Health Association, also proud co-sponsors in support. Madam Chair, member Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Samantha Gordon with TechEquity Action in support. Thank you. Hello, Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support. Thank you. Jay Jessamon with Transparency Coalition in support. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Connor Gustman on behalf of the engineers and scientists of California in proud support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Power California Action Youth Advocacy and Support. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to this measure? Let's see. Oh, yeah, come on up. Don't delay. Thank you, Chair and members. Ryan Perini on behalf of ATA Action. We're actually opposed unless amended and continue to work with the author around the definition of triage and then the mental health and crisis detection section. Thank you. Thank you. Robert Boykin with TechNet, also opposed unless amended. Thank you. Carolyn V. Hunter on behalf of Teladoc, we support the concept of the bill and align our comments with ATA with respect to those two issues. Thank you. Thank you. Andrew Antwi here today on behalf of the California Medical Association. We also stand opposed unless amended. We have engaged with the author and are working on fine-tuning some suggested amendments. California Hospital Association, also opposed unless amended, but I want to thank the author for the ongoing conversation on working out the last remaining issues. Thank you. Ronak DeLamy on behalf of Cal Chamber, opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Bringing it back to the dius, Ms. Ortega. Yeah, I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I am a true believer that, you know, as AI rapidly evolves, especially in the health care system, that it should be there to support, not replace. You know, health care workers use a lot more to help diagnose a patient, smell, touch, everything that a human does that a robot just can't do. So I wanted to ask your witness a question around examples of mistakes in the clinical setting that have happened through the use of AI. Thank you for the question. I appreciate that. In one instance, a patient of one of our members was screened by an AI intake tool. They were asked about thoughts of self-harm. They hesitated and then said no. The system logged it as a binary no and moved on. And I know that a human clinician would have heard that hesitation and known to probe further. And another example, a patient was triaged by an AI tool presenting with clear signs of primary substance use disorder. They were booked, though, with a clinician who specializes in treating OCD. The patient relapsed before anyone caught the mistake. Those are just two examples. There are quite a few others, but I would say importantly that both of those examples are part of the triage intake screening function that some of the opposition wants to carve out of the bill. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Mr. Wynn. Well, since I'm getting other members here pretty soon, I'll stop asking questions to every person. Well, this is your last privacy hearing. We're going to miss you and your many questions. So go for it, Ms. Irwin. We're going to have a special hearing. You'll be back. I think we'll probably have a special hearing, yes. No, I voted for this bill already. I think it is incredibly important. And I know you went through the whole list of reasons that AI should not be used for therapy. But I think the biggest thing that we hear is that it's just the sycophantic nature. It is telling the user exactly what it wants to hear, and that's exactly not what we should expect from a therapist. The one question I have is since we've heard this in BMP, there was opposition that we heard from CMA and the Hospital Association. Have you worked with them since that time on seeing if there's some common ground there? Madam Chair, Assemblymember, absolutely, as was testified to by them, we continue those robust conversations, and I think we are making some progress on trying to get to resolution on some of the drafting concerns. Thank you. Anybody else? I think that the Vice Chair and I have also both voted on this in BNP. Thank you, Senator, for this work. I think this is such important work, And I think the example you gave of the intake tool not catching that pause is actually a really powerful one because I think that when I think about medicine frankly across practices so much of my sister who a doctor always says that it when she puts her hands on the doorknob what the parent says she a pediatrician is what she realizes often the most important And there just these moments that about the human to human interaction that allow the people who care for us in our bodies and our minds to really catch things that otherwise wouldn't be noticed by an artificial intelligence tool. And so, you know, we license these professionals. You mentioned the massive training we expect, the hours of oversight, because we believe this is such a sensitive area of practice. And so to allow an AI to do it in lieu of a person is not something I think California wants to see. But I think this bill is actually, frankly, tries to thread the needle in a really powerful way by ensuring that tools can be used for things that are ministerial in nature and are not the care of patients. And that I think absolutely many of us see tools like that in our own, medical practices every day where the provider is actually able to pay more attention to us because they're not paying attention to note-taking or something else. And that's a real benefit. And so I think this bill takes that approach of really allowing for the benefits of AI while ensuring that the individuals that we license to do this work are staying in control and central to the care of Californians. And so I think it's incredibly goodwill, and I appreciate you working so hard with our committee on the amendments. I know we got a lot of cleanup done here, and I really appreciate that. So I trust and know you will continue to work with the opposition, as you mentioned, to the Assemblymember as well. So with that, would you like to close? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank you and your staff for working with us. It makes the bill better. Those amendments were very productive and helpful. I appreciate all the great questions and certainly co-sponsors. I think fundamentally this is about consumer protection for people who are at some of the most vulnerable moments in their lives and seeking the kind of intervention and assistance that requires a licensed professional. So it gets to a lot of areas. First and foremost, consumer protection, the integrity of what's being advertised and received by a patient, certainly licensure, scope of practice, all kinds of the integrity that needs to be protected around that. We certainly acknowledge a place for AI in this that can help have patients get more access to care, but the algorithm should not be practicing psychotherapy. And so with that at the right time, certainly ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We're getting closer to a quorum. Are we one away? Two away, if anybody's listening. You want to come help us get those last two. Okay, so one more. We'll grab Mr. Hoover. Okay. You have one more. You have one more SB 1119, Mr. Yeah, when you are ready. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. A bill that the chair has never heard of, SB 1119. chatbots such as chat bt claude and gemini become common tools for users to utilize as ai assistants or study aids but a growing number of consumers are utilizing these tools for companionship growing and substantial anecdotal empirical evidence has illustrated the dangerous possibilities of chatbot interactions and how their design can be unsuitable for vulnerable users such as children research shows that children are more likely to view ai chatbots as quasi-human and trust them more than adults. When an interaction between vulnerable persons and children and chatbots goes wrong, they go really, really wrong. An investigation by Common Sense Media and Stanford University's Brainstorm Lab for Mental Health found that the safeguards in place for the chatbots they tested were unable to adequately prevent the tech from encouraging harmful behaviors, providing inappropriate content, and exacerbating mental health conditions in minors. There have been several tragic high cases that have shown us small examples numerically small not incidentally small of how these interactions can turn dangerous and even deadly In one example teenager Adam Rain ended his life after a prolonged interaction with ChatGPT. What started out as a study aid ultimately became Adam's closest companion. When Adam turned suicidal, ChatGPT offered validation and encouraged exploration of his suicidal thoughts. It was ultimately revealed that the chatbot mentioned suicide 1,275 times, six times the amount that Adam mentioned it. Last year, I authored SB243, an important first step in ensuring the safety of users interacting with chatbots, but so much more work remains to be done. This session, I have joined efforts with Assemblymember Wicks and Chair Bauer-Cahan and to introduce SB 1119 and AB 2023 companion bills that mirror one another. These bills seek to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to address the risk of prolonged interactions with chatbots by children. These bills would require an annual risk assessment, along with the establishment of measures to prevent suicidal ideation, syncopacy, and isolation, including a crisis response protocol, providing added guardrails in the form of default settings for children, parental controls, noticing requirements, and time limits, prohibitions on advertising and selling and sharing the image and children's private information, and ensuring a robust oversight and enforcement framework, including through a public incident reporting mechanism, third-party audits, the development of auditing standards by the Attorney General, and the inclusion of a private right of action. Madam Chair, did you need me to pause? Yes, I have a quorum and I'm worried somebody's going to get up. I get that. I'm happy to suspend. Nobody move. As a member of Bauer-Cahan. Here. Bauer-Cahan here. Macedo. Present. Macedo here. Bennett, Brian, DeMaio, Hoover. Here. Hoover here. Irwin. Here. Irwin here. Lowenthal. Here. Lowenthal here. McKinner. Ortega. Here. Ortega here. Patterson. Pellerin. Petra Norris. Ward. Ward here. Wilson? Here. Wilson here. We have a quorum. Thank you, Madam Chair. Never fail to take note of a chair's body language. We have seen the consequences of inaction towards the dangers posed by social media, and the stakes are too high to not make the same mistakes again. We must now act to ensure the proper guardrails are in place to ensure transparency, safety and accountability to make sure that we protect our children before more harm is done and before it is too late. And obviously today I am joined by Jay Jashima from the Transparency Coalition. Honorable Chair and members of the committee, I'm still Jay Jashima and I'm proud to testify on behalf of the Transparency Coalition. We've been active. We were very honored to work with the senator last year on SB243 and have been active in helping pass chatbot laws or move them forward in 20 states this year. So very, very excited to be here with this bill. The cornerstone of SB1 1119 is its proactive approach to harm reduction. Rather than waiting for tragedy to strike, the bill requires chatbot operators to annually conduct and document comprehensive risk assessments. These assessments mandate that developers must systematically evaluate how their platform design impacts vulnerable children analyzing differential risks across various developmental stages By pairing these assessments with clear public safety policies SB 1119 creates unprecedented transparency This transparency empowers parents to make informed decisions about the AI tools entering their households. We've heard oblique or maybe even direct criticism of the audit and risk assessment requirements of the bill on the grounds that there's a limited pool of auditors or that audits may not be consistent because of the lack of standards. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we heard ourselves, you know, there's marketplace pressure, marketplaces responding, and auditors with experience from multiple domains are stepping up to offer these services. We don't need auditors who are experts in child safety to have a successful program. We just need auditors who are financially independent and willing to document what is found with integrity and clarity. Also, we've been waiting for industry to show and tell how they're keeping the many promises they've made about making chatbots safer and being transparent. I think they're just waiting for some encouragement from you all. To protect industry innovation, the individual audit reports remain strictly confidential. This protects proprietary trade secrets while providing the AG with the high-level anonymized data to track industry-wide safety trends. SB 1119 proves once again that California can foster cutting-edge progress while ensuring that AI systems are safe, transparent, and ethically designed. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this measure? Name, organization, and position? Nicole Rocha on behalf of Children Now in support. John Bennett with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy in support. Thank you. Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against Media Addiction and also Common Sense Media. Thank you. Thanks for support. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We are in a support if amended position. We just want to say we don't think online harms turn off at age 16 like a spigot. and we'd like to see chatbot audits make platforms safe for users of all ages. But thank you for the bill. Ooh. It's a new one. Jalen Woodard on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education in support. Thank you. Anyone else here in support? Seeing none, the opposition, feel free to join us. We have a motion. It's the first of the day. Thank you. the bill's effort to provide safeguards while still preserving access to beneficial tools. Our primary concern is ensuring that the bill establishes clear objective and workable standards that can be consistently applied by developers, auditors, regulators, and the courts. We believe additional refinements are needed to reduce ambiguity, avoid hindsight liability, and ensure that good faith compliance efforts are not undermined by subjective and undefined requirements. We continue to have concerns regarding several key provisions, including the definition of covered harms and specifically what's meant by psychological and emotional harm when the term child spanza. wide range of developmental stages up to the age of 18, as well as the audit and disclosure framework, the treatment of risk assessments as guarantees against future harm, and the bill's punitive liability structure, which allows even minor and technical implementation issues to multiply into significant cumulative liability. Excuse me. It's been a long couple days. I'm going to turn to my colleagues to get more into those issues around liability. And just, and by saying that we look forward to work with the author on these issues and develop a framework that is both protective and workable before the bill reaches the floor. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris McKaley here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. I know you, Madam Chair, and your colleague, Ms. Wicks, and of course, the good Senator from San Diego has heard these comments, but a couple of issues. First, on the risk assessment, we think that the language in the bill really amounts to guaranteeing against any potential harm, which we believe is problematic. We're also concerned with several definitions. The child safety risk is a reasonably foreseeable standard, which we find to be, unfortunately, quite ambiguous, and when you add in the PRA, becomes even more problematic. As my colleague mentioned, covered harm is a negligence standard. It utilizes approximately cause language, which also is problematic. Of course, the bill has both public enforcement and private enforcement. Our objection on the PRA is it's also subject to as much as punitive damages as well as attorney's fees and injunctive relief. And so when you combine those ambiguous phrases and terms being used with a PRA, we think that this is fraught for significant litigation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to this bill? Name, position, and organization. Robert Boykin with TechNet, in respect for the opposed to the less amended position. Thank you. Thank you. Aidan Downey with the Computer Communications Industry Association, in opposed to the less amended position. Thank you. Thank you. Molly Corcoran on behalf of the American Innovators Network and opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no additional opposition in the room. We'll bring it back to the dais. We have so many people here now. But I shouldn't stop you. It's not a member of one. Anyone? Any questions? Concerns? We got quieter with more people. Fascinating. Okay. Mr. Loneth, all of you? I'll be very brief. I think you know where I land on this. I just want to thank the author on bringing this forward. And so many times we lament about all the challenges that we have. And I want to applaud the author because I think of all of the young people that are going to benefit from legislation like this going forward. And I worry so much about this anxious generation. I worry, you know, when I hear statistics about things that should make us happy, like teen drug and alcohol use down, teen pregnancy down, teen STDs way down. and when in reality that's coming from a lack of socialization. And that it's the Wild West out there right now, and it's so critical that we have legislation like this that's providing proper guardrails, oversight, and transparency. And I couldn't thank you enough. As a dad I couldn thank you enough Thank you so much for this bill Thank you Assemblymember So Senator I just want to thank you for your partnership on this It has been know we are more successful when we work together across houses parties all of the things And so, you know, the partnership that I know—I speak for Assemblymember Wix, who couldn't be here today, and I have had with you and Sherry Cobaldon on this effort—has been really valuable in ensuring that we could move this critically important policy forward. We are trying to do better in the age of AI than we did in the age of social media. And that means really ensuring these are safe by design, which will, I think, hopefully lead to a place where decades from now, we're not talking about a ban as we are with social media because we never could get our arms around keeping kids safe on social media. So we believe, I will speak for myself when I say I see firsthand with my children the benefits of these chatbots. And I've also, as you have, sat with Maria Rain and understand the real risks. And so we have to find a way to give our kids the benefits without the harms. And I believe so deeply that we are smart enough and capable enough, and the people at these companies are smart enough and capable enough that we can do that. And so I think this bill is incredibly important, and I want to thank you for your partnership on it and authoring it. And with that, would you like to close? Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for your leadership in this space. Thank you for your partnership. It's meant a lot. I think we've made some great strides, and I hope we continue to do so. To your point, we can look back and learn some lessons that there were missed opportunities in our changing world. And I think the onset and deployment of this technology of such a nature and scale, and it's so powerful and so ubiquitous that we have a moral obligation here, frankly, not just a regulatory one and one to legislate around. And we have an obligation, and we can, to your point, get it right. And I I believe in that, and I continue to appreciate working with the opposition, with all the coalition partners, and was certainly respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Thank you. Second by Ms. Ortega. Yes, we have you out as a co-author. We got you, Mr. Lombardo. We got you on the record. We will call the roll. For the first time, Jay. Item number four, SB 1119 by Senator Padilla. The motion is due pass to appropriations committee. Barcahan. Aye. Barcahan, aye. Macedo. No. Macedo, no. Bennett. Brian DeMaio. Hoover. Irwin. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKenna. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson. Pellerin. Petrie-Norse. Ward. Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson. Wilson, aye. That has five. We'll leave it on call for the absent members. Thank you, Senator. And Senator Cabaldon is back. And I realize you were presenting Senator Lamone's bill, which means you should have gone before Senator McNerney. And I didn't put her name with your name. So I apologize for the pro-TEMS bill, I should say. It's a joy to be here in any sequence. Thank you so much. So you'll take up the pro-TEMS bill first. So I'm here first to present SB 354, which is Senator Lamone's bill that makes real the promise of Proposition 24 when the voters enacted the constitutional right to privacy first and then reaffirmed that in Prop 24. Prop 24 specifically said that the CPPA structure would apply to insurance companies unless and until we could figure out something better through CDI and the rest of that framework. This bill makes that real Protecting consumer privacy is obviously incredibly important And in this particular domain of insurance because of the legal mandate to have insurance to drive or the quasi mandate to have insurance to take out a mortgage it is different from just regular consumer marketplace privacy You know, we, the government, have said you must do this. And so you're right, to consent or not consent, to have alternatives or to not buy anything at all is severely compromised. And that is why it is important to modernize the structure for protecting consumer privacy across the insurance industry. Specifically, this bill prohibits the sale of consumer data and gives consumers more agency over the sharing of their personal information. It gives consumers the right to correct inaccurate information. And they're given the right to know what categories of information are being collected about them and with whom it is shared. Finally, consumers will be able to delete, inaccurate, or unnecessary information that insurance companies may hold. The author and the sponsor, the California Department of Insurance, have worked with stakeholders and are continuing to do so to address concerns. But this bill has been changed quite a bit from the Insurance Committee at the request of many members of that committee. Many issues have been tackled. First of all, particularly related to the jurisdiction here, there was opposition from the data broker industry with respect to the provisions of the bill. And this bill now says if you're fully subject to the Delete Act, those provisions will govern and you're not subject to the bill in that respect. And so there are other changes. Well, happy to go over them. I know the witness will as well, specific to the privacy and consumer protection domain. And so I have with me today Josephine Figueroa, the Deputy Commissioner of Policy and Legislation, and Damon Dietrich, the Privacy Officer for the California Department of Insurance, who will be joining for technical questions. And with that, I'd ask for an I vote. Perfect. When you're ready. Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Bauer, Kayhan, and members of the committee. Josephine Figueroa, Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. On behalf of Commissioner Lada, I want to thank Pro Tem Monique-Limon for authoring this important consumer-focused bill and for her leadership in advancing strong safeguards for Californians. And I also want to thank Senator Cabaldon for being here to present the bill on her behalf. Thank you to the chair and committee staff for their time and efforts working with the author's office and the department on this measure. And we remain committed to continuing those conversations with all stakeholders to ensure a fair, balanced and workable approach that maintains strong consumer protections while addressing operational needs across the insurance sector. SB 354 confronts a simple but unacceptable reality. California's insurance privacy laws are more than 40 years old and no longer adequately protect consumers in a modern data-driven insurance marketplace. Californians are required to purchase many forms of insurance, and insurers collect and hold extensive personal information on nearly every resident in the state, Yet these rules governing how this information is collected, processed and shared and safeguarded have not kept pace with the insurance industry's evolution of technology and innovation use. SB354 responds to this current outdated landscape by establishing a modern sector-specific privacy regulatory framework that creates stronger consumer protections, clear limits with greater transparency than existing insurance privacy law. SBG 54 does this by establishing a categorical ban on the sale of personal information and setting strict boundaries on the use of sensitive personal information. Consumers gain the right to opt out of any processing of sensitive data that is not necessary to complete or maintain an insurance transaction It also does it by strengthening transparency obligation by requiring insurers provide notice that contains substantial detailed information and to deliver those notices periodically throughout the consumer relationship These requirements ensure that consumers receive ongoing meaningful insight into how their personal information is collected, used, and shared. In addition, SB 354 mandates specific disclosures identifying the precise personal information collected and the actual recipients of any disclosure. In closing, California voters have made privacy a constitutional right, and SB 354 gives real effect to that mandate by replacing outdated and insufficient insurance privacy structures with a modern enforceable framework that reflects today's data-driven marketplace. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you. And you're just here for questions. Is that right, sir? Yes. Okay, perfect. Okay, we have a motion. Anybody else here in support of this measure? Name, position, and organization. Hello again. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We are in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Robert Hurrell with the Consumer Federation of California in slightly reluctant support. Thank you. That's a new one. I've never heard that before. Becca Kramer on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in support. Okay. Seeing no additional support, do we have opposition in the room? I thought we'd solved all the problems, but they're sitting down. This is slightly reluctant opposition. Madam Chair, members, this is Madam Chair, members, John Norwood, on behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers Association of California, and today also four other associations of independent agents and brokers and wholesalers were opposed to this bill unless it's amended to provide for a small business exemption. By almost any standard, this bill was designed to apply to large insurance companies. It takes two pages of bullet points and 92 pages of a bill to lay out the mandates applied to insurance companies and agents and brokers in this bill. Our problem with the bill is that the entirety of this applies to anybody that's a licensee, and a licensee is defined as an insurance company or an agent or broker, despite the fact that when the agent or broker places the policy on behalf of the consumer with an insurance company, the insurance company has to comply with all this. As a result, this bill essentially applies whatever would be applicable to Zurich International to the two-person office that serves consumers down the street. Now, in real life, the bill practically will not apply to an insurance agent that just represents one insurance company. employee insurance companies are like the auto clubs, online companies like Geico, captive agent companies like State Farm Farmers and Allstate. Don't won't have to worry about this because under the operation of law, when you Talk to those people, you're talking to the company. Independent insurance agencies are different. They run their own businesses. They're often appointed by, you know, three, five, ten insurance companies. Insurance consumers come to them. They opt in to using an independent insurance agent. They voluntarily provide their information to that company for the purpose of finding insurance. They understand the agent is going to apply and use that information to look for coverage for them. And then when the consumer chooses a company, the agent places it with the company that is going, as I said before, is going to comply with this. So there are things in this bill that are way beyond what an insurance agent does. The insurance companies, excuse me, insurance agents don't do adverse underwriting. They don't make declinations. They're not in an economic position to negotiate with third-party service providers. I want to make sure you leave some time for Mr. Hoffman. Sure. Is it two minutes? Am I beyond the two minutes? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I apologize for that. No worries. But in essence, and I'll just close by saying our members operate brick and mortar businesses in your districts. I don't think it's the intent of this bill to to disadvantage them. But unless you create or the author creates a small business exemption, that's exactly what you're doing. OK, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet. We're also respectfully opposed unless amended to SB354. I want to provide some brief comments on behalf of our coalition and member companies from the perspective of non-insurers and vendors who are covered under the bill. But before getting into the issues, I do want to thank the author, the sponsors, and this committee for the most recent amendments to the definitions of third-party service provider and insurance support organization. These changes address our primary concern with the prior version, and though we think the bill could use some additional refinements, these amendments significantly move this bill in the right direction. non-insurers, so thank you for that. First, as outlined in our letter, our coalition has proposed some reasonable changes to align SB 354 and the IIPPA with the CCPA. CCPA is a landmark privacy law, one of the strongest and most comprehensive in the country, and this committee and this legislature has worked hard to ensure consumers are protected in a sector and industry neutral way. And if the goal is to bring the IIPPA up to that level, which we agree with, then SB 354 should align more closely with it rather than creating separate and potentially conflicting standards. And just one example of that, SB 354 significantly departs from the CCPA with its treatment of publicly available information. Publicly available information was specifically excluded from the CPA's definition of personal information and the rights to know, correct, and delete in recognition of constitutional First Amendment protections for this type of information. Its policy choice reflects a balance between privacy and the freedom of information. Consumers can restrict access to information deemed to be personal data, but businesses also have commercial speech protections guaranteed by the Constitution. As drafted, SB 354 and the inclusion of publicly available information would place a significant burden on our members who've spent years and significant amounts of resources designing and building our privacy compliance processes to accurately and effectively distinguish between the two, between publicly available information and PI under CCPA. We believe our proposed amendments are narrowly tailored to preserve the bill's consumer privacy objectives while avoiding conflicting legal obligations and constitutional concerns. For these reasons, I must respectfully oppose SB 354 unless it is amended but look forward to resolving our issues Thank you Thank you And you took less than two minutes So look what a dream team Um with that any additional opposition in the room name position organization. Good afternoon. Sherry McHugh representing the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. I echo the comments of my colleague, John Norwood. Uh, we are opposed unless amended and also the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies opposed unless amended. And we continue to work with the author, um, and the Department of insurance and hope we can get there. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Allison Adie on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. We are in an opposed unless amended position while we continue to work on technical and conformity amendments with the author and the department. Very pleased to see the progress since the last committee. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Laura Curtis on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Also pleased to see the movement of the bill so far, but still in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you. Nobody's removing that. Madam Chair and members, Cliff Costa on behalf of Copart, who is a third-party service provider for insurance companies. We very much appreciate the work of the committee as well as the Department of Insurance and the Pro Tem for working with us. We are almost there to remove our opposition. We look forward to continuing working with the department and stakeholders during the summer. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Naomi Pajoran on behalf of California's credit unions, We have an opposed and less amended position. Thank you. Dennis Sloper on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers, opposed and less amended. Good afternoon. Matt Powers with the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies, echoing the concerns of my colleagues from the other insurance carrier trades. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm Tom Quirk, representing the Independent Insurance Agents, also representing Garland, Sturgis, and Quirk, my firm that employs seven people. and we are opposed to SB 354. Thank you. Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, also respectfully opposed unless amended, but really appreciate recent amendments. Thank you. Larissa Mercado on behalf of Averis, and subsidiary of the Insurance Services Office with an opposed unless amended position. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Hernandez, and on behalf of the independent insurance agents, and I oppose SB 354. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Haley Andrews with Gaines Insurance Agency and Independent Agency in El Dorado Hills. And on behalf of independent agents, I oppose SB 354. Hi, Todd Stanley. on behalf of Independent Insurance Agency. I oppose SB354. Thank you. John Bradford with McGee and Thielen Insurance Agency, a 106-year agency in Sacramento, and we stand opposed to this. Also representing Pacific Interstate Insurance Brokers, representing 260 independent agents across the state. Also stand in opposition. Ronok DeLamy on behalf of Cal Chamber, opposed unless amended. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no additional opposition in the room, bring it back to the dais. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I talked with some of my colleagues in the insurance committee about this because it sounds like there has been movement on this, which sounds like the opposition is grateful for. But they said that there was an agreement that they would go to industry to really get their input on this measure And it sounds like some of that was taken and I want to ask opposition this but I going to start with the senator Has input been taken by industry? Because it seems pretty evident by the opposition coalition there's still a ways to go on this bill. Yes, there's been a lot of input taken on the bill, both in the hearings and in other discussions and negotiations about the bill. And it has come a long way. And the amendments that have been taken since the Insurance Committee, as I say, most of them were because of points of emphasis that came in the committee from points in the opposition. And they are we only covered today a few of the ones that deal with specifically in the privacy domain. But the bill has been substantially rewritten in response to that. We know that there's more to do and even some of the issues that have been raised today around exactly what is the space with respect to independent agents. Independent agents do have responsibilities for privacy under state and federal law already. And so they can't be completely exempted. And yet also the concerns have been raised about what's the right scope and scale and intensity. That work is continuing as an example. So, yes, those discussions have been happening and they will continue to be. And I think as several of the witnesses indicated, the length to which the bill has moved so far is a solid sign of good faith that there's more room to work. But there is a commitment to continue that conversation. Beautiful. My next— And if I just—if you might mind, am I sure? Because we were—the bill, for those that don't know, the bill was in the Assembly last year. This is a two-year bill. It was paused in Assembly Insurance where it was heard, I think, a week ago. And then it came to this committee. and our committee and the insurance committee have been in these conversations with industry and other supporters and opponents. And I will say, just to ensure that people understand, the bill has moved to the senator's point incredibly far. And my understanding is that the opposition, frankly, I thought they were going to pull off of opposition today. It didn't seem to happen, but the changes are so significant that that was my understanding of what the pro tem had done in her work on this bill. And so I know she's committed to getting it right, but I will say she has taken a lot of their feedback. Beautiful. And I do want to give you a chance. What would get

So you talked about the independent businesses, and that's really kind of my concern. my mom and I were a mother-daughter duo, and I have companies in my district, our husband and wife, father, son, that we want to make sure they can continue operating. So what are you doing that even if we can't completely exempt them, what can we do to closer protect them? And I'm going to ask the Senator first and then I have you respond Sure Under current law there are a number of sections of the law that allow for what they call substitute performance So rather than the agent doing it basically if you a licensee and you deal with inflation insurance with another licensee that will comply with the law you don have to

Okay. Senator, do you want to respond?

And I know you care about small business as well, but you're welcome to respond to what he just said.

Yeah, hi, Damon Dietrich. I'm the Privacy Officer for the department. I'm the subject matter of the department on these issues. You know, one of the issues that we're dealing with is these rights of access correction deletion have applied to both insurance companies and independent or captive agents for 40 years now. That's been the law in California for four decades, longer than I've been alive almost. Same time, federal Graham Leach-Bliley treats agents as financial institutions who are subject to the requirements of the Graham Leach-Bliley Act. they're required to give notices, they're required to give the opportunity to opt out. These are not, you know, duties that we can just write out in state law because the feds require it. So, you know, we've adopted amendments in this bill to allow for substitute performance and to, you know, ease the pathways for independent agents to have third parties, you know, undertake these obligations on their behalf. But at the same time, you know, we're dealing with statutes that are both old and in some cases, federal statutes that we can't do away with as a matter of state law. But you are hearing, I think if I may, what you're hearing is many of the same paths, not a complete exemption. Can we keep drilling down on substitute performance? So the attention is absolutely, and I think the author's commitment is there to make sure that we are minimizing the impact on small business while also assuring that consumers have the protections that they need and also that the agents are fulfilling their existing state and federal regulatory requirements, but yes, there's absolutely a commitment to get there, and it's not that wide apart. We're at least talking in the same book with the same language about how to solve this. My final question is that it's been mentioned that this wants to come

So the goal here is to make real the commitment of Prop 24 was that the insurance, privacy rules for insurance would be stronger than CCPA. And so that's, So we're not the intent here is not to get the IAPPA just to match up with CPPA exactly, but to recognize that unlike most of the other commercial products and services that are covered by CCPA, many of the insurance products, not all, but many of them are effectively required by law. And therefore, we're telling citizens, you must you must purchase this from someone. And so those those protections have to be clear. So it even with all the amendments that have made, It's still stronger than CPPA when it comes to the industry, but it's in the same pocket. I mean, it's not radical new concepts. It's simply taking some of the core ideas of CPPA around data minimization, customer control of their data, the ability to delete and approvition against sale, and making sure that those are universal in this sector where they are not quite universal under CPPA. Okay. Thank you.

Simply ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we had a motion. Do we have a second?

Mr. Ward seconds. Let's call the roll. You're okay. Item number five, SB 354 by Senator Lamone. The motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Barcahan. Aye. Barcahan, aye. Macedo?

Macedo, no. Bennett, Brian, DeMaio, Hoover, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinner, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petrie-Norris, Ward. Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Thank you. I know. I couldn't even figure out who was asking for, I should have guessed who was asking for academic literature to be passed out. There's only one person in the room who could have done that. It was Chair Cabaldon. Okay. Senator, when you're ready.

Thank you for the turn.

Thank you, Senator. Anyone here in support of this measure? Seeing none. Anyone here in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Bring it back to the dais. Yeah, Ms. Wilson, and then we'll go to Mr. Ward.

why is that? Yeah, thank you. Thank you for the question. And it is because the domains in which these systems present opportunities, but often threats, are so diverse that I think the challenge is that the first bill that comes out, if it deals with autonomous AI agents with their potential threats to cybersecurity, for example, that we will frame a definition that's purpose-built for that, and while we also need to be dealing with many, many, many other domains at once. And so the idea here is that we have a core definition that can then be built upon in specific sectoral threats on commercialization on privacy on sexual explicit material the things that we've normally dealt with but also in many many other domains as they as they arise without having to construct either parallel definitions that are in conflict or definitions that are so broad that we can't act with the level of boldness that we're going to need to because it incorporates too much into a broad definition and seeking trying seeking to cover all of agentic I this is only autonomous agentic I and so that having the definition in place will give us the framework to make sure that our legislation is consistent, but also that we're covering the field while simultaneously not covering so much field that we are reluctant to act with the precision and the boldness that we're going to need.

There's some confusion about, you know, let me.

Yeah. Page eight, comment four. Yeah. So the page eight, comment four, and then below it is the actual, in the language, and that is what you're accepting those amends? Yes. Okay, great.

It can be. So the Venn diagram between agentic and generative is pretty tight, but it's not 100%. Okay, because that was why the separate call out to include it in Civil Code Section 33110,

Yeah.

But it sounds like you're saying that a Gen AI is outside of Gen AI? As of today, the vast majority of a Gen AI is going to be Gen AI. But they are not definitionally the same thing. and so Gen AI is not the umbrella for it you saying it exists somewhere else they have some similarities it actually you can use Gen AI for a Genic AI Right now it entirely contained in that umbrella But you can see a future. But the concepts are not necessarily linked.

Thank you. I don't disagree, I think, with the premise, your observation of the next steps that we want to get ahead and think about how to be able to define this and really set that stage and hopefully doing it right. I think it would set the stage well for a national discussion, which would, you know, is coming as well, state by state. And so to, to be clear. And so you are taking the definition that is in the amendments, which aligns with our committee's work on trying to be able to define agentic. Is that correct?

On behalf of the privacy chair.

Meanwhile, leading up to this, you certainly had your own research,

Yeah, so thank you for the question. And so this definition comes from both a comprehensive review of the legal and technical literature on agentic AI itself, what other jurisdictions have been contemplating, and both the technical and statutory constructs that are needed to do them, as opposed to being a stakeholder-based definition. So it is intended to be a definition. And this gets very much to the point I was making earlier that it's not trying to cover, like, here is the full scope of what things could be. And we've done that in a lot of our definitions where we've said things like various levels of autonomy and other things that are appropriate, the higher level definitions, just like the definition of housing, like very generally, will be general in itself. but how do we then get down to increasing how fine-grained our taxonomy of these different categories are so that we can align our legislative and regulatory approaches to them.

Mike, the committee in the Senate was created February 1st after the deadline for introduction of bills, so I understand the timing issue. But when we began the year, the intention was to have a full-scope agentic AI bill. Right. But realize that given how far we're along, the better to set the table for that to occur in the normal process with all the consultation and the stakeholder groups and everyone engaged for the actual policies. But we needed to have the foundation by which we could all do some work next year. But also, I would just push back and respectfully, you know, several Senate bills on privacy and digital technologies have been introduced, did go through a process. I know you've taken on a lot to be able to guide this in a way and help form that committee over in the Senate. and get things underway. So my point being, and maybe also I'll re-underscore my question, we don't have anybody here today really helping us to validate, I think, the definitions that are being proposed here. And so if this is going to foundational to what we want to be able to do on the subject going forward and what other states might be modeling off after I don't want to do corrective language on the fundamental definition that has a risk to it in the meantime. And I guess I recognize there's no opposition here today, but there's just no support that we're receiving for this either. And so can you maybe restate sort of what consult has gone into this to help to make sure, to help give us, to help validate it and assure us that we're getting this right?

No, there have not.

I see this as a fundamental role of both committees to create the scaffolding for this work to occur on the policy, which will then, as we start to build policies, we will have to make changes to this definition and many, many others. But we need to start somewhere with a core foundation that we can begin from. Okay. I'm going to listen to other committee member comments as well, too, and preserve my thoughts.

Yes, only ever wasn't. Is your mic on?

They're just people who weighed in, but not here. Okay.

Okay.

Yes, please.

Ms. Pellerin.

We consulted the literature and a couple of the authors from the, that have tried to cover this topic.

We did. We as in you and your consultants on, on privacy and Senate.

Sounds like you did research and then came up with it. And consulted with some of the leading experts in the agendic field, some of whom were cited in the literature that you have in front of you.

Just clarity. There are amendments in this, but the agent.

The agent that was before June, June 11th.

That humanity faces an existential crisis from the swarms of autonomous agents, and they will not wait until next year for us to begin our work to set up, not even the guardrails, just the fundamental approach that we're going to take as a state in order to deal with what is one of the most compelling problems of our time.

Sure. Okay. So shell access is essentially the top-level control of your – just to put it in our –

No.

Okay. Okay. I know. No, but it's also not some novel term that is – So in the technology space, shell or sometimes root access are essentially the fundamental level of control in your computer, for example. And so when an AI agent has control at the root or shell level, it can make changes and avoid permissions that you might otherwise, or notifications you may otherwise have set up on your system in order to execute actions in the real world without your, knowledge or consent.

I mean, these are not generally understood definitions, but they are an important taxonomic distinctions between different classes of, in this space, technological control that is really critical to determine whether or not an agent has the ability to execute tasks without your approval, but in the real world.

Are you complete, Ms. Pellerin? Yes. Okay. Mr. Patterson.

Well, thank you for the question. Actually, I mean, the most technical thing in this is the network and shell access. So if you've got that down already, you're in good shape. It's also like not the, it's not the critical part of the definition. The critical part is, you know, as the committee has revised it, is it is the first definition. and none of which are technical terms, at least not today. And so it is an AI system that can pursue abstract goals that you set for it. And it can do that then by breaking it into tasks. So you set the goal, but it can break it into tasks or delegate them to other agents elsewhere. It can change what it does based on what the feedback that it gets in the world. You know, the price of something on Amazon goes up or downward, so it can adjust based on things in the world. And then it can act in the world, whether executing code or your accessing account that requires authentication. That just means it has, if you're a consumer, it has your Netflix password and your Amazon password. And so it can do things in the real world. But there's really nothing in that definition that requires any technical background at all. It's simply, that's the key the key difference here is unlike sitting and typing at chat GPT which cannot do cannot take actions in the real world unless you have unfortunately given it network and shell access but it cannot take action in the world it's just responding to you it can produce a document or whatever but it

So sometimes that means you got it right.

Thank you. Similar to my colleague from the East Bay, when Dolores Huerta has a problem with something, I genuinely have a problem with something. It's kind of one of the grounding rules that keeps me sane up here. Assembly member, I would say the same thing, too. Broke out in a cold sweat. I felt that watching his testimony. I think that speaks to how complicated this issue is and what's at stake with our privacy more broadly in the world that we're living in right now. A question about the retroactivity. Just hearing your response to the assembly member from the East Bay, that suggests to me that the retroactivity goes back to as long as the bill has been in print. Pretty much. And not beyond that? Yes, pretty much. It's two years, so a year longer. I think you've made a lot of progress. I was prepared to not support this bill today, pending those amendment conversations and working with the chair and continuing to make those strides. I also know this is your last year in the legislature and all the years we have worked together going back to when I first stole your car my first year. Maybe you need to explain that because it just doesn sound good It a great story for a different day She listens to Motown music by the way It's fantastic. And I have good snacks in my car. And she's got great snacks in the driver's door. I have never seen you not continue to work a bill with opposition and to try to get it to a landing spot. And so I'm happy to vote for it today, but would love to see some work on the recess and through appropriations before it gets to the assembly floor to make sure that it's a good idea. It's fully cooked. I think the opposition, the good news for you is the opposition is all on the same page. Same concerns, same suggestions of a way to go and a recognition that there is a problem, which I think is not always what you get when you have this kind of a fundamental disagreement. And so I'm willing to give you support today to have you see this all the way through. But I think the concerns that were raised by Ms. Huerta and the many folks that were here, I would love to see those addressed before we see it on the floor. Sounds good. Thank you.

Yes, I'd like to thank the author as well. This is a very difficult topic and good to see you, Madam Queen. And thank you for gracing us today. I'm really concerned with the frivolous lawsuits. It's not just this. It's not just business. It's also what's happening with our agencies, our counties and our cities. And so I'm just wondering why we haven't looked at, I know instead of tailoring our privacy rights, why we didn't look at trying to address the lawsuits, the people that are bringing the lawsuits.

Thank you Thank you And I going to lay off the bill today but I will consider it on the floor if it makes it to the floor once I see the amendments and really look at the amendments too Thank you Thank you

I would love to be added as a co-author to this. And to Ms. McKenna, I would love to work with you on something like that. I can't tell you how many times I go to events in the Central Valley and small business owners come to me talking about five, 10, 15, $20,000 lawsuits for this particular issue and saying, I'll have to close my doors. I won't be able to make my payroll. I'll have to lay people off. And so this is truly very needed. And I think we need to continue this conversation even further. And so I'm looking forward to doing that. And to Ms. Huerta, one thing that I have watched with Ms. Cabrera, all of those groups that you were considering that this could affect, she has been a champion for. So I have all the faith in the world that she's going to get this right to make sure that none of those communities are impacted by this bill. And at the time appropriate, I would love to move the bill.

Well, thank you very much to the committee, to all the committee members for a really robust conversation. I know many of you know my history. I was inspired by the very movement that Ms. Huerta comes from. And so for me, she's been a real light in an area that needs light. And I wouldn't want to do anything that's going to hurt any of the issues that have been raised. It's one of the reasons that we work so hard to narrow the bill and to spend two years getting good information. So with all of that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Second.

Aye.

Aye.

Bryan. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Not voting.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Ward? Wilson? Aye.

Thank you, Senator.

Aye.

McKinner.

Ortega.

Patterson.

Pellerin.

Petrie Norris. Ward. Wilson.

And go USA.

Madam Chair and members, I'd like to first begin thanking the committee to work through this bill with the amendments, and I'm here to present SB 1279. It authorizes Long Beach to place speed safety cameras, too, along PCH. PCH makes up about 1% of Long Beach's arterial roadways. It accounts for 20% of its crash fatalities, and tragically, it's taken an average of eight lives every year for the past five years, and specifically Long Beach's privacy protocols in this pilot program, which was established a few years ago under then-Assembly Member Friedman as the Chair of Transportation, include only activating cameras while a vehicle is detected speeding, deleting any images of non-violating vehicles within five business days, and ensuring information obtained from a speeding violation, including the vehicle's speed and license plate number, goes to Long Beach's Public Works Department and not shared with law enforcement. So testifying today, I do have Amy Brown somewhere in the building who is coming back. She's coming up the elevator now, so maybe she can close.

We'll bring it back.

Oh, really?

Oh, Ms. Erwin. Yeah, I'm going to be voting for the bill, but this is great that you are putting these speed cameras on PCH because we did it last year for Malibu, and they are very, very happy.

Thank you.

You may get questions, Ms. Brown. Oh, never mind.

Mr. Lowenthal, do you have a question for Ms. Brown?

today Thank you Mr Lowenthal Seeing no further discussion I want to thank you for taking the privacy amends It is fun to chair this committee over time and have technology advance in a way that can continue to protect people's privacy. So this bill will be the first camera bill where we actually are requiring them to blur people's faces. That technology was not available until recently. And so we get to continue to upgrade privacy protections as technology advances. And so I want to thank the senator for that amendment and continuing to protect people's privacy. With that, would you like to close?

I had to give her a vote. We have a motion in a second. We'll call the roll. Item number 17, SB 1279 by Senator Gonzalez. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Bauer-Cahan.

Bauer-Cahan, aye. Macedo.

Macedo, no. Bennett.

Bryan, aye. DeMaio.

Hoover, aye. Irwin.

Irwin, aye. Lowenthal.

Guento, aye. McKinner.

McKinner, aye. Ortega.

Ortega, aye. Patterson.

Patterson, aye. Pellerin.

Pellerin, aye. Petrie Norris.

That bill has nine votes. It is out, but we'll leave it open for absent members. We're going to actually do add-ons, if you don't mind, Senator, because we have a member who needs to leave. So we're going to do some add-ons so he can add on before he has to depart. Okay, so we're going down everything? Yeah, we'll do everything. Okay, so we did consent. Then we have him. We need motions on item two. We need a motion on item two, SB 300 Padilla. We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll. Item number two, SB 300 by Senator Padilla. Do pass to Appropriations Committee.

Aye.

Macedo.

Bennett.

Brian, aye. DeMaio.

Hoover, aye. Irwin? Irwin, not voting. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner? Ortega? Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petrie-Norris? Ward? Wilson? That bill has six. We'll leave it open for absent members. Moving to item number three, SB 903. We need a motion. Motion and a second. SB 903 by Senator Padilla do pass as amended to appropriations.

Aye.

Macedo.

Macedo, aye.

Bryan.

Bryan, aye.

Hoover.

Hoover, aye.

Aye.

Lowenthal.

Lowenthal, aye.

Aye.

Pellerin.

Pellerin, aye.

That bill has eight votes. It's out, but we'll leave it open for absent members. Item number four, SB 1119 by Senator Padilla. We have five votes.

Aye.

DeMaio.

Not voting.

Irwin.

Irwin, aye.

Aye.

Pellerin.

Pellerin, aye.

That bill has nine votes. It is out, but we'll leave it open for absent members. Item number five, SB 354 by Senator Limon. We have four votes. Bennett. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. DeMaio. Hoover. No. Hoover, no. Irwin. Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Ortega. Patterson. No. Patterson, no. Petrie Norris. That bill has seven votes We leave it open for absent members Item number six SB 479 by Senator Argin We have six votes Bennett? I didn't vote on that one. You need to call me first. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Bauer-Cahan.

Bauer-Cahan, aye. Bennett? Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. DeMaio? Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Ortega. You can just finish. Item number six. SB 476. She already voted. Ortega, Petrie-Norris. I think it's 11. That bill has 11 votes. It's out. We'll leave it open for absent members. We're getting there, Senator. Thank you for your patience. Can I put it? Oh, yeah, please. Please, please, please. Yeah. Yeah. Item number seven. We do need one more. Okay, we need a motion on file item 7, SB 574. We have a motion in a second. Item number 7, SB 574 by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass as amended. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Macedo. Aye. Macedo and co-author. Bennett. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. DeMaio. Hoover. Aye. Hoover, aye. Irwin. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Ortega, Patterson? Aye. Patterson, aye. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petrie Norris? Ward? Wilson? Aye. That bill has eight. It's output. We'll leave it open for absent members. Okay, we need a motion on number nine, SB 813. Motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Bryan seconds. SB 813 by Senator McNerney. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Bennett. Brian? No. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. DeMaio. Hoover? Not voting. Hoover, not voting. Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner? Yes. Ortega? Patterson? Not voting. Patterson, not voting. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petrie Norris? Ward? Wilson? That bill has six votes. We'll leave it open for absent members. So we will do add-ons for file item 16, SV1276. We need a motion. This is the crime, sexual exploitation of a child. I think, yeah, I was going to say, I think you can. Item number 16. Wait, we only have a motion. We need a second. Thank you. Item number 16, SB 1276 by Senator Rubio. The motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Laura Cahan. Aye. Laura Cahan, aye. Macedo. Aye. Macedo, aye. Bennett. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. DeMaio. Hoover. Aye. Hoover, aye. Irwin. Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Ortega. Patterson. Aye. Patterson, aye. Pellerin. No. Is that okay? Rubio Pellerin I yeah it's fine okay that bill has eight votes it's out but we'll leave it open for absent members we were just trying to make sure all the bills that Mr. Brian had voted on got voted on so we got him on everything now so perfect so we can move on But yes Ms Irwin we go back to 15 later if you don mind And then I would like to be a co on Ms Rubio bill too if you don mind And now, Ms. Reyes, you have three bills. I do. Which one? Do you starting, I assume, with SB 951? Perfect. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present SB 951. I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and expressing my gratitude to the chair and to the committee and to the staff for their work on this bill. The question is no longer whether AI will impact workers. The question is how California will respond. SB 951 is that response. It builds on California's existing WARN Act by requiring employers to provide 60-day advance notice when 50 or more workers are displaced by AI or other automation. And thanks to the committee amendments, that notice is incorporated directly into the existing Cal WARN framework, so employers are not providing a duplicative notice. But layoffs are only part of the story. AI is also changing whether certain jobs will ever be offered again. Increasingly, employers are making the decision to permanently stop hiring for certain occupations because AI can now perform that work. Today, California has no way of tracking those permanent shifts in our labor market. That is why SB 951 also requires employers to notify EDD when they permanently cease hiring for an occupation because of AI or automation. This bill isn't about telling businesses how to hire. It's about giving California the information it needs to prepare workers for the jobs of tomorrow. If entire occupations are disappearing because of AI, students choosing careers, workers considering retraining, and policymakers investing in workplace development deserve to know. Innovation and worker transparency are not mutually exclusive. California can continue leading in AI while also preparing in a workforce for the future. Here to testify in support of the bill are Sarah Phlox with the California Labor Federation and Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity. Madam Chair, members, Sarah Phlox, California Federation of Labor Unions. We are the sponsor of this bill. Wanted to, again, thank the committee and the staff for their great amendments. The Warren Act was a response to deindustrialization and automation that hollowed out entire communities and regions of the country in the 1980s. 80s. Today, AI threatens the dehumanization of large swaths of the economy, where financially healthy companies are replacing workers and entire occupations with artificial intelligence. But catastrophic job loss is not inevitable. It is a political choice. And this bill is designed to give lawmakers the information they need to make those hard choices as we move forward. And so this bill does exactly that. It collects the information. The way we've been asked about how this interacts with the governor's executive order, we think it's a perfect complement. The governor's executive order in their dashboard uses UI data based and then cross references it with how AI impacts tasks. It's not real world data about who's actually being laid off. And it also doesn't capture this lost generation. Young people, 21 to 25, who are suffering a 17% decline in employment because... because of freezes on hiring. Salesforce has said, we're just not hiring engineers anymore. Duolingo's like, we're not going to hire contractors to do translation because we have AI translate. These are entire occupations that may not exist. This is what this bill attempts to capture. And so we just urge your A vote, your A vote, your I vote. I've been doing this for a day long. It's been a long week. Yeah, I, and yes. Thank you. Good evening, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Samantha Gordon. I'm with TechEquity. Sarah has highlighted some of the things I wanted to talk about. I think it's no surprise to any of us that there are declaration upon declaration that this is coming. And if even the fraction of what the CEOs and many economists are predicting becomes true, we are woefully underprepared. And as Sarah mentioned, there was a recent report done with the California Policy Lab and EDD that found that actually many workers who have a bachelor's degree and higher, and many of them in San Francisco and many of them in the Bay Area, were exposed under their sort of methodology to AI exposure and AI job loss. And so one of the things we've tried to highlight, both in what Sarah just mentioned, but also in all of these reports, both the one that came out from the California Policy Lab, but basically the only data that exists right now on this is from the AI companies and specifically from Anthropic. And all of that methodology is based on this idea of task exposure, meaning that the specific pieces of a job that AI could automate are what's measured. And it's important to note that there's no legal requirement for employers who are actually the ones making decisions about whether or not these jobs get automated. There's no legal requirement for them to report on what's happening with AI and the workforce. And these task exposure studies are tasks that can be automated by AI tools. And this approach often accepts the technical capabilities of these tools as advertised by the AI companies without any expert or independent verification on how it performs on those tasks and functions. So, for instance, it might say, oh, this task, you know, is a medical task that AI could do, but there's not a doctor reviewing whether or not that's true, if the AI handled it appropriately. And task exposure also doesn't say whether a particular job is actually being automated away. It's a prediction. It's based on inference. So these task exposure studies don't talk about the company-level dynamics, such as the cost of technology, the potential impact on production, and many other factors that are used to make decisions about technology, not to mention the role that worker organizing, public policy, all of these things can play in shaping the choices and direction of technological adoption. So while these studies are very helpful, they don't actually capture the scale of what's happening now, and they can't reasonably be a prediction for us to set our public safety nets on. We need employer data and we need government-held data to prepare for this moment. And so we respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 951. Thank you so much. Anyone else here in support? Madam Chair and members, Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Constructing Trades Council of California, also in support. Nevne Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support. Chajun Liu with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support. Catalina Sanchez on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation a rural legal aid organization servicing or serving farm workers low workers and mixed status families in support Thank you Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support. Good afternoon. Beth Malnowski, the CEO of California in support. Becca Kramer with Green Lining Institute in support. Thank you. Anyone here in opposition to this bill, Premier Opposition? Come on up. The mics are very active. And I'm just stumbling over here. Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectable opposition to SB 951. We appreciate the author has worked in good faith on amendments, particularly the recent amendments to align the threshold trigger to 50 workers like CalWARN. We are grateful for the dialogue and hope to continue this dialogue to address some outstanding issues. I first want to say that we appreciate the committee consultants thorough analysis and understand the recommendation made in response to SVLG's concerns. However, that is not the chamber's position, and expanding the causation standard beyond caused in whole by AI does not narrow the bill. It again expands it. Substantial is nowhere defined or quantified in the bill, leaving employers, including small businesses, to guess at what percentage of causation triggers compliance and plaintiffs of attorneys to litigate that question in court. This amendment compounds rather than resolves the compliance uncertainty we have identified as a core issue. Independent contractor is still defined as worker. I want to reemphasize that independent contractors are not employees. They are not part of the workforce in the way this bill assumes. Further, CalWARN does not include independent contractors. Second, the right-to-first bid creates an untested preferential hiring mandate that does not exist under CalWARN, and this raises significant operational legal questions about how employers managing internal postings, qualification, and restructuring decisions. Further, the right-to-first bid is a framework that is specific to merit-based civil service governments, not private employers. Third, the notice requires a six-item disclosure that does not exist under CalWARN. Of particular concern is the notice of the specific category or type of AI system or automating technology that caused the layoff, including the entity that developed, sold, or leased the product. This would disclose proprietary business information that could affect California employers' competitive advantage. We believe a workable solution is within reach and remain committed to engaging in discussions with the author. For these and other reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sarah Ducat, on behalf of the rural county representatives of California, we remain opposed unless amended to SB 951. First, I want to thank the Senator and the committee for their willingness to work with stakeholders. We appreciate the amendments that better align portions of the bill with the existing Cal Warren framework and the changes made to remove local governments from the provisions that require right to first bid. Those are meaningful improvements and reflect some of the concerns public employers raised. However, a few important issues remain. First, the bill continues to define worker to include independent contractors. Public agencies frequently contract for specialized temporary and professional services, and these individuals are not employees under existing public sector labor laws or CalWARM. Expanding the definition in ways creates uncertainty and extends the bill well beyond existing workforce notification requirements. Second, while we appreciate the effort to integrate the bill into the CalWARM framework, public employers are not currently subject to CalWARM. Instead, workforce changes are governed under longstanding public sector labor laws, including the Myers-Millis-Brown Act. Under the MMBA local agencies are already required to find notice and meet and confer with recognized employee organizations before implementing changes that have a significant and adverse effect on wages hours or other terms and conditions of employment We are concerned that layering a separate Cal warrant-based notice and enforcement structure on the existing framework creates overlapping and potentially conflicting legal obligations to public employers. Additionally, we have concerns that the changes to cessation and hiring notification is now much broader by expanding the notice from cause in whole by AI to cause in whole or in substantial part by AI. Finally, we are continuing to review the bill's enforcement. Public sector labor relations are traditionally administered through the Public Employment Relations Board, which has longstanding expertise in resolving disputes involving public employers. Because the bill contemplates enforcement through the Labor Commissioner, we are evaluating whether the enforcement structure is appropriate for public employers. We appreciate the progress made and are committed to having further conversations regarding our remaining issues. For these reasons, we respectfully remain opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to the bill? Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair members. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Chamber of Progress. With recent amends, we are actually removing our opposition and going to neutral. So we appreciate your work on this. You read the analysis. You get a gold star. Oh, my God. Thank you. I'm pretty sure not everyone in this room did. Good afternoon. Kira Ross on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, still opposed unless amended. Thank you very much. Elizabeth Esquivel of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We remain opposed. Thank you. Good evening. Eric Lohr on behalf of the California State Association and Counties. Appreciate a lot of the amendments. We're opposed unless amended. Align my comments with our CRC. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. Erin Avery, California Special Districts Association. I respectfully oppose unless amended. Align my comments with Ms. Duquette. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Robert Boykin with TechNet. Respectfully opposed. Thank you. Good afternoon. Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association. Align our comments with the Cal Chamber. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Naomi Padron, on behalf of California's credit unions, respectfully opposed. Good evening. Taylor Trifo on behalf of the California Grocers in opposition. Evening. Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further. Oh, nope. There's one more. Sorry. It's just me. Sorry. No, you're good. I'm sorry. No worries. Melissa Kosachuk, Western Growers, we align our comments with those at Cal Chamber and opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry I didn't see you. He's very tall. Okay, bringing it back up here. But before we do, I just want to level set because I'm a little confused by some of the opposition comments and perhaps it was because the analysis came out late. Just so we're clear, now public employers' only obligation is under the cessation provision. So if you completely seize hiring in a category, you have to tell the Department of Industrial Relationships. And I think that that, from my perspective, is so that we can do, as Ms. Flock said, prepare for the future. And I think it's not that large of an obligation, and we need to be able to do that. So I just want to make clear that that was a lot of opposition on things that I think are no longer relevant in the bill. So I would recommend all public entities in the room to study the amendments and reconsider your position. That wasn't a question. And with that, anybody else? Mr. Lomenthal. I have Bill Envy This is a wonderful wonderful bill And I truly supportive I love to be added as a co on this bill Absolutely. You know, our chair, not in regards to this bill, I would need to put in this disclaimer, but, you know, often has the opportunity to inform the rest of our caucus, the other members in our caucus about, you know, what's ahead. And in all the conversations, actually, about how the state's finances are looking much more rosy in the years ahead based on the IPOs that are coming from these AI companies. If you study their revenue models, which are subscription-based revenue models, the only way these IPOs are going to do so well, which means the state's finances are going to do well, is by taking away all of these jobs. So it is critically important that we are able to understand and look at things apples to apples and having this information in front of us because we are going to have to make very tough decisions as it relates to balancing these things out. And I'm grateful for you for bringing this forward. Thank you so much. I'll be supporting it today. Thank you. Thank you. And you did say you wanted to be out as a co-author, Mr. Lontal. I would like to be out as a co-author on the bill. Please. I'll make sure we got that. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, I want to thank the author for her work on this with the committee. I know, frankly, I don't often get sad that nobody gives us credit for all the work an author does on the amendments, but I felt sad here because I feel like this bill actually, from my perspective, went a long way in aligning with current law through the amendments here today and made the obligations on industry significantly narrower. They already have to do the WARN Act, and now we're adding a category. I will note, as it was not mentioned in the conversation prior, that this is something New York has already done. I will note that that wasn't data U2 cited, but if you look at the data coming out of their version of the WARN Act on this question, because now they have had it in place for a period of time, it is very few jobs on which employers are saying are being lost because of AI, which is interesting data. And it may tell us something and tell us something valuable. And so to add the obligation, and that's why I think even if it is a broadening of the definition of checking that box, it's checking a box. So I don't know that it's that big of an obligation to check the box if it's a substantial reason. And then it gives us information and it allows us to prepare for the future for Californians. And so I think that is incredibly important. I also really appreciate, and it wasn't something, frankly, I had ever thought of, this cessation notice. But again, I think that one of the things that we should be most concerned about in the future is the future of work. And it is our obligation as policymakers to face that head on. And it doesn't mean we stop AI. We can't. It's been here for decades and we won't. But it does mean that maybe we upscale in certain ways. Maybe we support certain job apprenticeship programs, whatever it is, but we cannot do that without information. And right now I think we are woefully uneducated about what's going to happen. And I was just having a conversation actually with one of the sponsors the other day about how there are people that we trust that say it is overblown and we will lose less jobs. There are people we trust who say we're going to lose a And what do we do with that? I don't know what we do with that. And so this will hopefully give us data. And as someone who believes deeply in policy that is data-driven, I think this is one of the most important things. bills moving in the legislature. And so I'm really excited that you are bringing it. I'm really excited it's in the position it is today. I hope you'll add me as a co-author as well. Would you like to close? Thank you. I would love to add you both as co-authors. I do want to thank you and I want to thank the committee. It is a better bill coming out of this committee. I think it is narrower, but it still provides the information and the notice that is needed for our workers today and in the future. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. We had a motion, I think, maybe? Okay. Second. Let's call the roll. Item number 10, SB 951 by Senator Reyes. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Barcahan. Aye. Barcahan, aye. Macedo. No. Macedo, no. Bennett. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Tamayo Hoover. Irwin. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Ortega. Oh, McKinner. McKinner, aye. Ortega. Patterson. Pellerin. Aye. Hellerin, I. Petrie Norris, Bords, Wilson. It has five. We'll leave it on call for absent members. Thank you all. Thank you. You don't move, Senator. But there might be people coming to join you. We'll move to SB 969, I think. Is that right? Do you want to do 1130? Okay, we'll move to SB 1130. Oh, how many do you have left? We have. All right. We have four left. Four bills left. That's it. Four bills left. So we have Senator Cervantes, who I think actually is here. She left. Senator Cervantes and Senator Perez will be after this. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I have the opportunity to present SB 1130. SB 1130 updates California's privacy laws to address the rapid rise of wearable recording technology, such as smart glasses. These devices are fundamentally different from smartphones. They are designed to look like ordinary prescription glasses or fashion accessories, making it far more difficult for people to know when they are being recorded. Today, someone can walk into a medical exam room, fitting room, locker room, or a spa wearing AI-powered smart glasses that appear completely ordinary, leaving those around them with little or no indication that recording may be taking place. SB 1130 establishes clear common sense guardrails while preserving innovation. First, it prohibits recording with a wearable recording device without consent in areas of a business where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Second, it requires wearable recording devices to provide a clear recording indicator so that those nearby know when audio or video recording is occurring. Third, it prohibits the manufacture and sale of products specifically designed or marketed and primarily used to disable or bypass those recording indicators. This bill is not a ban on wearable technology. Businesses can continue to innovate, manufacture, sell, and use these products. What this bill does is establish basic rules of the road so consumers know when they are being recorded in places where they reasonably expect privacy. Good businesses benefit. If good businesses benefit from clear standards, consumers are far more likely to embrace new technology when they trust it is being used responsibly. With me today are Becca Kramer on behalf of Consumer Reports and Catherine Crump, clinical professor at UC Berkeley School of Law. Becca Kramer with Consumer Reports in support of SB 1130, which would place reasonable restrictions on the use of wearable cameras to secretly film California residents in sensitive locations without their permission. Last year, 404 Media reported on online influencers recording employees in massage parlors filming their reactions upon being sexually propositioned. And earlier this year, Wired published a story called, quote, The Rise of the Ray-Ban Meta Creep, which described men using metaglasses to record women as they were being harassed. Meta cameras include a small LED light that is meant to indicate that an interaction is being recorded, but many people don't know what the light means if they notice it at all. Moreover, many companies sell cheap defeat technologies on sites like Amazon to cover up the light and film secretly. SB 1130 would put into place common sense protections around the use of this increasingly invasive technology. It would require that users of wearable cameras get consent before filming in commercial spaces where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as gym changing rooms and the massage parlors I just referenced. It would also require an indicator on a wearable device to give fair warning that people are being recorded, and it would prohibit people from disabling recording indicators on wearable cameras or from selling such technologies to others. Arguably, we should have even stronger protections around wearable cameras, such as the limitations on the use of facial recognition technology. However, the protections set in place by SB 1130 are an excellent and needed start. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Katherine Crump from Berkeley Law School. Thanks for the chance to testify. I just want to make two quick points today. First, the threat of wearable technology. We already know bad actors use hidden cameras in private places, but this threat continues to evolve due to wearable devices. Meta alone sold 7 million pairs last year and is projected to sell at least twice that this year. When wearable recording technologies are seamlessly integrated into everyday items like glasses, the risk of non-consensual recording skyrockets. Second, why this bill has a promising solution. At its core, it stands for a simple principle. People have a right to know when they're being recorded. It secures that right with the design of the device itself, requiring a clear indicator that people nearby can notice. With older technology, a camera looked like a camera. Today, it can look like an ordinary pair of eyeglasses. For two decades, Japan and South Korea have required non-silenceable camera phone shutter sounds to deter covert photography. The logic is familiar in our own law. We require that products be built with basic safety principles and that those items can't be removed. It's a crime to tamper with a smoke detector, and FAA rules bar disabling anti-collision lights on a drone SB 1130 extends this common sense approach to wearable technology By making sure that wearable recording devices give people fair notice this takes a step to protecting Californians privacy, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Anyone else here in support of this measure? Sarah Phlox, California Federation of Labor Unions in strong support. Thank you. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We are in support of the bill. Thank you. I think Mr. Boykin is ready to come up in opposition. If anyone else is here with him, there's a second chair. You brought a friend. Good evening, chair members. Robert Boykin today with TechNet and respectful opposition to SB 1130. First of all, I want to start off by saying I have an immense amount of respect for the author and her staff. We've had a lot of productive conversations around this bill, and I hope that continues on to the future. But first, let me also be clear at the outset. We share the author's goal. People should not be people should be protected from non-consensual recording in genuinely sensitive places, and they should be held accountable for their actions. Our concerns are about drafting precision, not the bill's purpose. And some specific fixes would resolve our concerns. On the anti-circumvention provisions, we do not object to regulating technology that disables a device's recording indicator. Someone who disables the lights to deceive the people around them should be liable. Our concern is the standard language used in the bill, designed for the primarily purpose of or primarily marketed for, the sibling indicator. A retailer has no reliable way to know a product's primary design purpose or a downstream seller were marketed. So having a knowledge standard preserves the intent and gives the businesses a rule they can follow. Second, and most important, without a savings clause, the broad definitions in the bill and in existing law create major criminal and civil exposure for California businesses. The penal code defines person to include businesses. Section 2 creates a misdemeanor but does not define operate, which has a broad ordinary meaning and a violation is also subject to a private right of action under penal code 63637.2. Those things, in combination with a prosecutor or through the private right of action, a plaintiff's attorney could argue that because a business controls how his device functions or captures sound or video, potentially includes storing the data on his servers, the business is operating the device whenever a customer uses it. So we agree with the author that if a customer violates someone's privacy with a wearable device, that customer should be held accountable. But a business has no way to control how a buyer uses a device in public. An action camera or tablet maker cannot control whether a purchaser records where someone else expects privacy. The bill should state plainly that businesses are not liable for the actions of individual users. We share the author's goal, and we appreciate the author's dedication and open door when fully discussing this issue. It is just unfortunate at this time that we do not have yet found agreeable amendments or language that will allow us to remove our opposition. But as far as it stands, we respectfully oppose SB 1130. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Good evening, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Aidan Downey, and I'm here on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association to voice our respectful opposition to SB 1130. We fully appreciate the author's intent to protect consumer privacy, and I'll echo what Robert said earlier. However, the bill has currently drafted creates severe unintended consequences. First it creates sweeping manufacturer and employer liability SP1130 defines wearable recording device so broadly that it sweeps in everyday consumer tech and essential workplace tools like the Wi headsets restaurant staff use daily to coordinate service. Because the word operate is left undefined, device manufacturers face heavy criminal and civil liabilities for the independent, uncontrollable actions of their customers. We firmly believe that legal responsibility must rest with the individual choosing to record and not the business that manufactured or sold the device. Second, the bill relies on an unworkable primary purpose standard regarding recording indicators. Retailers have no reliable way to evaluate a product's secondary design features, and manufacturers cannot control how downstream retailers market a device. Businesses operating in good faith should not face civil penalties based on a subjective standard. Instead, we recommend a clear knowledge-based requirement to preserve the bill's intent while providing a practical compliance standard. Section 2, subsection E's disability exemptions are exceptionally narrow and may disincentivize manufacturers from offering helpful tools outside of the hearing exemptions. Expanding this definition to allow for assistive tools that can help consumers with any recognized disability would prevent these critical aids from being withheld due to fear of liability. Finally, the bill introduces a vague and unworkable privacy standard. Senate Bill 1130 bans recording in any place of business where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It leaves these boundaries completely undefined. This creates a massive legal uncertainty for innocent everyday conduct. Adding language that would allow for a visual or audio indicator when a device is recording to satisfy consent would help mitigate these concerns and help bring the bill into congruence with established SIPA case law on the subject. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on Senate Bill 1130. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I already see. But if anyone wants to join Ms. Bennett in opposition, now is the time. Wait, the mic's not on, Ms. Bennett. Hold on one second. I'm just going to talk louder. Is your office in opposition? Marlon Lahr with the California Restaurant Association. Not really in opposition. I want to thank the senator and her staff for the potential unintended consequences of restaurant devices. And I want to thank you for the productive conversations. And we really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no more opposition. I have questions. I don't know if anyone else has questions. Yeah, Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Senator. I have a few questions. So this prevents someone from selling, manufacturing, creating, all of that stuff. But there's also language that says from a person from acquiring technology. So if you are a resident in the state of California and you are in another state, you buy something and you bring it and you have acquired it, does that fall in there? and they have this particular product that doesn't have those indicator lights or sound or things like that. Is that captured in here as well? I imagine. Let me look to our... Yeah, much like there are many products that we can't buy in California that might be legal to buy elsewhere, but we can't bring it into California, this would be subject to the same piece. Okay. And then if you own a device, like for instance, all existing smartwatches right now allow for recording of audio. and don't necessarily have an indicator light. And yours says audio or visual. So existing devices that don't have that feature, are they allowed to be used in the state of California if this bill was implemented? Allowed to be used in a business where you expect privacy and expect not to be recorded, it would fall under this. It is a wearable device. But I think we can explore whether there might be language to make sure that it's clear that products that were sold legally, as someone wearing a smartwatch right now, that that those are exempted or kind of grandfathered. And we can, I think. So right now the language doesn't have that. So if you have. That's something that could be explained. So if this was signed into law, implemented January 1st, 2027, and there were no further changes. I just want to make sure I understand what I was reading. There are no further changes that there you would not. All of those devices, any device that had the ability to record sound or record video and was connected in some way transferable to another device or internet. So I do get that there is a distinction there. So my old case recorder wouldn't apply. But those would be considered illegal to use just in everyday life here. It isn't just the use. What I mean by use is use in a manner It's video recording or sounding, so not just wearing. I'm talking about using the features that you're talking about banning. Yes, but right now, as the bill is in print, it would need to be, you need to use the indicator light if you're using it in a place or indicator whatever. It could be a sound. It could be a light. The bill is intentionally left open to allow flexibility for the manufacturers. But yes, in a place that someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the recording would not be allowed under this bill. Is it limited to a reasonable expectation of privacy? Or if I go to a concert and I'm using my glasses that don't have a light, could I use, would that be disallowable by law? That would be allowable. reasonable expectation of privacy is something that the courts have kind of been clear on what is and what isn't. There's a lot of case law around it, and that would not be a concert. But if, for example, you were in a restroom or a changing room or some other place or doctor's office where you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the bill would come into play. And I think that was part of where my staff was briefing on this to me today, and I was getting confused about this part, is looking at, and this is me basing it primarily on the staff analysis more than going through the language because, you know, I'm not a lawyer, so I heavily rely on staff. It says that you can't sell, it has the thing on the business, right, or person that you can't sell a product that has these types of features where there is no light or sound, right? And then it says a person can't acquire these things either. So that gets to Lori Wilson, right? Lori can't acquire this. And then, so if I can't have it, then how can I then use it? How does it not prevent me from using it anywhere I want to use it outside of a reasonable expectation of privacy if I'm not even allowed to have it? Am I reading that wrong? You're not allowed to have the device that covers or hides the light, but not always a light indicator. Thank you. There are devices being sold today. Right. They don't have a light. Yes, that's right. Okay. So I'm not talking about something that's manufactured. Yes. Talking about something that exists today on January 1 would be illegal to possess that regardless of privacy or not. Because if I go to somewhere where there not a reasonable expectation of privacy the way the bill is written today if I go to a place and use it that would be illegal because I not allowed to have that I think those are two separate pieces So there the question of whether you can acquire it And then the question of whether you can film someone without the indicator on in a reasonable expectation of a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And so they, let me just help. Maybe I can help. So there are separate sections. So the first section about acquiring, I think it's important to note, has a knowing standard in the penalties. So you wouldn't, If you were to buy something in Nevada, right? I mean, theoretically, if this bill were to pass, if you were to try to buy something like this on Amazon or in a California store, you wouldn't be able to. So that would be that. But let's say you're on vacation and you buy something and you didn't know that it was illegal here. Let me be clear. There is a knowing standard in the penalties. But then there's a separate section around operating it in a reasonable expectation of place where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. And so I was just on the first part of the make violation, on the four make violation of one, two, or three punishable by a simple penalty. So if I, so I'll use this as an example. I had a Fitbit. I got to upgrade a Fitbit where this does not qualify under the, because a Fitbit doesn't record sound or whatever. But, you know, like when I didn't use it, I gave it to someone who wanted a Fitbit their first time having a Fitbit. It was one of those new to them things. Right. And we do that with old technology. Right. And so technically they would be in violation just by having it post this law. Correct. If it didn't have a light or something, if it was, and don't, I'm, I know I use Fitbit. but I was just talking about the giving of old technology. So technically, if this is in the place, that is something that is... Right, and that's where I said that at least, you know, speaking for Consumer Reports as a supporter, I don't want to speak for the author's office, but I do think that there can be language to clarify what the law is around existing things that were legally purchased prior to this law going into effect. And thank you. And I think that needs clarity in terms of things that are manufactured today and things that are manufactured after January 1st, 2027, should this become law. And I do want something that the chair said is that you knowingly acquire it knowing it has no indicator. I think that is an important part of it. But your point is a very good point, and I think it's something that we do absolutely have to look at. Thank you. And then in the other section, in terms of liability. So as I understand it, the liability, even when the person is disabling it or the person is hiding it or whatever, the company or using a thing, the company still has liability. That's not accurate? No, that is not accurate. Okay, where does the company, then explain to me the company's liability. It is the person. Go ahead. Whoever. If they manufacture something that is manufactured specifically with the intent of hiding the indicator, that is when they would be liable. Only the company would. That's right. Correct. It's only the person that is doing the action. So if they're the ones that are selling something to enable disabling it, or if you are the person who actually disables it, then you are liable. But if you are not using it, doing it in action, taking part in this, then you would not be liable as a company. Okay. And then as far as the individual liability, so if they do something, they have the civil penalty and then they have other things related to the penal code because this is being added to it. Um and then final questioning um centers around the this is only related to wearable devices Um but I can record you with my phone and you not see it And my phone does not have an indicator light People have like these other types of devices that record. And so this is not broad. This is just as it relates to a specific type of device. So why would we treat one product different from another when it comes to recording sound and audio? What was the reasoning for that? when we're talking about surveillance state and privacy and all of that nature? Yeah. So there are in California already some laws around this, like the two-party consent for recording and such that would capture things like your cell phone. This was trying to go after the things that people would not expect have the capability of recording. I think we all are aware that cell phones are able to record, other things are able to record, but it's still relatively novel that someone's glasses, for example, could be recording you. And so trying to bite off that kind of the emerging threat and tackle that in this part of in this piece of the bill. And so you don't think that the two party law is sufficient. The two party permission, whatever it is, two party consent, consent. That was the word I was looking for. Thank you. It's the end of the day. And I've now had a little bit of dinner. so I think I got a little bit of the itis, but that that's sufficient to manage this, given the fact that our phones have been recording for some time. We now know, because it's something you could do with disclosure for the person buying a phone, saying, recognizing that we live in a two-party consent state, you now have this thing, you cannot do these, you cannot do X, Y, Z, why add this additional label on it? And I'm looking at the whole table. I'll begin. I think this is important. It's new technology. We want to be sure that we're not stopping some innovation. But we want to be sure that because it is new and because it is something that you would not expect, I think at this point we would expect that if somebody's holding up a phone, you know they're taking a picture or video of you. Sometimes you don't know they're recording your voice because they simply push a button and they're recording the voice. But we do know that the law is a two-party law. This technology is so new, you would not expect normally that you can be recorded by glasses. And that is why we believe that this is important, to make sure that if you are doing it, if you are recording a person in a business area where that person would expect privacy, You have to get their consent. And that I 100% agree with. I think that the liability is really around the person. And I do think that although this technology is now novel, more people are aware of it completely. And, you know, people now have buttons, right, that are meant that the only sole purpose is to record you. I mean, there's a lot of things of surveillance, things that are terrible. So, whereas glasses have a different purpose and there are those, there's, I appreciate the exceptions around, you know, AIDS for those with disabilities because there's this technology now, you know, this technology is being used to allow people who are blind to have a better, more immersive experience of their surroundings, right? And so my just concern is you know it seems my thought would be it seems to strengthen our two consent system by making sure it covers wearable devices adding disclosures so that people are aware that that responsibility didn just lie with their phone the person personal liability They realize what every device that they have and what the rules are around what you can and can't do in our state versus this additional manufacturing something in a different way. But I appreciate the intent that you have with this bill in regard to privacy, because I think that is key, is we want people to feel like they have—well, one, we want them to exercise our right to privacy. And we do want people to, when they go out in the community, that there is some level of expectation, not that full reasonable, like when you're going to a gym or whatever, but you don't want to be constantly sorrelled, right? But I do know, having had a pair of glasses that light up, that sometimes that light is inconvenient for people when I'm doing my recording. And we're not in an expectation of privacy space. But thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. So let's just be clear. You're targeting metaglasses with this bill, correct? Wearable devices. We keep talking about glasses. So I'm assuming you're talking about metaglasses. So for the sake of this conversation, I'm going to talk about metaglasses. I own a pair of them. I think it is very clear, in my opinion, people may differ on that, that you can see the cameras on there. Additionally, we have very stringent consent laws when it comes to recording in any way and how those can be used. I would argue that your cell phone could become a wearable device if you have the thing that goes across your chest. You put it in your pocket, a plethora of things when it comes to that, that I understand the wanting to make sure we are people are knowing when they're going to be regular or are knowing when they're being recorded. But now let's say I had my metaglasses and I went to, let's say, a concert, like I said, because I got them before this law went into effect, could meta then be responsible for that? because is it the manufacturing from the time the law goes into effect forward? Or would I have to prove I obtained these metaglasses before? And then if that's the case, that those are then illegal, are you expecting meta to then give me a new pair of glasses with this blinking light? I just think there's so many issues with implementation. The metaglasses have a light. Oh, my metaglasses, I don't know. I don't use them for recording. I don't think meta is in the room, but I've seen people wearing them. Oh, the updated ones. Don't. Okay, the original ones did. And when people recorded, okay. Okay, I just was like, let's not throw meta under the bus. I think they have a light. I personally don't use my meta glasses to record people. So I don't know. I think that this has a long way to go before it's getting to what you're trying to achieve. Because I think when we talk about dressing rooms, we talk about massage parlors, there's laws that you could if you were the victim of this recording, get retribution and have your day in court. So I don't think that this is quite the answer. So I'm not gonna be able to support today. But I think this is an ongoing conversation that we figure out as technology progresses. And also educate people that consume these products of what is proper and improper. And maybe that's where we go with this. So thank you. Thank you. I didn't know Meta got rid of the light. I learned something new every day. Anybody else? Yeah, Mr. Lopal. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. Anytime I'm around this technology, it makes me uncomfortable. comfortable. It makes me feel like I've lost some of my human rights because I don't know what to say or how to act or what to do. I have grown resentful of them. We've seen them on the floor of the legislature, as a matter of fact, violating the laws and the rules of the legislature itself, but the rules that we have are ourselves. I'm grateful that you're bringing this forward. I I know that there are, I concur actually with my colleague from the Central Valley that we do have farther to go with this. And that's why I want to support this bill today in every way so we can continue that journey and not just blunt the conversation. It is going to take some time. The technology is evolving, as we just learned from the questions from the chair, on an annual basis. right? And so we better get started on a framework of rules that make people comfortable because people should not feel brittle when they're in a conversation with somebody in a workplace environment like we've had on the floor of the legislature with this very technology or otherwise without having some ground rules in place. I applaud you for bringing this forward. I'm going to be supporting it today. Thank you. Okay. Nobody else. So thank you. I actually the first time I saw them out of glasses was a colleague of ours who was recording using them. He was making a TikTok and they did have a light. And I actually thought, because to your point, you can see the cameras, but they're not always recording. You said you don't use yours to record at all. And so I do think like, it makes sense to me that people are wearing glasses all the time. They're mostly, I assume, not recording all the time. But when they turned it on, I thought it was appropriate that I knew that he was now recording me. And I think with a phone, most of the time as someone who's recording you, it's pretty obvious, right? They're holding it up. So in the same way that a light would. So I think the light's good. If Meta's listening, I thought the light was a good thing Meta did. So Meta brings back the light. So, but I do think, look, we live in a two consent state and these wearables are now ubiquitous. I mean, some people wear them as their eyeglasses all the time. That is, they're sold that way. And so I do think that if someone were to activate the record feature, the ability for someone who is standing there having a conversation with them to be aware of the recording is a benefit. And again, companies definitely have done it. That I can say with certainty. And so I don't see why they couldn't. And I actually really appreciate that. I also, I didn't know about the devices to cover the indicator until this bill came up. And I actually just, I was listening to the opposition about how do they know? And so I did a search on a major e-commerce platform specifically for device to cover meta indicator light and up popped endless pages of devices clearly marketed for this purpose. So I understand what you're saying about potential workarounds, but I think that maybe we can work on that language for this type of thing where I could actually put the language of the bill into the e-commerce site and see it pop up. I think we can do something about that. That seems pretty straightforward. But I did have a question. So as I read the operator language, I don't understand why, and I think it was more, I don't remember which of you, I apologize, but I think it was more you that said it, that the restaurant, for example, would think they were responsible for the recording and have liability under the bill So where in the language May I respond to that actually because that was brought up And it just like the hearing device The hearing device was something that was brought up The hearing device was brought up to us and we realized that we needed to put some language in there to make sure that any device for for disability was not going to be included here That wasn't the purpose of it. The same thing with the restaurants. They said, you know, they have the headphones and they need to be able to talk to one another. and so we're working on language. In fact, we've been working on it diligently, trying to get the right language so that we're able to exclude them from what it is we're putting here because I think it's valid. They want to be able to wear the headphones in the restaurants and communicate with one another and we're not trying to take that away. Okay, and so honestly, I mean, I'm not saying that you're wrong. I just don't read it as covering you, so I was a little bit confused by that piece of the opposition. So if you wouldn't mind, And really, where in the language did you read that? I mean, I think as we've discussed with the author, we have those concerns. And I think listening to discussions that we've had today, it is just a point of clarity. I think we need to work out with the author. And I think we can get there. Okay, perfect. Yeah, no, I didn't even. Just a little more clarification is sort of what we're looking for. Yeah, yeah, I couldn't even find it. I mean, I understand your lawyers probably spent more time looking at it. So I don't doubt it. But yes, I don't read it that way. So I'm sure we can clarify that. And Ms. Wilson asked to be recognized because she said that Metta has not removed the indicator light. Did they text everybody in the hearing after they heard them say that? That's hilarious. They were listening. Yeah. Okay. That's what I thought. I was like, I've seen people wear these glasses and they light up. And I like that. I actually think that's a good feature of the glasses. I think it is important in a two-party consent state. So I think the platform was surprised I was giving them credit. So that's why they were listening. I know exactly. I said something nice. So yes, thank you. So I appreciate that. I really just want to understand the technical issue, but it sounds like the author is already on top of it, which does not surprise me knowing this author. So I really appreciate this. I think that, like I said, we're a two-party consent state, so having the ability to know somebody's recording you feels important. I actually read right before I learned about your bill on this, I read a New York Times article about a waiter in New York City who was surreptitiously recorded with glasses. And then it went viral. And all of a sudden, everyone started recognizing him and he didn't even know he'd been recorded in the first place. And he felt a certain way about that as I imagine one would. And so his restaurant actually took action to say that people couldn't wear these in this specific instance. But I do think that that person had the right to know he was being recorded as everybody does. So I appreciate the Bill, I think that you'll continue to work on it. And with that, would you like to close? I want to be clear. This is not an anti-MEDA bill. I think that it's just wearable devices. MEDA seems to have, they are manufacturing probably the best ones. And let's say that, right? But I think that we're in the privacy committee. And it's about figuring out how we protect people's privacy where they expect privacy. making sure that somebody doesn't cover the one device on that wearable, on the glasses, that would let the person know that they're being recorded. And that's what the bill is about. And with that, I would just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Great. Did we have a motion? I can't remember. Okay, motion and a second. Let's call the roll. Item number 12, SB 1130 by Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Barcahan Aye Barcahan Aye Macedo No Macedo No Bennett Brian DeMaio No DeMaio no Hoover Irwin Wilenthal Aye Wilenthal aye McKinner? Ortega? Patterson? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petrie-Norris? Ward? Wilson? Not voting. Wilson, not voting. Bill has three. We'll leave it open for absent members. Oh, you have one more. But to the senators that are here, this one should be fast. Just so you know, they are in the pipeline. Oh, yeah. She's the last bill in the mobile app. So do you want to go? Okay, do you want to? Well, but it's hard. We'll do here. Where? All right. Oh, it's next door. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present SB 969. This bill updates the regulatory framework for EV charging accuracy testing at the Division of Measurement Standards within the California Department of Food and Agriculture. California has established ambitious climate goals, including reaching 100% zero emission vehicle sales by 2035 and having five million zero emission vehicles on the road by 2030. Meeting these goals requires a charging network that is reliable, accurate and scalable. Despite these climate goals, stakeholders report that current enforcement for EV charging accuracy varies widely by county, with some areas lacking the resources or capacity to inspect and test chargers. Under the existing regulatory landscape, newly installed EV chargers are required to be placed into service and tested for accuracy before they can operate. However, there are more chargers out there than there are people available to test them, and the vast majority of chargers are factory tested and type approved before they leave the manufacturer. Simply put, the existing process by which these chargers are regulated is slowing EV charger deployment at a time when the state needs rapid expansion. This bill addresses this gap by removing unnecessary barriers to installing and operating new charging stations across California. This bill, as amended on Monday, reflects a series of discussions with stakeholders that included both regulators and industry to ensure that consumer protection remains as we speed up access to EV charging. Here to testify in the bill today are Marquise Mason on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Reid Addis on behalf of the EV Charging Association. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'll try to keep this quick. My name is Marquise King-Mason, and I'm here on behalf of Natural Resources Defense Council in support of SB 969. California's climate, air quality, and clean transportation goals depend on the rapid deployment of reliable EV charging infrastructure. That means drivers need to have the confidence that charging stations are accurate and transparent, but it also means that a regulatory framework needs to be practical, scalable, and capable of keeping pace with the growth of EV charging. SB 969 strikes that balance. California's existing weights and measures framework was originally designed for traditional fuel dispensing systems. As applied to EV charging, it has created administrative and procedural challenges that can delay charger deployment and increase costs without always providing consumer benefits. SB 969 makes targeted practical forms while preserving strong consumer protections. In particular, the bill allows EV charging equipment that has already been factory tested and certified to be placed into service while maintaining registration requirements, inspection authority, and enforcement of accuracy standards. This bill does not eliminate oversight. It helps folks oversight where it matters the most, on measurement, accuracy, transparency, and most importantly, consumer trust. Reducing unnecessary costs and delays is especially important to expand charging access in multifamily housing workplaces public spaces and other shared charging settings Reliable charging access will determine whether the benefits of transportation and electrification are broadly available to all or not SB 969 is a common-sense set of measured modernization reforms that support both the consumer protection and charging infrastructure bill that California needs. For these reasons, NRDC respectfully requests an aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Reed Addis, on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, We're here today because of the number 400. That's how many chargers need to be installed every single day for us to meet our ambitious climate goals. We are constantly struggling to find ways in which we can help consumers who buy these technologies once they buy them to get them installed. One of the issues that has plagued us for years has been what has been referred to as field testing. There's only one company that we know that sells this very expensive technology. There's only so many of those devices in state, and that creates a huge drag on the ability for us to get our technologies field tested and certified. When we looked at this bill, the reason we got excited about it is we think at least one element of it solves that problem by allowing you to do factory testing and certification. Our technologies are built in modern facilities today. It makes a lot of sense to allow this factory testing. We appreciate the author advancing this bill. Thank you very much. Thank you for your brief testimony. Do we have anybody else in support? Yeah, Julie Malnowski on behalf of California Electric Transportation Coalition. Thank you. Keaton Murray with the White House of the Group on behalf of Electric Eye America. Thank you. Sam, I'm on behalf of ChargePoint. Lizzie Guansone here on behalf of Tesla in support. Okay. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Let's do it from back here. It'll be quicker. Madam Vice Chair and members, Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association. We were opposed unless amended. We have now removed our opposition and have gone to neutral on the bill. Thank the author for allowing us to work with her and her staff. Thank the committee staff for the great help getting the bill where we needed to go. We think it's a fair compromise, and we are not neutral on the bill. Thank you. We love happy endings like that. So do we. Anybody else in the room in support? Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties, co-signing a statement from the county sealers. We were opposed unless amended with the recent amendments. We are now moving to a neutral position, and we thank the author for bringing that language. Happy to hear that. bringing it back to the dais. Any members of the committee? We have a motion by Ms. Wilson and a second by Ms. Pellerin. Thank you for bringing this forward. I can tell you in the Central Valley we are a charging desert and the charging stations we do have are not always fully operational. So I appreciate you bringing this forward and with that would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you Senator. Item number 11, SB 969 by Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Thank you. Ms. Cervantes. Whenever you are ready, Senator. Thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 1013 today. This bill is about one simple principle protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while ensuring law enforcement tools are used responsibly before it's too late. Senate Bill 1013 strengthens safeguards governing automated license plate recognition systems by requiring stronger employee access control, requiring annual Department of Justice randomized audits to ensure compliance with existing law, requiring mandatory privacy and cybersecurity training for employees with ALPR access, and limiting retention of ALPR data to no more than 30 days unless associated with an active hot list. Over the past decade, LPR systems have quietly become one of the most expansive surveillance technologies in California. More than 230 police and sheriff departments already use these systems, with additional agencies planning to adopt them. Yet, despite collecting billions of license plate scans, there remains no comprehensive statewide evidence demonstrating their effectiveness across investigations or public safety outcomes. What these systems unquestionably do is collect location and movements of millions of law-abiding Californians. In 2016, the legislature enacted SB 34 to establish safeguards governing ALPR use. Unfortunately, those protections have repeatedly been ignored. Agencies shared ALPR data with hundreds, even thousands of outside entities, including federal immigration authorities and direct violation of state law. Many agencies failed to establish required policies or had none at all. Some commingled ALPR data with sensitive personal information with few safeguards on employee access. Six years later, many of those same violations continue. Recent events show that this is not a historical problem. It's happening today. In 2023, privacy advocates documented 71 California agencies violating ALPR law. The attorney general issued an advisory clarifying agencies' legal obligations. Last year, San Francisco discovered approximately 1.6 million unauthorized searches, including searches conducted on behalf of ICE and out-of-state agencies. Attorney General Rob Bonta was forced to sue the city of El Cajun after it continued to illegally share ALPR data even after being warned. Beyond unlawful data sharing, employee misuse remains a serious concern. Across California, officers have improperly accessed ALPR information to stalk former partners, harass private citizens, and misuse sensitive government databases. In Shasta County, an officer used ALPR data to harass the ex-boyfriend of his fiancée and was charged with six misdemeanors after he used this data to have the ex-boyfriend struck toad and impounded In San Diego investigators also found that a sergeant in the San Diego Police Department used ALPR data to find information on his ex new boyfriend He used this information to stalk both his ex and her boyfriend. Media reports have also documented California ALPR database feeding broader federal surveillance systems targeting immigrant communities. Several California jurisdictions, including Mountain View, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, South Pasadena, South San Francisco, have suspended or restricted ALPR access after discovering unauthorized usage. Washington recently enacted legislation limiting ALPR retention to 21 days. Hundreds of agencies nationwide have already adopted the 30-day retention policy as a best practice. This bill today responds directly to these documented failures time and time again. It strengthens employee safeguards, as mentioned in the opening, DOJ audits, and it limits retention of data belonging to millions of innocent Californians. This bill does not eliminate ALPR technology. It does not prevent law enforcement from using these systems to investigate crimes. It simply ensures that these powerful tools are governed by clear rules, meaningful oversight, and accountability. California should never have to choose between public safety and privacy. We can have both. SB 1013 protects legitimate law enforcement use while preventing abuse, strengthening public trust, and safeguarding the constitutional rights of millions of Californians. This bill is timely, it's measured, and it's long overdue. Today, with me to testify in support, we have Professor Catherine Crump, Clinical Professor of Practice and Technology Law at UC Berkeley School of Law and Director of the Samuelson Law Technology and Public Policy Clinic. We also have Mike Katz-Lakabe, a Privacy Rights Activist and Director of Research for Oakland Privacy. You will each have two minutes. Good afternoon, honorable committee members. My name is Mike Katsalakabe. I'm the director of research for Oakland Privacy. In February of 2020, the California State Auditor issued a report on automated license plate readers that began, quote, to better protect the privacy of residents, local law enforcement agencies must improve their policies, procedures, and monitoring for the use and retention of license plate images and corresponding data. SB 1013 finally helps to ensure that more than six years later, these recommendations are implemented. Despite opponents desire for a five-year retention period, 165 of 192 law enforcement agencies in California we reviewed have already chosen to retain data for 30 days or less, including 20 county sheriffs. The argument that more than a 30-day retention period is necessary for investigations or public safety is just not borne out by actual practice. Agencies keeping data more than 30 days are the exception. In fact, San Diego PD, which retains data for 30 days, was better at solving violent crimes and property crimes in 2024 than Los Angeles PD, which retains data for five years, according to the California Department of Justice. Recently, we uncovered more than a dozen law enforcement agencies sharing license plate reader data in violation of California state law. Despite a legal requirement to conduct audits, agencies are typically unaware of who they are sharing data with or the reasons that their data is being searched. Too many times audit logs obtained from public records requests have revealed law enforcement performing searches on behalf of immigration agencies that were somehow missed by existing audits required under California law SB 1013 addresses this by requiring audits by the California Department of Justice In nearly every law enforcement agency that we reviewed there are no documented policies or procedures for how or why a license plate is added to a hot list. Hot lists are created and maintained with no oversight, putting California drivers at risk of being stalked or abused by those with access to ALPR systems. Finally, the author has incorporated three-fourths of the amendments proposed by the Police Chiefs Association, and we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you. Two minutes on the dot. Well done. Challenge is on. Let's see if you can do it, too. All right. I'll do my best. Catherine Crump again from Berkeley Law School. We can agree on two things. First of all, ALPR is a valuable law enforcement tool. No one is suggesting that it be banned. And second, over 99 percent of the data collected by ALPR belongs to completely innocent people. The question is how long we should be tracking the movements of innocent Californians. I urge the committee to adopt a statewide data retention limit. The 30-day limit is a reasonable and evidence-based choice, as you've already heard, and it mirrors the default policy of retention for flock safety, which is the most prominent ALPR vendor. A 30-day limit, for example, takes nothing from a missing child emergency. The bill specifically authorizes ALPR to find someone reported missing, and data tied to an active investigation is exempt from deletion. According to the California State Auditor, over 99.9% of the 320 million plate hits Los Angeles stored were not on a hot list. Those people were overwhelmingly innocent, and yet their data is now logged in a law enforcement database. There is also a concrete evidence-based reason why long-term storage actively compromises public safety. Without a strict data retention limit, California data is leaking across state lines, exactly what our law forbids. The state auditor found that agencies weren't even tracking who was searching their data and concluded that the problem was likely statewide. And it continues. In roughly six months, out-of-state agencies ran more than 1.6 million searches of San Francisco's database alone, some of them tied to ICE. This is why a strict data retention limit backed up by an audit requirement is so important. You cannot unlawfully share data that you do not have. The California police chief's vault proposal is a dangerous step backwards. storing billions of records on innocent drivers only multiplies the risk of breaches and unlockable sharing. And I look forward to your questions. With five seconds to spare. Well done. Anybody else in the room in support? Good evening. John Bennett with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy in support. Thank you. Thank you. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy in support of the bill. Thank you. I didn't even have to say it. opposition. Come join us. Whenever you're ready, gentlemen, you each get two minutes. All right. Good evening, everybody. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, reminiscent of that movie Eight Mile. They kind of tried to catch me before I even got up here. So I do still have some things to say, though. So first of all, a lot of the violations that have occurred were not intentional. There were flaws in the systems that allowed access to out of state and federal agencies that we didn know about once we identified that which again gives reason to the audits and the oversight and the bill that we not opposed to we did take corrective action And I can tell you there are police chiefs who are very very upset about what had occurred because it put them in a very precarious position for the damage trust with the community around their use of this very critical tool to the arguments about the retention on 30 days being the norm. That doesn't include the largest agencies in the state who share data with the smaller agencies who can't afford to hold the data that long. 30 days is the norm because you get charged for holding it longer than that. So a small agency in L.A. is not going to be able to hold data the way that LAPD does. But LAPD shares with those agencies, with CHP. So restricting it to 30 days doesn't just impact those few small large agencies or small number of large agencies. It affects everybody. And the amendments taken, I do want to say I appreciate the author. I appreciate her staff for meeting with me consistently throughout this entire year. And they have taken some technical amendments to address several of the issues that I brought up. But those were some of the low-hanging fruit, non-controversial issues. The biggest issue that remains is the language around the retention period. 30 days is not sufficient. From our perspective, we've talked about why LAPD has around 210, Cold case murder investigations that they're currently trying to solve. Data longer than 30 days would be potentially critical in solving some of those cases. They had three murder cases just from this last year that started as missing persons. Neither were reported until after 90 days that the individual was gone. All of the data that we would have had potentially for those crimes that we, again, didn't know had occurred would have been deleted if this bill were law. We do think that the protections that we've offered last year, and we continue to offer this year, around allowing us to continue to hold the data, but as long as it's protected, unreleasable, except for an investigation to a specific enumerated crime and only accessible by an administrator is reasonable. But we're open to other ideas. We look forward to continuing to work with the author as this bill nears the finish line. And remind everyone the governor did veto a very similar bill. So we also have, you know, the administration that we're in contact with trying to ultimately come up with some type of protections that make sense and still allow law enforcement to use a critical tool that's important. Thank you. I let you go over. So I was trying. I appreciate it. Madam Chair, members, Corey Sazillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. I'll try not to be duplicative. the 30-day limit. Just because one company says 30 days is what we recommend, that should really have no bearing on how the legislature decides what to mandate. And candidly, an agency choosing a data retention period is materially different than the state mandating one. I just think if we want evidence of efficacy, we can talk to the missing person who was found or the family members of the cold case murder that was solved. See what they think about the technology and see what they think about juxtaposing the utility of this technology. Nobody's saying this bill bans ALPR. What we're saying is it severely restricts the utility of the technology, which captures a picture of a license plate and other data, and retains it so that it can be used potentially in an investigation. These stories about misuse should be told completely to include how those who misuse the technology are disciplined and or prosecuted. So I just, again, I think we've been over the points. We've been over this bill several times for the last few years. This is a crucial law enforcement tool We are not arguing that this is a ban, but the severe limitations in this bill will really keep the tool from being used as effectively as possible. And for those reasons, we ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition? You both want. I'm sorry. Okay, perfect. I didn't want to skip. Anyone else here in opposition? Yes, Madam Chair and members, Julie DeVores on behalf of the League of California Cities. We have an opposing this amended position. A lot of our comments with the Police Chiefs Association. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association. In opposition, along with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Reserve Peace Officers, Placer County Deputy Sheriffs, and the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Brea, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, L.A. School Police, L.A. School Police Management, California Coalition of School Safety Professionals, and the California School Police Chiefs, all in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and members. Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the California Peace Officers Association, both opposed. Also on behalf of the California Mobility and Parking Association, opposed unless amended. Thank you. Sam Hood, on behalf of the Security Industry Association, we have an opposed and less amended position, but thank the author for their conversations. Good evening. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks and the City of Belmont in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. I'm seeing no further opposition in the room. We'll bring it back to the taist. Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. And before I get too far into this, I just want to say this technology is critical. And I think you recognize that as well. And I'm hearing that from your witnesses that are here today. Right now, that technology is the only thing that's making me feel safe, not just here at the Capitol, but back home. And I'm happy to share that story with you privately. But I do have concerns around the 30 days. And I had those same concerns last year and in transportation as well. And it sounds like that's kind of the last piece that's missing. are you open at all or are you stuck on that 30 days timeline right now? Through the chat, please. Yes, we've always been open to having those discussions and continue to do so. So to the opposition, what would be a reasonable time? That's not five years because it sounds like that's a non-starter.

Just some light reading for your summer break, Senator.

You're not investigating these crimes?

Well, okay.

So but did you want to add something, Senator?

OK.

Okay. Ms. Ortega. Ms. Ortega was next.

You don't even know me.

Oh, my God.

It's getting late. It's getting hostile.

You guys give us a bow.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega. Mr. DeMaio?

Thank you. I don't see anyone else. So I just want to say, I think that there's an important point to make actually about what our colleague from San Diego was saying, that at least as playing out in my region, which is people are making choices right now between having these cameras and relinquishing all their privacy or not having the cameras. I mean, there are places in my region where they've just opted out of the cameras. And frankly, I don't know that that makes, you know, to the point of my vice chair, I actually think that guardrails around these cameras and having them to keep us safe is my personal preference. Because I do think they have a benefit but I think that guardrails are critical And so you know I sad that places I frequent have now opted out of this frankly that are not far from my home My city has not but cities near me have And so you know I really supportive of this idea of starting to put a framework of guardrails around this And I think that the author deferring to, you know, the standard that is recommended by the cameras that are mostly used in our communities, although probably not exclusively would be my guess, is not a bad place to start. It's also the California Highway Patrol policy. So it's, you know, I didn't ask a question, Mr. Salzillo. And, you know, so I do think that this is a really important step towards privacy while allowing these cameras to be in place. I think that's an important piece of this. So I'll be supporting it today, but would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Can you call the roll please? Oh, motion second. Moved by Ms. Ortega, second by Mr. Lowenthal. Okay, item number 13, SB 1013 by Senator Cervantes. The motion is due passed to the Preparations Committee. Barcahan, Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Bennett, Ryan, DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. Hoover, Irwin? No. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petrie-Norris? Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward, Wilson? You have five votes. We'll keep it open. And Mr. Feldman, I love you in all law enforcement, so thank you for being here. All right, Senator Perez, thank you for being so patient. and this is our last bill of the day. So if you are on the privacy committee. She just walked out. Oh, so let's catch up on mixed. Oh, no, she's back. Sorry, psych. She literally just walked out. I know. I couldn't see. I'm back. We can't. We can't. Y'all became a big brother party. Wake up. I have a stalker. The only way I know he's not coming. Oh. Who's threatened to handcuff my hands and feet and take my heart away? Thank you. Yeah. Okay, when we can have quorum in the room, Senator Perez.

staff attorney and National Workers' Rights Director for the National Day Labor Organizing Network, and Nancy Meza, community organizer from Los Angeles. We each have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you, and good evening. Thank you, members of the Privacy Committee, for having us in after a long day. My name is Cal Soto. I'm the workers' rights director and staff attorney at the National Day Labor Organizing Network based in Los Angeles, California. And I'm here to speak in strong support of SB 1103, what we call the Repair Act. So across California, mass and armed agents in unmarked cars have carried out immigration raids in and around large retail stores. Workers, customers, and families are caught in the middle. Rumors travel much faster than facts. The fear is real, and it keeps people away from work, from commerce, and from public spaces they have every right to enjoy and use. SB 1103, the Repair Act, answers that fear by preserving a clear record of the facts. The bill creates no news surveillance. It asks for nothing to be filmed that the stores are not already filming. It requires two things. First, when the attorney general issues a subpoena or a county submits a written request, the store provides the footage and documentation it already keeps in the normal course of business. Second, the store posts its own policies online so the public can see whether the company shares data with federal immigration authorities. This, because of the work of many members of the committee and the offices working on this diligently, is a privacy protective bill. The records go to the attorney general and to a county agency chosen by a board of supervisors. They're exempt from the Public Records Act. Stores hold the records for at least 60 days and the law sunsets in 2030. Moreover, this transparency is of great importance to the community. Access to this information is exactly what has been sought by advocates to understand the tragic death of Carlos Alberto Montoya Valdez in Monrovia. This is accountability without exposure or undermining the privacy of Californians. It lets California see clearly what's happening in front of these stores and it stops the spread of false information. So I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you. Whenever you're ready, two minutes. Buenas noches. Good night. My name is Nancy Mesa. I am a volunteer with Endelon's Adopt a Day Labor Corner campaign. I specifically support Adopt a Day Labor Corner volunteers in L.A., Southeast L.A., and the South Bay communities, often acting as a switchboard between on-the-ground volunteers, attorneys, and resources. The adopted day labor corner campaign actually began because the rapid response networks that we had in place when the race began in June here in L.A. were not fast enough to stop these kidnapping operations. They were just happening too quickly. So, Endelon made the decision that knowing, right, that this is where kidnapping enforcements are happening at these home people sites, we needed to train volunteers to already be there, right, given just the quickness that these things happen. And it really is everyday community members that are standing out there alongside workers at these Home Depot parking lots making sure that their rights are being respected and that workers have a safe workplace just like everyone deserves I want to be very clear that these are kidnapping operations I unfortunately have been a witness to various of these operations, both in Paramount and in Huntington Park. While I witnessed the Paramount kidnappings operations, this actually happened while there was a temporary restraining order. DHS did not care. ICE did not care about the law. they went ahead and continued with their human rights abuses. At the Huntington Park Home Depot has been one of the largest hit in our area. A day laborer was also run over to try and seek safety. And the majority of day laborers that have been kidnapped from that have been elderly workers who unfortunately were not physically able to flee safety. And I want to make sure that the work that we are doing as volunteers on the ground is supporting both workers, customers, and the general public who are put at risk by these kinds of operations. I urge a yes vote on the Repair Act, SB 1103, so we can begin the important accountability and repair work that our community is currently forced to do on our own. I recently checked in with one of our daily labor networks in the South Bay Area, and a worker who was kidnapped in June was recently released because of our advocacy. As Endalon, we often say, que solo el pueblo salva al pueblo, only the people save the people, but we would appreciate some help. Home Depot has the responsibility to share footage. It already collects where human rights abuse are happening. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, anybody else here in support of this measure? Name, organization, and position. There were some folks out in the hall. I think they may have all come in, hopefully. Okay, good. Thank you. Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Cheerla, in support. Diego Zamaiova, Paul Cien, to the group here on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City, in support. Giovanni Rossell, here with Endalon, and as a member of Grupo Autodefensa Pasadena Rapid Response Network, and I'm in support of the bill. Thank you. Blanca Flores Morales It's something very necessary, so we're fighting many people. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Cyril O'Hoyos. I'm supporting the Pasadena. I'm supporting the organization BS1103. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Maria Ortega. I'm supporting the B.S.1103. Thank you. Hello, my name is Jose Rivera and I'm here to support a bill. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Fatima Garcia. I am the executive director of Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Workers Center here in Sacramento in strong support of SB 1103. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Christina Alvarez here with Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Workers Center in Sacramento here in strong support. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Finn West. I'm a volunteer with the LA Rapid Response Network and I urge your support. thank you good evening my name is jose madera director of the pasadena community job center which is is part of the National Daily Organizing Network, also part of the DINARISEUP Coalition, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Felix Menendez, CEO from Salva Organization. We serve as L.A. County in San Bernardino County, and I am here to support 1103. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Eduardo, proud to be an immigrant Mexican, and I support SB 1103. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Rafael Guerrero, and I'm here with Salva Organization. I'm here to support SB 1103. Thank you. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Freddy. Vengo de la Organización Salva en PANDEL a apoyar la ley 1103. Thank you. Anyone here? Primary opposition, I think I see you. Come on up. Good evening, Chair and members. My name is Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition to SB 1103. First, I'd like to recognize the profound impact that immigration enforcement activities have had on employees, customers, and our communities. I do appreciate, I read through the analysis, I appreciate a lot of the amendments that are laid out. Most importantly, removing the provision that required retailers to post a daily record of immigration enforcement on their websites. Narrowing the definition of premises is also appreciated, among a few others. Unfortunately, we must oppose the amendments that expand the bill to the retail industry. And we have concerns with the amendments that give county boards of supervisors the ability to select agencies within the county to access the same information retailers would give to the AG. That would create a patchwork of different agencies across the state requesting access to that information and that retailers would have to decipher and verify. And also we're curious who could be an agency that the Board of Supervisors could select. Given the amends, expand retailers who are covered. Under this bill, I'm still gathering some feedback from additional retailers. Overall, CRA still has concerns with the bill. We remain in opposition and ask for no vote. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. members. Taylor Trifle on behalf of the California Grocers Association, with the acceptance of the committee amendments, we regrettably moved to an opposed position. So unfortunately, we haven't been able to engage with the Senator's office in the last day on the bill. So rightfully, we've not engaged on the bill that's in print, but the new amendments do bring grocery stores into the bill We understand the prior version of the bill and according to the author testimony mandated surveillance and data sharing by large home improvement retailers to manage immigration enforcement activities Regardless of the policy merit we understood why the bill was targeting those particular venues as gathering sites for potentially vulnerable employees and areas that have experienced ice raids and ice events Unfortunately, however, with the broadening of the definition of retail to not just be explicit to home improvement sites, grocery stores are now included in that definition. Though we align with the author's concerns, our grocers are distinct from those large home improvement sites and subsequent ICE enforcement sites. We provide essential food goods and have unconventionally served as informal hiring sites. We do believe that the enforcement scenarios contemplated in the bill are maybe inappropriate for grocery stores and for this reason. So we oppose the bill eventually. Thank you. I missed that last word. But anyone else here in opposition? Name, organization, and position. Ronald DeLamy on behalf of Cal Chamber, respectfully opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no additional opposition in the room, we'll bring it back to the dais. Questions, concerns, comments, thoughts? Yeah, Ms. Ortega. Can we have a motion? I also want to thank the office for bringing this bill forward. I think I was low at the whole second here. Thank you, Ms. Ortega. Mr. Bennett? Really appreciate the bill. Lots of challenges out there. And I hope that we continue to be able to make sure this is enforceable and in the proper way. But good bill. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Seeing no one out. Yeah, Ms. Wilson. Just noting that, and I definitely understand the intent, and I do think there's an opportunity to improve the bill before it gets to the floor, especially given the amendments are very recent. And I think there's an opportunity to, like, refine and make sure there's not unintended consequences. and that we're just being mindful of who's enforcing, how, what rights do they have. When I say rights, I'm talking about the agency that's selected rights and how similar they are to the AG, how, you know, being clear around how long from the actual action that was identified, how long you're keeping the data. because I do agree when looking at some of the notes from opposition that if you don't have a written request 60 days, when is 60 days in? If you're not aware of an enforcement incident, you'd have to be specifically aware. And I don't think that language is particularly clear yet, and I think it can be. But just being mindful of that, I appreciate the amendments. I think in the original form, my office had notified yours that we wouldn't be able to support, But I think the direction you're heading is better and would ask you to continue to refine. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Anybody else? Seeing none, I want to thank the author, the sponsors, and everybody who came today to use their voices, as my colleague said, to advocate for this important work that the senator is doing. She and I had a couple of conversations, I think more than one conversation about this bill. And it was helpful to hear what was happening in your community and why this work was so important and it helped us land in this place. I really appreciate the amendments. I was concerned with you know I share all of the concerns with what is happening and what the federal government is doing in our state and hope that we as a state including our counties as part of government are doing everything we can to support and protect our community members who hold this state together There's no question that everybody who is here is vital to our communities. But I just was a little bit concerned with the obligations we were putting on private industry to police government. That felt a little bit not as tight as I was hoping it to be. And I think the amendments really took it in a better direction where hopefully we can be partners with the people who have this data and protecting our community. And so I'm really grateful for the work that you were willing to do with this committee and the amendments that are here today. And I know I will take credit for the expansion that the opposition is complaining about before I close because one of the things that is really important to me as someone who believes competition is one of the things that keeps us healthy as a state is that we not have bills in this committee that target one particular store industry. Because honestly, then the competitors that don't have this obligation have an advantage. And that felt actually uncomfortable to me that we were targeting such a narrow subset. And so I felt like for the purposes of competition, I needed this to be equally applicable. but I understand that it brought you on additional opposition. So for that, I'm sorry, but I think the policy is better. Although one of the committee members did call me with a question of the original form of the bill where they had in their district a Target and a Home Depot that share a parking lot. The parking lot is not owned by either store, and it wasn't clear in that scenario what happens there. Like how do we, like this part of the parking lot has an obligation, but this part doesn't, but no one owns the parking lot. And so I do think that this expansion hopefully helps a little bit with that technical problem that we were having prior as well. So with that, would you like to close? Well, first of all, Chair, I just want to thank you for all of the time that you've taken. We did have several phone calls about this, and I think I have a better bill as a result and because of that. And I just really want to highlight that I think, you know, with this piece of legislation and the work and the amendments that you've offered, we're really doing something significant here in the state. We've watched ice raids occur, not just here in California, but all across the country. And it's had devastating impacts, not just for our immigrant community, but for all of our communities and created so much fear and so much concern, so much confusion. And what my sponsors are really desiring to do here and tracking some of this data and really work that's being led. And I just want to highlight You know, Nancy here is one of many volunteers that exist across the state that are independently out there doing this work to witness what is happening when ice raids are occurring because our news stations have stopped covering these events. And so it's everyday people like her that are tracking when our neighbors are taken. And because there's no more reporting on this, there's been less attention. And so what they're desiring to do here is to gather this data so we could better track what is happening, so we can create a heat map. Because even though we might not see these events occurring on the news, they are happening every day in our community. We reached a peak last week in Los Angeles. And if you just watched mainstream media, you'd have no idea that that happened. That's terrifying to me. And so the vision that my sponsors have and what they would like to do with this bill, I think, is incredibly meaningful. And I hope should we pass this should we implement this that we start to see the same thing occur across the state Because one day whether it 10 years from now or 20 years from now or 30 years from now we going to look back at this moment and we all going to reflect on what happened and the history that took place when we saw everything that happened all across this country. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Let's open the roll. Item number 14, SB 1103 by Senator Perez. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Barcahan. Aye. Barcahan, aye. Macedo. No. Macedo, no. Bennett. Aye. Bennett, aye. Bryan. DeMaio. No. DeMaio, no. Hoover. Irwin. Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Aye. McKinner, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson. Pellerin. Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petrie Norris. Aye. Petrie Norris, aye. Ward? Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. That bill has an eye needs out, but we'll leave it open for the absent member. And before you leave, Senator, I just want to say your close is incredibly powerful. And as you may know, my grandparents were taken during the Holocaust and disappeared. And I think the work they're doing is history. We'll look back on it. So thank you. Thank you. We're all so tired, we can't even clap. Okay, we will go through the roll. We will start at the top. I think it's easiest, so we just start at the top. As long as I have a vote on everything, I was okay with the consent calendar. Yep. Bennett. Aye. Bennett, aye. Demayo. Which one? Consent. Consent. Yes. Demayo, aye. Petrie Norris, aye. Petrie Norris, aye. Ward. That bill has 15 votes. It is out, but we'll leave it open. Oh, 14 votes. Sorry. 14 votes. It's out, but we'll leave it open. I'm going to text him. Okay. Thank you. Item number two, SB 300, Senator Padilla. Bennett. Bennett, aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. McKinner. Aye. McKinner, aye. Item number two, SB 300. Pay attention, team. McKinner, aye. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Petrie Norris? Aye. Petrie Norris, aye. Ward? Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. That bill has 11 votes. It is out. We'll leave it open for absent members. Item number three, SP903 by Senator Padilla. Bennett. Bennett, aye. DeMaio. DeMaio, no. McKenner. Aye. McKenner, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Petrie-Norse. Aye. Petrie-Norse, aye. Ward. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. That bill has 13. It's out. We'll leave it open for the absent member. Item number 14. SB 1119 by Senator Padilla. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Petrie-Norse? Aye. Petrie-Norse, aye. That bill has 12 votes. It's out. Item number five, SB 354 by Senator Loma. I was supposed to say the final tally on that was 12-2. Go ahead. Okay. Bennett. Bennett, aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. McKinner? Aye. McKinner, aye. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Petra Norris? Aye. Petra Norris, aye. That is out 11-4. SB SB 479 by Senator Argin. The vote is 11-0. Bennett, aye. DeMaio, aye. Ortega, aye. Petra Norris, aye. Petra Norris, aye. That's 15. That bill is out 15-0. Yes. Item number seven, SB 574 by Senator Umberg. The vote is eight, zero. Bennett. Bennett, aye. DeMaio. Aye. DeMaio, aye. McKinner. Aye. McKinner, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Petrie-Norris. Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. 14. That bill has 14 votes. We'll leave it open for the absent member. Item number 8, SB 690 by Senator Caballero. We have 10 votes. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Petra Norris? Aye. Petra Norris, aye. Ward? That has 14 votes. We'll leave it open if they have some number. Item number 9, SB 813 by Senator McNerney. Five votes. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. McKinner? McKinner aye Ortega aye Ortega aye Petra Norris Aye Petra Norris aye Ward Wilson Aye Wilson aye That bill has 10 votes. We'll leave it open for the absent member. It's out. Item number 10, SB 951 by Senator Reyes. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. DeMaio? Which one? Item 10? 951. DeMaio, no. Hoover? Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson? Petrie-Norris? Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward? Wilson? Item number 10, SB 951. That's by Senator Reyes. No, this is the first one. I have you on the other two. They're recording. All right, Wilson. This is AI displacement, yeah. We have 10. That boat has, oh, we can call word on that one. Can you call word on that one? Do not. Can we go back? Can we finish? Okay. Yeah, she's not voting on 16. That's right. We were going to call Ward on Reyes number one. Item number 10, SB 951. Ward. Ward, aye. That bill is out on a vote of 11-2. Right now. That's right. Sorry. Yeah. Item number 11, SB 969 by Senator Reyes. We have six votes. Bauer-Cahan?

Bauer-Cahan, aye. Bennett?

Bennett, aye. Brian? Hoover? Irwin?

Irwin, aye. McKinner?

McKinner, aye. Patterson? Petrie-Norris?

Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye. 12. And that's out. That bill is out. 12-0. 12-0. Item number 12 SB 1130 by Senator Reyes Bennett Aye Bennett aye Brian Hoover Irwin Aye Irwin not voting McKinner Aye McKinner aye Ortega Aye Ortega aye Patterson Petrie Aye Petrie aye Ward Aye Ward aye That bill is out 8 Item number 13, SB 1013 by Senator Cervantes. Barra Cahan?

Barra Cahan, aye. Bennett?

Bennett, aye. Brian? Hoover? Irwin?

Irwin not voting. Patterson? Ward?

Ward, aye. Wilson? SB 1013? Cervantes. Cervantes.

Wilson, aye. That bill is out 9-2. Item number 14, SB 11-03 by Senator Perez. Brian, Hoover, Patterson, Ward.

That bill is out 10-2. Item number 15, SB1106 by Senator Cabaldon. Bennett?

Bennett, aye. DeMaio?

DeMaio, aye. Hoover? Irwin?

Irwin, aye. Lewenthal?

Lewenthal, aye. Ortega?

Ortega, aye. Petrie Norris?

Petrie Norris, aye. Now, what is that? No. Ortega, 1112. That bill is at 12-0. Item number 16, SB 1276. Senator Rubio. Bennett.

Bennett, aye. DeMaio.

DeMaio, aye. McKinner.

McKinner, aye. Ortega.

Ortega, aye. Petrie-Norris.

Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward.

Ward, aye. Wilson.

Wilson, aye. That's out 15-0. Item number 17, SB 1279 by Senator Gonzalez. Bennett.

Bennett, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Petrie-Norris? No. Okay. For SB 1279, DeMaio, no. Petrie-Norris? Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. That's 14-1. That bill is out, 14-1, and that's it for everyone except Mr. Ward. We'll go back to the top for Mr. Ward. Yeah. Oh, that last one was out 13-2. Corrected. Gonzalez is out 13-2. And we'll go back to the top for Mr. Ward. Okay. Thank you for coming back Okay Okay on consent Ward Aye Ward aye 15 for consent Item number two, SB 300. Ward.

Ward, aye. 12. That bill is out 12-0. Item number three, SB 903. 300. 12-1. Oh. I'm not making the news. Okay. That bill is out 12-1, SB 300. Thank you for the correction notice. Item number three, SB 903, Ward I. That's 14-1. That's out 14-1. Item number... You have a couple more. Item number seven, SB 574, Ward I. That's 15. That bill is out 15-0. Item number 8, SB 690, Ward, I. That's 15. That's out 15-0. Item number 9, SB 813, Ward. Wait, what are we? Oh, yeah, McKenna not voting, so 690 is out 14-0. Sorry, thank you. Item number 9, SB 813, Ward.

Ward, I. That's out 11-2. Item number 10, SB 955. We got it. I think that's it. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Have a good night. This hearing is adjourned. See everyone in August. Thank you. Thank you.