Senate Privacy Digital Technologies And Consumer Protection

Thank you. Thank you.

Senators Cabaldon? Here. Cabaldon here.

Gonzalez?

Ochoa Bogue?

Reyes?

Wiener here. All right.

All right. We're going to go to the bottom of the agenda now. with the author that's here, Senator Cabaldon, and we'll start with item 8, Senate Bill 1106. Senator Cabaldon. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Everyday data brokers collect and sell the personal information of millions of Californians without ever having a direct relationship with the people whose data that they profit from. California's groundbreaking DELETE Act created a meaningful tool to address this in allowing consumers to submit a single request to have their personal information deleted by every registered data broker in the state. Under current law, though, data brokers have 45 days to act on those requests. SB1106 simply shortens that window to 30 days to provide more expeditious response and service so that Californians can protect the integrity of their own data. It's a targeted, straightforward bill, simply requiring the industry to move faster in honoring the protections that California already has, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB1106. Thank you, Senator Kabbal. Are there any key witnesses in support and or opposition on this bill? Seeing nobody moving forward, we'll bring it to the dais for conversation from the members. I'm sorry? No, me too. This isn't support. Let me do that first. Are there any add-ons on support or opposition? Me too's?

Thank you. Thank you. Any other add-ons at this moment? Seeing nobody else moving we close public comment on this item Members on the dais any conversation on 1106 Senator I going to lay off today There some concerns regarding the implementation of the original bill that goes into effect on August 1st 2026

Thank you. Any other comments? With that, would you like to close? Just a blast for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Would the secretary please call the roll? We have a motion. Oh, let's have a motion. Would you like to move the bill, Senator McNerney?

Okay, SV1106, the motion is due passed to appropriation. Senators Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye.

Not voting.

Aye.

McNerney?

McNerney, aye.

Padilla?

Umberg?

Umberg, aye.

Aye.

5-0. All right. The bill 1106 has five votes in the affirmative. It will be on call until the other members are here. Let's move on to file item number nine. Should we take Becker now? We can go back to Becker now.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay. We're going to have the chairman take over the committee hearing, thankfully. And Senator Becker is up.

All right, you'll each have two minutes. Welcome.

witnesses in support that wish to identify in their name or an organization if any? Please come

California Initiative for Technology, Democracy, and TechHackCodeAction in support.

Mike Yhothi on behalf of Common Sense Media in support.

We will also have two minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Ronak DeLamy on behalf of Cal Chamber, here in an opposed and less amended position on SB 923. When the CCPA was enacted in 2018, of course, we all know it marked a major shift in California and U.S. privacy laws, the first truly comprehensive cross-industry consumer privacy statute in the nation. I think what's often overlooked is that the law significantly expanded the scope of personal information. Unlike earlier one-off privacy statutes that focus on individually identifiable information or PII, the CCPA defined personal information far more broadly to include data that could in any way be reasonably linked back to a consumer or household, even indirectly. Almost like pieces of a puzzle that may appear random, it covered any data point that could, with some or maybe even a lot of effort, be put together with other data points and eventually be connected back to an individual or household. As you can imagine, this makes the right of deletion especially complex when you're talking about information collected not just from the consumer but about the consumer, which is why we intentionally wrote the law to cover information received from the consumer. Now, of course, there's the argument that this merely brings California in line with other states that already apply the right to information collected about the consumer. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in other states' laws. However, all those laws were written after the CCPA, so they have had the benefit of learning from us. And to the extent that they have chosen narrower definitions or broader exemptions, I don't think that's clear to me that it's a one-for-one comparison. What I do know is that the law that this bill appears to be modeled after has two methods of compliance, and this bill only carries over one of them. Our main request is not to change back to or to leave it as a from versus about. Our request is to carry over the second method, which deems a business in compliance as long as they opt the consumer out of processing for non-exempt purposes. This amendment is essential to prevent confusion, ensure technical scalability, and allow businesses to fulfill obligations related to fraud prevention, security monitoring, and legal compliance. Lastly, just regarding the additional methods of submission for businesses operating exclusively online, we're just asking to change the and to an or so that you can allow companies to use a web form or portal in lieu of email just with spam issues and things like that. Thank you very much.

Hi, Robert Boykin with TechNet in opposition. Aidan Downey with the Computer and Communications Industry Association in opposition. Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California also in opposition. Thank you. Jonathan Arambo on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers also in opposition. I'm Shaunce Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, with an opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Well, I thank the senator for bringing this forward and working with the committee. You know, every time you go to a major retail outlet, they're going to say, well, you belong to our club. Do you want to give us your information? And you know how that information is going to be used. It's going to go into a big data pool, and people are going to sell that data and buy it, and it's going to characterize your habits. And so this is a small step, I think, in the direction of helping to corral that process. Basically, data is the gold of tech. And I think we need to look at how it's used, how it's gathered, how it's bought and sold in order to protect people from harms that may come from this. So I'll be in support of this bill, and I'll move when the appropriate time comes. Thank you.

Senator Umberg. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Becker. A couple things. I understand you're continuing to work on the bill. we have some concerns concerning First Amendment protected speech and whether or not this infringes upon protected speech. I'm going to support the bill today, but it's coming to the Judiciary Committee next. And I would hope that we— I think that's my next bill, that we have some more concern, the First Amendment piece for 1142. Oh, strike that. All right.

Yeah, I mean, I think there's two main points I think you raised. I'd say on the first one that sort of deemed compliance piece, and obviously some of this is relatively new because we were out last week. So I think we would consider that and we'll look at that piece. I think the other piece is the or is, you know, probably just a little too far for us because the problem is we want to – I think what the Delete Act's success, the Delete Act showed is that if we can make it easy for people, that they'll do it, right? So that, you know, just there are very few people, not myself, certainly not one of them, who are going to go to all 550 registered data broker websites and delete their and try to figure out how to delete their information. But when we create a one stop shop you know not everybody but we had a considerable number of people who take advantage of it And so the problem with the email there just a lot of back and forth and a lot of friction And so we think that web form is really important So I would like to pick up on that if there are no other questions. So just to be with you on that point, the alternative challenge that I'm afraid of with the OR is that the email address is essentially a common currency. It's a common code for other platforms, apps, websites to be able to execute on your behalf. So in the same way that my Apple, using my phone, can execute an unsubscribe request from me to another website just by me hitting unsubscribe in the email client, it's because there is such a thing. If I can only unsubscribe from things by web forms, it makes it extremely challenging for intermediary companies or organizations, nonprofits or governments to be able to do that on your behalf at your own request. So I also agree that the email address is not sufficient from a consumer perspective, but the web form has challenges in terms of inviting others into the ecosystem on your behalf. So I would encourage you to stay strong on that one. On the other piece, I appreciate the working through it. I don't pretend to fully understand what the amendment would do other than you essentially could keep the data, but you're verifying that you're not going to process it for unpermitted purposes. So you're keeping it potentially for other purposes that are. So I get that part of it. It's worth continuing to explore. but I appreciate bringing that concept forward. Then the last question I have for you, maybe it was Karim, is you mentioned very briefly in passing inferences, and I just want to understand, are inferences considered in this language? We're not expanding the scope of the Delete Act to cover inferences, right? No, it was to show that the Delete Act, while very important, is only getting at one piece of it, and this will help get at another piece of it. Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. Well, I think just with that, as I was saying, if we make it easy for folks, then they're much more likely to take advantage of these rights and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, we're entering a new era, friends, where anyone's face, voice, or identity can be replicated and weaponized, and I think we can agree we need strong safeguards to keep up with this emerging technology. This bill 1142 is really about protecting California dignity in a digital world where their likeness can be weaponized against them I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thank you for your work on this important issue The Digital Dignity Act establishes common-sense guardrails for large online platforms, gives consumers added control over their likeness, and deters bad actors who seek to defraim or defraud Californians using their digital replica. At the beginning of this year, Elon Musk's social media company X and its accompanying AI system Grok was used to generate pornographic content of women and children with an actual person's likeness available. These product design choices were made without regard for the well-being of their uses or the legality of the content being generated, which harmed vulnerable populations. As AI becomes integrated with social media, companies are reverting to, some companies, I'd say, are reverting to a growth-at-all-cost mindset at the expense of the dignity, reputation, and privacy of Californians. Early in 2024, an employee at a UK engineering company, Arup, was tricked into transferring over $25 million to fraudsters after attending a video conference where every other participant, including the CFO, was a digital replica. In December of last year, a 19-year veteran, Washington State Patrol Trooper, brought forth a suit alleging a pattern of bias and harassment by other officers where they circulated an AI-generated video which mocked his sexuality and falsely depicted him engaging in intimate conduct with other officers. Platforms must be held accountable to their users and individuals who decide to defame or impersonate others using digital replicas. we don't want to make the same mistake that we made in social media by approaching this new technology without proper safeguards. So this bill is really about providing people with control over how they would like these tools, how they'd like to use these tools, and whether or not they want these tools to be used on them within the context of social media. Without these protections, we risk allowing platforms to publish tools that allow for unprotected access to our likeness, violating both our privacy and dignity. I do want to mention, as we'll discuss, that the Judiciary Committee we'll go to next has raised some concerns, some First Amendment concerns, and we are committed to working through those before the hearing in the Judiciary Committee. With that, we have our witness from the Transparency Coalition.

All right. Thank you very much. Are there witnesses in support that wish to come forward to provide your name, organization, if any?

Ken Wang on behalf of the California Initiative for Technology, Democracy, and Support.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Melissa Patak. I'm here on behalf of the Motion Picture Association. We're the trade association for the leading producers and distributors of movies, TV shows, and streaming series. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for the meetings we've had with the committee staff, with the author and his staff about our concerns regarding this bill. We appreciate Senator Becker's accepting of the two amendments as detailed in the analysis regarding the definitions in the bill. We do have remaining concerns, and I'll highlight them briefly. MPA has worked extensively with the legislature over many years on California's right of publicity law, both for living and deceased personalities. And we've appreciated working with legislators on digital replica laws in more recent years. This bill creates an addition to California's right of publicity law at Section 4, seeming to provide for enhanced penalties in a defamation action where the claim is for distributing content with actual knowledge that the content includes a digital replica or violates existing sections of the penal code, prohibiting false personation. The bill then provides that the prohibition applies for 70 years after the imitated person's death. This appears to attempt to create a claim for defamation of a deceased person, a right of action that doesn't exist under California law nor the law of any other states, and this provision seems to create a special liability based on methods, that is the use of a digital replica, not on the harm caused. Harm is foundational to a defamation claim, and since a deceased person cannot claim harm, it is well-settled law that such a claim is not available where the subject is deceased. We look forward to continuing to work with the author and as it approaches Judiciary Committee, the staff, to address this issue. It's related to. the issue that Senator Umberg raised around the First Amendment. Thank you very much, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Chair Cobaldon, members of the committee, good afternoon. My name is Aidan Downey. I'm here on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. I wanted to begin by thanking the author for raising this important topic. Responsible businesses like our members support robust protections against the misuse of digital replicas. However, we're currently in an opposed and less amended position on the bill. While well-intended, Senate Bill 1142 currently creates significant constitutional and operational challenges that could unintentionally chill lawful speech. Our concerns center on three primary areas. The first, vague and overly broad definitions. As drafted, the bill's definition of digital replica and digital likeness are broad enough to capture a vast array of protected content. Without clear guidelines, these definitions risk sweeping in transformative art, satire, and commentary. We believe liability must be strictly targeted towards those who intentionally and knowingly violate an individual's rights rather than the platforms or tools that merely host or generate the media. Second, we have some due process and free expression concerns. The proposed notice and takedown framework essentially delegates a judicial function to private platforms. By requiring removal based on individual reports rather than a court's determination, the bill risks the systemic suppression of constitutionally protected content, such as political parity or news reporting, before an impartial judge can ever evaluate it. The framework timeline is also extremely tight. The 48-hour provision is operationally difficult and would exasperate the removal of legal speech in order to ward off liability. Third, liability and incentives. We have some concerns around those. Because the bill holds large online platforms liable once they have actual knowledge, which could be considered the individual's report, it creates a financial incentive for companies to adopt a remove-first policy. To avoid costly litigation and statutory damages, platforms will likely over-remove any flag content that sits in a gray area, leading to the disappearance of lawful discourse. A slightly less pressing concern, but one this committee should be aware of, is how the bill conflicts with federal law. Senate Bill 1142 appears to conflict with Section 230 of the Communications Act by forcing platforms to act as arbiters of truth and identity under the threat of state-sanctioned civil penalties. The bill risks federal preemption. We look forward to continuing our work with the author to ensure that any new protections fit within existing frameworks and fill the correct gap in the current digital replica landscape. Thank you.

Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce join our colleagues at CCIA opposition less amended Annalee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California also opposed and less amended thank you Robert Boykin with TechNet also opposed and less amended position thank you

Senator Umberg? As I was saying, Senator Becker has anticipated my concerns with respect to the First Amendment. We certainly, in this day and age, do not want to, in essence, make parity, political parity, illegal. And so while I'm going to support the bill today, as you mentioned, it is coming to the Judiciary Committee, and we want to work with you to make sure that we are not suppressing what would be protected speech under the First Amendment. I realize that that's going to take some challenge, some work. I'm hopeful that we will get there. And by the way, just looking around, speaking of Judiciary Committee, I have committee hearing room envy. For seven years I been asking for a larger committee hearing room And congratulations to your chief consultant for making it happen here So I don know if he been sandbagging me for the last several years But having said that, I look forward to working with you.

Can we explore a little bit the time frame that we're talking about here? Those seem very quick. So I want to, you know, we often think about these as, you know, I'm going to file a complaint to Grok if I had an account or, you know, or to Facebook or to Instagram or what have you. And the mere filing of my complaint, my notification that this exists and it's in some form a digital replica of me, that is obvious that I am me and not the digital replica. In the absence of me personally appearing, though, given the amount of data that has not yet been deleted about me until the Delete Act is in full effect, most of the things that I would use to validate that I am who I say I am are also available through brokers to the social media platforms and to others. You know, all of my basic personal information, my shopping habits, the name of my first dog, all of those elements, perhaps my DNA test, who knows what else, my voice print. These are folks that are capable of making a digital replica of me in the first place. So if I'm a social media company and I have to validate, yes, I received a request under this from Senator Becker saying that there's a digital replica about it. How in that period of time can I actually validate that you are who you are, especially if there's a counter saying, no, I'm Josh Becker, I'm Senator Becker, and that is – I did consent. Like how do you – as the technology gets better to deepfake our own privacy, our private information, how do you accomplish that in 48 hours? Yeah.

Yeah, it does require a court finding before the 48-hour clock, before you can ask for a take it down provision. So you have to get a court finding that a claim of false impersonation or fraud is valid. Then you can ask for things to be taken down. So you can't just make the claim without a court finding.

All right.

Seeing no other questions or comments, Senator Becker, you may close.

I want to thank our witnesses and, you know, of course, all the companies, particularly the Motion Picture Association, as, you know, folks where we – they're obviously an important role in all of this. I mean, part of the goal of this is there's a separate bill that's in our Ashby has. There's really more about the commercial side of it, but we want to be aligned with these folks. So I appreciate the discussion and look forward to the work ahead and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

No.

McNerney, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm pleased to present SB 867. As we are well aware, artificial intelligence has quietly embedded itself into nearly every corner of modern life and has made its way into our workplaces our schools health care and homes Recently AI has found its way as well into children toys Recently the market has been flooded with toys such as teddy bears that are powered by the same technology that powers chatbots such as Grock. Researchers testing these products have found some alarming outcomes. Various toys marketed to children have been found to speak in-depth about sexually explicit topics, give kids advice on where to find dangerous objects such as matches or knives, promote increased uses through addictive features, and the algorithms impose data privacy risks. We are in a cycle. Technology moves faster than regulation, as always, and we are not fully aware of the harm until it is often too late. This bill breaks that cycle by imposing a pause on the sale and manufacturing of AI chatbot-powered toys to allow us the proper time to craft appropriate regulations and a testing framework for which these products should follow. In California, we have some of the strictest toy safety laws that protect children from a myriad of physical harm and hazards, such as exposure to toxic substances and choking hazards. We need to update these regulations to address the psychological harms these products can present as well. This bill would place a four-year moratorium on the sale and manufacturing of such products and toys aimed at children with these AI chatbot capabilities and provide an opportunity for lawmakers to modernize these protections to fit the digital age. Innovation without guardrails, especially when it comes to children, is not boldness, it's recklessness. We need time to get this right because it's our children's lives and well-being, and no less, which is at stake. I'm happy to say that here with me today to testify is Nicole Rocha from Children Now and Fiona Hines from CalPIRG, who can provide further context on the research they've conducted. Thank you.

Here on behalf of Children Now. Children Now takes a whole child approach to improving the lives of California kids and works across health, education, early childhood, and foster care to ensure all kids have the supports that they need to thrive. For years, young people have been sharing how their mental health is being affected negatively by their online interactions. And after many years of fighting for legislation, and many of you on this dais have, we are finally seeing some improvements. Just last week, there were hundreds of millions of dollars awarded by a jury when they found that social media had intentionally addicted children, lied about the safety of their platforms, and failed to protect children from known harm. In addition, the age-appropriate design code, which was unanimously passed by this body in 2022, was largely affirmed by the Ninth Circuit last month. And this is wonderful news, but we can't stop there. Last year, Senator Padilla authored a first-in-the-country bill to regulate how companion AI interacts with children and created fundamental safeguards. And this bill would build on top of that important legislation. After all of these historic wins, the work is far from over. As AI pours into every aspect of our lives, it's important to learn from our experience with social media. If the legislature does not take timely action, we could once again be dealing with the aftermath of decades of harm in kids that could have been prevented. No one here is saying that the harm stemming from AI are the same as the harm stemming from social media use, and we're certainly not claiming that AI use by children has no benefit. Rather, we are asking that until the harms, and equally important, the benefits are researched and documented, young people should not be used as guinea pigs for these powerful new products. This bill would not prevent youth from using companion AI in other aspects, such as a music tutoring app. Those uses are governed by SB 243 from last year. What the bill would do is hit the pause button on the use of companion AI in non-essential and recreational products designed specifically for play in children. until we know how the technology is going to affect their developing minds. SB867 is a sensible measure that will make space for thoughtful consideration before young people are exposed to potentially harmful technology. Kids deserve a digital world that supports their healthy mental development. I urge your aye vote.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute of the University of San Diego School of Law, in enthusiastic support. Thank you.

Hi again, Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We did not get a letter in by the deadline, but we did want to let the author know that we will be coming on in support.

Mike Yofi on behalf of Common Sense Media in support. JJS on behalf of Transparency Coalition in support.

We have an opposing lesson amended to add the knowingly standard for retailer liability protection. And we're also working with the author's office on the definition of toy as well. So we owe some feedback. We're working on that still. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Thank you. Annalee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, echoing the concerns with the definition liability concerns. Thank you.

Vice Chair Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Padilla, thank you for bringing this forward. I'm going to be supporting it today. I know there's still some concerns on the blanket prohibition, still lacking some precision. But I think when it comes to children, we can err on the side of being too prohibitive rather than less prohibitive. I also appreciate the deadline or the lifespan of the bill having an expiration date so that we can reconsider this in a couple years and see how it's going. And so I'll be supporting today.

Senator Umberg. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Badia. I certainly agree with the vision of the bill. A question for the witnesses. Who makes the determination as to what a toy is? Is that a jury finding? Is that a judge finding? Is it a question of law? Is it a question of fact? Is it a mixed question?

I would just add briefly, if I might, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think that with respect to the deployer of the technology and manufacturing, those are housed in H&S and B&P, as the Chairman well knows. And I would argue it is, depending on the filing, a mixed question, most likely a question of fact for a jury, potentially. But if that's helpful, I yield back to the Chair.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Well, I certainly hope the author will follow up, and that's also what the opposition had to say about the toy definition. This is an important one. I have a similar question, but we should be working this through. Obviously, when I first saw the bill introduced, I said, oh, my gosh, are we going to – is somebody else going to have a bill on appliances and companion chatbots? Are we just going to regulate every place that companion chatbots might be found? Shouldn't we figure out companion chatbots themselves in the first place? But obviously, Senator Perdita, as you know, and as the author of the other measure, that that work is also underway, which is why I appreciate the time-limited nature of this. We do need to figure out the base case of companion chatbots as they relate to children in whatever domain that they are in, and that work is proceeding. But a pause at the moment while we're figuring that out, while the adults are trying to figure out what the safeguards and the definitions are makes sense. And so I'm prepared to support the bill today and knowing that our bigger work is the other bill that we will be seeing maybe in this committee soon as well. All right. Is there a motion then on this bill? Oh, sorry. Sorry, Senator, but you may close.

Wiener, aye.

Senator Padue, moving on to SB 1247. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your work and the committee staff's work with respect to this bill. I'm pleased to present SB 1247, the child influencer right to dilution. This bill gives children who were images and likenesses were prominently featured and social media content, content often produced and directed by vloggers who are their parents or legal guardians many times in a way that was monetized, an option to control their images and their privacy. As was referenced a couple of years ago, I introduced SB 764, which the governor signed, which built on California Cougan Act and provided financial protections for minors whose likenesses were prominently featured and monetized in vlogging and online content giving them financial protections and rights This bill, that bill, excuse me, was a key step toward protecting children and creating privacy protections. This bill gives children whose images were featured prominently along those same standards a pathway and an opportunity to request that those likenesses and imaging be deleted or modified. Children of family influencers may not have a choice in participating in videos, having their lives being available for public consumption, and more child influencers have spoken up about the difficulties of growing up in the public light with some experiencing stalking and threats due to their public presence. A New York Times investigation also found many of these children posted online through audiences of adults who sought explicit content, and parents continued posting their children's likenesses because, sadly, it often meant a more lucrative outcome. Allison Stoner, a champion of this bill, experienced stalking and identity theft as a child performer and states these sorts of threats were the norm in her experience. With the rise of these tools, these images are now often used for child sexual abuse material. Similar legislation has been proposed and passed in other states, such as Utah, where Sherry Franke, daughter of Ruby Franke, a family vlogger, was convicted of child abuse championed a similar bill after her and her siblings grew up with their lives being continuously and overly documented. This bill would give children control of their images once they reach the age of majority, giving them a way to regain that control and to continue on an appropriate path of development and healing. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Annalie Augustine here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, very respectfully opposed for the creation of a new private right of action. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Jones?

Jones, aye.

McNerney?

McNerney, aye.

Padilla?

Padilla, aye.

Aye.

Umberg?

Umberg, aye.

Aye.

Jones?

Jones, aye.

McNerney?

McNerney, aye.

Padilla?

Padilla, aye.

Aye.

Umberg?

Umberg, aye.

And so, Vice Chair Jones, if you don't mind, I'm going to hand you the gavel again and continue to present. Okay, we'll take up File Item 9, Senate Bill 1114 by Senator Cabaldon, File Item 9, SB 1114. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Senator. Witnesses in support.

Great. Just almost right on the money, two minutes. Any other witnesses, Me Too witnesses, name and association, please? In support. Witnesses in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Opposition to 1114. Seeing nobody coming forward. Discussion from the dais on SB 1114. There's a motion to approve the bill from Senator Padilla. No discussion. Senator Cabaldon, would you like to close?

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. Motion is due pass to appropriation. Senators Cabaldon?

Cabaldon, aye. Jones?

Gonzalez? McNerney?

McNerney, aye.

Padilla?

Padilla, aye.

Aye.

Umberg?

Umberg, aye.

Aye. Wiener, aye. That bill has six affirmative votes. It's on call for the remaining of the members of the committee. We are going to move to the last member bill, Senate Bill 1159. We are still waiting for two authors, I believe, to come present. Senator Ashby, Senator Gonzalez. Senator Cobaldin's last bill is Senate Bill 1159.

I think I'll go first. Do you want to go first?

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Gabriela Facio, Senior Policy Strategist at Sierra Club California. Sierra Club and our environmental justice partners spent years advocating for clean air standards at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, standards that would reduce smog-forming pollution from gas-powered furnaces and water heaters, preventing thousands of premature deaths in asthma cases. We organized the community, submitted comments, and engaged the process exactly as California's transparency and public participation laws intended. Then that work was wiped out by a consulting firm that used an AI platform to generate over 20,000 comments opposing those standards. The voices of our communities and the years of work behind them were buried under a flood of artificial noise. Similarly, at the Bay Area Air District, a consulting firm used AI to generate false public comments opposing clean air rules, many of which were submitted under real residents' names without their knowledge or consent. These campaigns were coordinated and deliberate. Someone hired a firm, signed a contract, and directed the effort. That is deeply troubling, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. Today, autonomous AI agents can be created and deployed by anyone without a consulting firm, without a contract, and without an immediately responsible party. No coordination required, no paper trail, a single bad actor, or no identifiable actor at all can flood a state agency or local government with thousands of AI-generated comments, petitions, or public record requests in minutes. If California does not act now, while the problem is still identifiable and the perpetrator is still traceable, we risk losing the ability to respond at all. The integrity of every public participation process in this state, every environmental review, every rulemaking, every local planning decision is at stake. SB 1159 draws a clear and necessary line. California's public participation laws were written for people, and this bill ensures that they stay that way. We urge your aye vote.

First of all, congratulations on your inaugural committee meeting. The irony of the fact that Artemis II is currently taking human beings further than they've ever been from Earth, we're here trying to clarify the definition of humans as we contemplate this issue. My name is Oscar Villegas, Yolo County Supervisor. Our county submitted a letter of support on March 23rd, and I'm simply here to briefly underscore the purpose of our support. We believe local government is where government is most pronounced in the daily lives of our constituents. We believe it is our collective responsibility to ensure the pillars of our government remain of and for the people and that our government not only be accessible but that we proactively, as this committee is currently doing, proactively protect this access, as we believe this bill does. As elected officials, I don't need to remind you the very fabric of our governing institutions and the core functions of our governing systems is under a microscope, as evident by the last few years in the public discourse. The last thing we need at this time is bad actors using AI to overwhelm our already fragile government systems and drown out the very public access that we all cherish. As AI evolves, we must remain vigilant with any bad actors who may use autonomous engagement, which can easily overwhelm our governing systems and crowd out the public access. So with that, we are in support, and we urge you to continue to support this effort.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing here today in support of SB 1159 on behalf of the California Association of Nonprofits. Thank you.

Justin Paddock on behalf of Contra Costa, the supervisor, already covered yellow, in support. Thank you. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Municipal Clerks Association, in support.

Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities and also on behalf of the California Special Districts Association in support.

Nick Romo on behalf of the City of San Jose in support. Eric Lair on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors in support.

Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We submitted and opposed unless commended letter on this bill be our statewide coalition that focuses on safeguards and guard rails in the interest of privacy protections, civil rights, and community consent. And more to the point, we do an awful lot of public records work. The motivating factor for this bill, as we understand it, is the Southern California CARB episode. What we want to emphasize is that was a problem with fraud. It was a problem with fraudulent complaints. It was not per se a problem with AI. For example, in 2017, before Gen.AI, there were not 20,000 but over 12 million comments submitted fraudulently to the FCC network neutrality hearing. So fraud is not necessarily caused by or requires AI. And we would like to see the bill refocused, if this is really the motivation for the bill, to address fraudulent public comments. With regards to the other concerns on the bill, which I think affect mostly the Brown Act and the Public Records Act, there are already pretty sufficient tools to crack down on problems. For example with public comment people can be given only one minute to comment they can be given 30 seconds to comment and public comment can be turned off after 30 minutes in total in terms of local government and the Brown Act When it comes to public records I can tell you I probably only get what I am asking for as a requester about 50 of the time at best with all of the exceptions and exemptions that are present in the Public Records Act. And as I said and as you saw in the analysis, I'm not real eager for my next public records request to be returned to me.

Yeah. I'm not really eager to have my next CIPRA request returned to me saying, we think you're an AI, so no go. There are better ways to solve these problems.

Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy. First Amendment Coalition apologizes that they did not get their letter in time. They will be getting their letter in, but they do respectfully align their comments in the position with Oakland Privacy.

Senator Reyes. Without a doubt, we need to figure out a way to put the guardrails on nonhumans. I absolutely agree. But I also know that when we work, especially with advocacy groups, oftentimes everybody gets a postcard and you just put who you're directing it to and you sign your name and address. It is a human being, but most everything was provided to them. How do we determine what is AI and what is not?

This has been the crux. I want to emphasize that we've crafted the bill and are open to further improvements at all times. This is not about automated. Automation by itself, you know, in the right context, has been a feature of petition drives and postcard drives and organizing drives for decades. So it isn't the fact that, and those may generate thousands or more of comments. So it isn't about volume, and it's not about is it automated in some way. Because every communication in a democracy doesn't have to be me showing up at a hearing and speaking on Wednesday evening for three minutes. Instead, it is the use of artificial intelligence where there is not a connection to a human, where the human being is not directing the advocacy. So if I sign the postcard, regardless if it goes to somebody else and then they put them together and they bring them and they dump them on the floor in front of the school board, that's still me doing it. So that is not an artificial agent that is engaged in that. And I am a human. I think that's pretty clear under the law and in reality. So I think that's part of what we're trying to do. What we want to do is, but I think the key structure of the bill here is that it will be on a local government. If they have a mechanism, if they want to rely on the digital provenance rules under the AI Transparency Act, for example, or some of the AI labs are themselves developing protocols and that sort of thing to mark pure AI, or partially AI, but pure AI efforts. or as we know because I think one of the platforms just recently sort of banned posting by agents altogether AI agents Those are agents that may work for me I may have an agent. I say, hey, like, take care of my day. Okay. And it starts doing things. It reschedules, like makes a deposit in the bank account or whatever. But I'm not actually directing it in any way. I don't know what's happening. Some people, that's not my, I'm not for that. But for some people, that's their jam. But if the agent is operating independently and the AI agent is the one actually generating the comments or the thousands or the millions of comments, that's when the problem occurs. So it will, in this period where the technology is changing, it will be on a local government. And having been a mayor for 20 years, city attorneys will be very, very, very conservative. Like they will say to the city clerk and to the mayor, like, don't bother. it can't just be we think you're AI because you're going to put the city general fund at tremendous litigation risk if you do that. So this puts the onus on the local government. I think we will have more and more tools to be able to identify that. But it's definitely not just automated or mass engagement. Those are both not only appropriate, but a story treasured part of our system of civic engagement in the state. And my second question is the opposition talks primarily about fraud. Is that something that we're trying to stop? Is that what we're aiming at, or just non-human beings? Yeah, we're really focusing on non-human beings. So I just want to point out, the bill was introduced before the South Coast issue. The South Coast issue just has become probably the principal example here, but it is about the human being. So what we saw in the Bay Area case that was mentioned, and to some extent in the South Coast was AI pretending to be an actual person, not just being a human being but an identifiable real person who they were not and had no connection to. That is fraudulent, and the courts will hopefully be hearing this specific case in that instance. But it isn't just about that. In fact, the mere fact that you have even synthetic people, that is not real people, but that AI has created, and pretending to be a random person living in a dress that may or may not exist in Yucaipa, for example, that the Billwood gets to that as well. You don't have to pretend to be a specific human being. It is the fact that it is an independent, autonomous robot for whom the task, the actual feedback, is not generated at any point down the agentic chain by a human being. So simply dealing with fraud is insufficient. Very good. Thank you.

You know, while I certainly disagree with the policy that the South Coast Air District was trying to pass, and glad that that failed, you know, understanding that the science today certainly doesn't support that natural gas-fired residential stoves and hot water heaters are going to end the planet, I do agree that the process in which it died was inappropriate, and I'll be supporting the bill today, and I know that there will be some issues that you'll be working on going forward. But I been amazed in talking to my colleagues on my city council where I used to serve on how much of this is actually taking place and they being inundated And I think we've seen it in our emails here. You know, there's been a couple of issues where in one day I've received 1,400 emails on one specific issue on a committee that I'm not even on. And, you know, understanding that those are generated, machine generated. So I'll be supporting your bill.

I'm not sure whether or not we've had a motion, but I'm a proud co-author of the bill, and we'll be happy to move the bill if it hasn't been moved already.

Senator Cobaldin, you may close. Thank you, and thank you for the rich discussion. I wanted to just close on the one other suggestions about how to grapple with the problem from the opposition, because I think it misunderstands the scale of what we're talking about. So, for example, if you're on a city council or a school board and you have an AI generated, that is synthetic human being on a Zoom, that is not pretending to be somebody else. it's just an AI agent or set of agents have generated a thousand people to appear on Zoom to testify under public comment. Yes, you could theoretically. I mean, as mayor, I never could have got away with a lot, but 30 seconds was not one of those things. But you could, or you can make it 20 seconds or 10 seconds. But this is the point, because then real people do not get to be heard. But the actions that you must take in order to grapple with the threat of AI means that you have to also take those same actions against the human beings that are the foundation of your community and your democracy. So that solution just doesn't work when you're talking about thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of engagements. And it's why we have to get at the root issue here, which is that California's nation-leading laws about transparency and engagement are for humans. And that's all this bill seeks to do is to make that clear. And state government and local governments will continue to work through, and the tools will continue to get better and better to make that promise real. But the principle must be established, and I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

McNerney, aye.

Ochoa Bogue, aye.

Padilla, aye.

Reyes, aye.

Umberg, aye.

Wiener, aye.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Michelle Hurd. I am an actor and Secretary-Treasurer of Screen of SAG-AFTRA. And I'm here on behalf of the 160,000 human beings who make their living with their real human faces and human voices. I've spent my life in the media business, so I know how persuasive a human face can be. And my colleagues and I take it seriously whether we will agree to take a role, say a certain line, or sell a certain product. We won't agree to say or do things that are contrary to our values or promote harmful products. But in the age of deep fakes and hyper-realistic digital clones, anyone has access to technology that can produce realistic-looking human faces, voices, and performances.

Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Shane Gusman here with really two purposes. One, I'm here on behalf of SAG-AFTRA to answer any technical questions, if there are any, but also here on behalf of Teamsters California, we have thousands of members here in California and across the United States in the entertainment industry and just happy to be here to support our brothers and sisters in SAG-AFTRA to really build in appropriate guardrails around emerging technology that's going to affect members in the workplace. And we think this particular bill is appropriate for that. doesn't outlaw technology, but certainly puts appropriate guardrails on it. And with that, where'd your eye vote?

Mr. Chair, member, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Mikey Hothi on behalf of Common Sense Media in support.

Chair Kabaldon, members of the committee, Melissa Patak with the Motion Picture Association. on behalf of our member companies, the leading producers and distributors of motion pictures, television, and streaming programs. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today and for the meetings we've had with committee staff, with the author staff, and with the sponsors of the bill. We have a long and productive history of working with the Screen Actors Guild AFTRA on a number of these kinds of issues, including digital replicas a couple of years ago, and we look forward to continuing that conversation and that dialogue and resolving those issues optimistically. Let me just highlight our concerns. SB 1050 imposes a disclosure requirement on any ad that uses a synthetic performer. The obligation is required for anyone who creates or disseminates such an ad. As such, broadcasters, whether national or local, or an operator of a streaming platform that is ad-supported, could be liable under this bill. It is important to note that California's existing false advertising law recognizes that publishers and broadcasters can't be responsible for policing all the ads that are placed on their services and on their networks, and provides an exemption for them at BNP Code Section 17502. This bill should be consistent with and not in conflict with existing law, either by including this provision in the existing false advertising law or providing a similar exemption. We also believe the bill is overbroad in that it requires that any ad that uses any synthetic performer be subject to the disclosure requirement, whether or not it is misleading. MPA shares the author and sponsor's concern about the use of synthetic performers that might deceive or mislead the consumer. But the failure to label an ad that uses a synthetic performer and doesn mislead shouldn lead to the punishment as would happen under SB 1050 MPA requested amendments including others that we submitted in our memo track a similar bill enacted in 2025 in New York. California doesn't need a different standard, and we would urge that this bill align with the law in New York. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and we look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors and the author. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet, and a respectful opposing list of amended position on SB 1050. We appreciate the author's goal of promoting transparency and agreed consumers should not be misled. Our concerns are about ensuring the bill is targeted, workable, and aligned with the existing law. The definition of synthetic performer is very broad and could capture routine tools like CGI and centered editing. That would require disclosures even when there's no realistic risk of consumer confusion leading to over labeling. When everything is labeled, disclosures can become less meaningful. This bill requires disclosure regardless whether a reasonable consumer might be misled. That departs from long-standing advertising law and risks regulating clearly fictional or incidental content. A materiality standard would improve focus on disclosures that matter the most. Sorry, so we thank the author and her office for their time and commitment to this issue and look forward to working with our office and this committee as the bill moves

record if you're in opposition with your name and organization, if any? Laura Bennett on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, opposed unless amended. Aidan Downey with the Computer and Communications Industry Association in opposition. Thank you. Jonathan Aaron on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when I read the bill summary requires the advertisements to use an artificial intelligence generator person who is not real to clearly disclose that the person is synthetic, I thought, great, this sounds like a great idea, but then, of course, it's the nuances that go into it that make the bill a little more merit to look into the details. So here are the concerns that I have. First of all, I think one of the concerns was mentioned, the fact that I'm all for disclosure of using somebody that's synthetic. I kind of likened it when I read it to the disclaimers that we have on commercials currently that says actor portrayals, not an actual patient, or discloses basically that you're an actor, not an actual doctor in the commercials. That's what I likened it to, and I thought, yeah, it makes sense to do it that way, and that was my initial concern. But then, as we went a little further, the concern was, you know, why not limiting the requirement to cases where the synthetic performer is a primary feature of the advertisement or used to promote the product and not just every single portrayal? And I'm just trying to figure out why a little more narrow because it seems overly broad. And I think a good point was made by the opposition as far as narrowing it down And I forget what the narrowed point was though How did you define that Through the chair sorry I apologize Is that okay Just to align it with existing California law on false advertising, which exempts the dissemination by broadcasters who receive an ad and don't have the ability to investigate it. So to align it that way. and the deception, yes. Materiality or? I didn't address materiality, but I did address only those ads that were deceptive or misleading. Was it your? Yeah, I didn't. Okay. Yeah, okay. So the determines if omitted, the misstated information could influence decisions users, make it significant enough to require correction or disclosure. So we're asking that the standard be such that it doesn't include all instances of AI, where a reasonable person may not be misled or harmed by it. So that was one question. And then my second half was the other concern as aligning it with current law already in place. Okay. So first of all, this bill is modeled after, as one of them said, I think actually opposition stated after a New York 2025 bill, which is slightly different than ours. We'll continue to work on it with the opposition. I think there are a couple areas in there where we can work together on a few little changes. But where I would draw the line is this. The idea here is to protect the end user. So while I appreciate everyone at the table, they're not my audience. My audience is my constituency. And I'll use myself as an example here. If you're going to put together an ad that targets me and has a bunch of people who look like me, and I think, hey, there's a bunch of 50-year-old moms. I totally relate with this group. And then I later find out none of them were real people. They were all computer generated. But I was supposed to believe that they were people just like me on that TV screen telling me, hey, this product will really help you at this point in your life with something that you're dealing with. And we know because we're just like you. And that's not what's really happening. That's a manipulation. That's AI. And so I will not narrow the bill beyond that piece because I'm trying to deal with deception. And I'm trying to deal with truth in advertising. And I came into this space, this is sort of my second or third AI, Christian's probably bored of me at this point, on these bills. when I met an actress who was a voiceover actress for a Disney movie whose voice had been simulated and used. So somebody took her voice and then made an ad with it instead of paying her for her voice, which I'm sure she spent a lifetime tuning and training and working on and then had God-given talent on top of that. So there are two components to this. the deception piece and then protecting people who this is their craft. You can't just take it from them. You can't make somebody that looks like her so that I believe that it's her talking to me, and it's not her. It's a pretend faker. It's not Christopher Cobaldon's really. It's just his voice. That's deception. So this bill seeks to address that deceptive component. There are components I think we can continue to work on. This is our first committee stop. I'm sure Christian is willing to stay with me as we go. We probably will make some author amends as we move forward. I think we will address some of the issues that I have heard today, particularly in compliance with the New York bill. And I have some familiarity with BPED law, as you know, and I will use my former BPED chair hat to make sure that we're in compliance. But I won't step beyond addressing the deception and protecting people's talent, skills, and employment. And I don't know what the current law is in place as far as using somebody else's voice or imagery without the consent, or at least without compensation. I really don't know what the law is. I'm just currently looking at this particular law. And as I mentioned, I'm all about the consumer protections. I think we should be protecting against false advertising. And like I said, the disclosure part makes absolute sense to me. But I was just thinking that maybe just narrowing it down a bit for me to be comfortable to support the bill would be to narrow it down perhaps to the actors, the AI actors generated that are advertising the use of a skin product. And it's an AI-generated person with the perfect flawless skin, right? And it's AI-generated. So having a disclosure in that component because it would be false advertising saying that, hey, this is what your face is going to look like if you use this cream, right? Kind of narrowing it down to those specific AI-generated product advertising.

No, no, no. Yes, yes, yes. No, no, no. But I think you're not far off on the same page as me. I just want there to be truth in advertising. Actually, your description of the disclaimer being something sort of like a person who's dressed like a doctor, but they aren't really a doctor. You have to tell people that's not a real doctor. It's not a real dentist. Doctor Petoreo. Yeah. Three out of five dentists agree, but this guy isn't actually a dentist. That's how I vision this bill, too. And so I think there's still some room for some movement and some conversation with these groups that we're happy to have. And some of the groups who also aren't at the table but had some concerns, we're in conversations with them. But I'm just letting you know on the front and kind of where my stop point is. Yeah, no, no, no. And then the current law, of course, modeling the protections that we currently have in place would be great. So I will not be able to support the bill today, but I look forward to seeing your future amendments and how you progress with the bill. and I hope that I'm able to support it at the very end. But I do absolutely completely agree with you as far as making sure that the disclosure, because even at this point, I have to look at anything that's generated right now with AI and ask myself, is that AI generated or is that a real person? My kids can tell better than I can. And so it might be a generational thing. I don't know, but technology is so advanced and so amazing. I mean, people look real. There's absolutely no. So I think the protections are absolutely needed, at least the disclosures are absolutely needed. So I look forward to seeing the bill as it moves forward.

Thank you. This is a really important bill. Trying to get ahead of the problems and the threats of AI is extremely important. And I think that, as was noted in the analysis, the threats to the creative workforce. This is really important. If our job is to protect people, then we need to protect people. And it's their image. It's their voice. It's who they are. They've created an image. If they're in a movie, they've created this particular image. than when they advertise it their image It doesn belong to somebody else Also protecting as you mentioned earlier the deception of the consumer Because AI goes so far they know exactly what it is the consumer wants to see and they create what that consumer wants to see. They don't care oftentimes whose image and whose voice they're going to use. I think this is extremely important. I think that, as was noted by my colleague, of course we're going to hear the opposition, and I think the opposition helps us to rein in whatever problems there might be in a particular bill. Sometimes I don't like the opposition, but sometimes they really do help. You know, iron sharpens iron, and if you're able to use that opposition to try to figure out what needs to be done to make it a better bill, I think that's always good, and you're an author who does that. You work hard on your bills. So with that, I would move the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank the author for bringing the bill. It's an important and timely bill. I've done a lot of work in this space, as some of my colleagues may have noticed, and I certainly have worked in the past with the opposition to some great extent. But I would note, I think it's important with respect to this particular piece of proposed legislation, that circumstances have changed substantially. I mean, when we look at the statutory exemption on disseminators and broadcasters, some of which goes back quite a ways, with respect to what we used to call false advertising, quote-unquote, and I think even the legal definition of that has evolved a little bit today, in a contemporary sense. It's very different. The nature and scope of the perpetration of false information and the impact that it may have is at a whole new level, as we like to say, and I think as the author pointed out. And at some point, with respect to looking at what's the duty of care we want to impose on people who are providing the platform or technology to disseminate, to move, distribute, to err in the old term, Is there such a thing anymore? I don't even know. But it has changed and has evolved. So the scope here is very different because of the nature of the technology and how prolific it is. And so the degree, I would argue, of deception here is something altogether new. And I think the author recognizes that. And so I hope there's a way to come to that. I mean, just being fair, I think it may be something, as we used to recall it, a case of first impression ultimately here. these circumstances are new and unique and impactful. And I think that that's an important thing that should not be lost here as we move forward. And I will be supporting the bill.

I am also going to be supporting the bill today. To the maximum extent we can, we try to reach consonants with at least some other states that share our common values. So I appreciate the author's commitment to take a look at New York even further and determine where there are areas where we can send common signals to the industry. And those are great. Personally, I'm not looking forward to ads that if there are 50 people in the background that are not material to the actual thing that's happening. I don't want to see a marker on each two millimeter person I not looking forward to that but I also understand that part of the point of the bill is to try to discourage that from happening in the first place And that like so many other issues that are and will be before this committee those are tough issues to balance as we trying to get ahead catch up manage a transition and so we may be in a different place on this in two years from now. But as an initial step forward, this seems well-reasoned and the author definitely has made all the right commitments in order to continue to work on those elements that are missing. But I think that New York, this question about materiality, those deserve your continued attention as you go forward from here.

Sure. Thank you so much. And I think I would just like to say I really appreciate Senator Reyes' comments in particular because I do try very hard to work with opposition. I agree with you. Maybe it's our law background, but listening to the opposition can always make your argument and your bill stronger and more applicable and I think often helps with implementation later because these are the same people we're going to ask to help us make sure this happens. That being said, I just want to be clear about my intentions. We want to protect people here, both the actors and the receivers of advertising. So I respectfully request an aye vote today.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

McNerney.

McNerney, aye.

Me.

Aye.

Reyes? Reyes, aye.

Umberg, aye.

Wiener, aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 1146, which will protect Californians from deceptive AI-generated health advertisements, very similar from the former bill we heard by Senator Ashby. This rapid advancement of AI and generative AI technology has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish, as we know, between real and fake content. We do not want medical scams happening. We don't want people thinking that dietary supplements by a fake doctor will somehow make them, you know, a lot, you know, skinnier or what have you. Whatever this generative AI doctor says. And SB 1146 is a critical step toward protecting consumers from these deceptive practices. Testifying in support, I have Dr. Anna Yap, the vice speaker of the California Medical Association, and George Sorries from CMA for technical assistance, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. On the topic of truth in advertising, I am a real doctor. I'm Dr. Anna Yap, an emergency physician here in Sacramento, and I'm here on behalf of the California Medical Association, and proud sponsor of SB 1146 by Senator Lina Gonzalez. Thank you so much for your leadership on this very important issue, and thank you so much to the committee and the staff for your thoughtful work on this important issue SB 1146 seeks to crack down on the growing use of artificial intelligence to create fraudulent advertisements for health products that use a physician image without their knowledge or consent. Across the internet today, we are seeing a rise of highly realistic, deepfake doctors used in advertisements. These are videos that appear to show trusted physicians endorsing medical products, but are entirely fabricated by AI. National reporting has documented how widespread and convincing these scams have become. In a documented case, a physician discovered that an AI-generated version of her was promoting supplements online, and the video was so realistic that her own mother believed it was her. If a physician's own family cannot tell the difference, how can we expect our patients to? This is how convincing this technology has become. Patients, especially older adults and those with chronic conditions, are being targeted and misled. They are spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on effective and unsafe products. Worse, some are delaying or avoiding legitimate medical care because they believe they found a miracle solution online. As an emergency physician, I can tell you that patients do present later and sicker after relying on misinformation they believed was credible. These scams are particularly dangerous because they exploit one of the most powerful tools in medicine, which is trust. As physicians, our recommendations carry weight. Patients rely on us to guide decisions about their health, their medications, and sometimes even life or death choices. When bad actors use AI to put words in our mouths, they are weaponizing that trust for profit. SB 1146 is a common sense targeted response to the problem. If an advertisement uses AI to generate or significantly alter a physician's likeness, including using their image or their voice, It must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure informing consumers that the content was created using AI. The bill also empowers the Attorney General to take enforcement action against fraudulent actors and gives physicians the ability to defend themselves when their identity is used without consent. Importantly, this bill does not restrict legitimate uses of AI in health care. It focuses specifically on transparency in advertising and consumer protection. At its core, this bill is about protecting patients and preserving trust in health information. Thank you.

Just here for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. MJ Diaz on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in support. Ryan Spencer, behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, the California Podiatric Medical Association, and the California Society of Pathologists in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support.

Lawrence Gaden on behalf of the California Dental Association in support.

Good afternoon. I came to committee today prepared to oppose the bill, actually. I'm very concerned about the amendments that were introduced on March 25th, putting in a private right of action that's very broad and maybe disproportionate to the consumer protection objective. I've actually had that concern in several of the other bills that have been presented Many of them, the ones that I've laid off today, I've laid off for that reason is because they are, the previous bills are generally expanding the private right of action. Your bill kind of, this bill kind of goes directly at it to expand the private right of action. I've got some serious concerns about that moving forward. The bill is definitely supportable to me if we can tighten up the private right of action. I don't like private right of action laws at all, period. My position on those may be evolving a little bit when it comes to privacy and protection, especially as I stated earlier on an earlier bill when it comes to protecting children. So I'm going to lay off today. I'm not going to oppose it. I'm hoping that my staff will follow up with your staff on some specific maybe amendments that we can suggest that would narrow that private right of action to where it could become supportable. But I just can't support it today, but I'm not going to oppose it also.

But I don't know if there's anything else that eyewitnesses would like to add.

I certainly share the concerns of the associations and support. I'm getting these things on my social media as well. And, you know, most of them I think are not very well done,

Senator Reyes Thank you for bringing this I think of all of these that have been presented today this is the one that people rely on doctors They rely on the medical community to tell them what's good for them, especially during times when they can't afford to go see a doctor and they see an advertisement dressed like a doctor and they aren't a doctor and they're trying to give medical advice, which is a problem. On the private right of action, I had hoped that it would be expanded to those who are injured as a result of seeing this and something to consider. I appreciate that for purposes of the bill, narrowing it so that it's just the physicians whose image has been taken, that that physician is the one that has a private right of action. But I think for those who are injured because they believe what they have just heard and they take that as medical advice to their detriment, I think that's something that should be considered in the future.

All right. I'm not seeing no other questions or comments. Then Senator Gonzalez, you may close.

Terrific. Yeah, I'm also going to be supportive of it today. I think the issues on private right of action are well taken and they will just head into the Judiciary Committee I'm sure this will be, you can duke it out there on those issues. You know, this problem is, the underlying problem of misinformation and dangerous information on the Internet in many ways goes well beyond this specific problem, right? That there are the folks who are recommending testosterone treatment in order to do better at a video game. But it's a game we're recommending and not pretending to be a doctor. You know, just like everyone, plenty of folks giving skin care advice who are recommending all kinds of acids and whatever to put on your face. Yes, all kinds of, many kinds of skin care acids, some of which are legit. But the point is I mean this problem is across the entire information landscape All this bill does is focus on those who will take that so far as to as the doctor said abuse the trusted relationship that exists between Californians and their licensed medical provider to take that misinformation up a whole other level. So it's narrowly drawn. I think in many respects our existing laws, as noted in the analysis, the falsely advertising law, the right to publicity, also get at this. But your bill is intended to be very clear unequivocally that this particular phenomenon is not allowed. And I think the other thing I would just note is that on this private rights action issue, that because this is being bolted on top of the False Advertising Act and the right to publicity, there may be other remedies that are available in addition to those that are being provided in the bill that may also allow folks to seek to have their harms redressed. But all in all, it's a very tightly drawn bill. It doesn't go exceptionally far in it than it built on what's already in the statute. So with that, we have a motion. Motion by Senator Reyes. Mr. Mays, please call the roll. Motion is due pass to Judiciary. Senators Cabaldon?

Cabaldon, aye. Jones?

Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye. McNerney?

McNerney, aye. Ochoa Bogue? Padilla?

Padilla, aye. Reyes?

Reyes, aye. Umberg?

Aye. Thunberg? Aye. Thunberg, aye. All right, the vote's 7-0. The bill is out, so we're now going to proceed to lift the calls. Let's start with number 8, and then Senator Reyes and the bill. All right, so we're beginning with number 8, which is SB 1106. The motion is due to pass to appropriations, and the current vote is 5-0. Okay. Senators Jones, Ochoa Bogue?

Ochoa Bogue, aye. Padilla?

Padilla, aye. Reyes?

Reyes, aye. That is 8-0. 8-0, that bill is out. Anyone do 9? Okay Item 9 SB 1114 the motion is due to pass to appropriations and the current vote is Six to zero Senators Jones Gonzalez Aye.

Ochoa Bo? One second, sorry. Not voting. Okay, that is seven to zero. That bill is seven to zero. That bill is out. I'm going to go back to the top. So next is item 1, SB 923 by Senator Becker, which is the motion is due past appropriations. The current vote is 6 to 0. Senators Jones, Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye.

No, please. Okay, 7 to 0. 7 to 0, that bill is out. Number 2, SB 1142, Senator Becker. This motion is due past as amended to judiciary, and the current vote is 6 to 0. Senators Jones, Gonzalez, aye.

Ochoa Bogues, not voting.

Gonzalez, aye.

Ochoa Bogues, aye.

Aye.

Ochovo?

Aye.

Ochovo?