Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Committee

Laura Cahan? Here.

Brian here. DeMaio? Hoover? Irwin?

Here. McKinner here. Ortega?

Here. Ms. Ortega here.

Pellerin. Here. Pellerin here.

Ward. Here. Ward here.

Wilson. Here. Wilson here.

Aye.

Mocito Bryan DeMaio Hoover Irwin Lowenthal McKenna Ortega Ortega I can send out Ortega I Patterson Pellerin Pellerin I Petrie Norris Ward Wicks Wilson Wilson I

The bill requires advertisements using AI-generated performers to include a disclosure if the performer is synthetic. Advancements in AI have led to the creation of synthetic performers, which are human-like digital figures that convincingly appear, speak, move, and act like real people. The use of these performers in advertisements misleads consumers and allows creators to avoid the responsibility of hiring real workers. Without a disclosure requirement, the risk of consumer deception increases while at the same time severely jeopardizing work opportunities. With the evolution of AI and its impact on commercial media, the state must ensure existing advertising laws are updated to reflect these new realities. SB 1050 does this by requiring disclosures when a synthetic person is depicted in an ad. The bill is sponsored by SAG-AFTRA and supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, Common Sense Media, and National AI Youth Council, amongst others. With me to testify today is Shane Guzman representing SAG-AFTRA and the Teamsters.

Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Melissa Patak with the Motion Picture Association. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And we also thank the author, the sponsor, committee consultants for the work that's been done on this bill so far. And we look forward to continuing to be engaged with further changes. Let me just say at the outset, the testimonial that Shane mentioned in his illustration, we would agree if the bill was limited to that situation where a synthetic performer was testifying to something that happened to the them and they're not a human, if this bill was limited to that, we would not be, in all likelihood, would not be opposing it. So that's a great example, and we look forward to further conversations. Our opposition is for two main reasons. The bill omits the element of deception and requires a disclosure whether or not a consumer would be misled. So this bill limits commercial speech and any restriction on speech must directly and materially advance a substantial government interest and not be more extensive than is necessary to further that interest. SB 1050 requires labeling of all ads that use synthetic performers, not just those which are misleading, making the bill's restrictions on speech too broad. Second, we're concerned about the private right of action, that it will be an invitation to litigation against companies that are perceived as deep-pocketed. We would request that the enforcement remain with the Attorney General and other public prosecutors. The recent amendments raise additional concerns. The bill now requires disclosure where synthetic performers use in an audio-only advertisement. A disclosure in such an advertisement will pose operational challenges, particularly for extremely short advertisements. The new amendment limiting disclosure where synthetic performers appear prominently needs some clarification. Those producing ads will need more specificity. For example, is a stadium full of people prominent because it's a large number of people and may even take up a large part of the screen? What if the ad also features human actors in the foreground who are the primary focus of the ad? Would such an ad be outside the scope of the disclosure requirement? We think there's room to improve that. improve that. We note that SB 1050 differs from a recent New York law that just took effect within the last couple of weeks. And while we understand that California has no obligations to mirror another state's law, it is very challenging for our member companies and other California companies to establish business practices which comply with state laws that have very different standards. We look forward to continuing to work with the author and the sponsor and the committees going forward about the remaining issues. And thank you very much.

Madam Chair and members, Peter Kellis on behalf of the California Broadcasters Association. The June 11 amendments extend the bill into audio. We're unclear about the purpose served, concerned about the impact on local broadcasting and look forward to working with the author and sponsors. Laura Bennett on behalf of California Team of Commerce, opposed unless amended. Maddie Hyatt, Capital Business Alliance, opposed unless amended. We agree with the lead witnesses amendments. Thank you.

So I'm always looking at cost-benefit, and what you're saying is you can't use AI for fictitious people? Do you want to?

I mean, what's the harm?

I'm curious.

Okay, so if Daffy Duck is in a cartoon and endorses a product, what is the harm? Are we... I really... I understand sometimes we have to regulate AI, and I understand when it's perhaps a likeness of someone who is a real person who has not consented to that speech. They should be given protection and rights. but these are fictitious individuals.

I'm really struggling with the public benefit because there is a cost of regulation and I know a lot of people who do AI and they're not aware of every darn law and regulation that government imposes, particularly here in California. Yeah. And I'm always having to weigh adding complexity and risk, legal risk, to these individuals versus the public benefit. And I'm not convinced, and maybe we're not going to be able to establish that here today. It might be just a differing of opinion on public policy. But I think that as this bill moves forward, that there needs to be a case made for that because I'm not seeing that. And I'd be hard-pressed to explain to my constituents what the benefit of the regulation is.

But in the past, we would hire actors and actresses to say things and, you know, they would be, I mean, maybe that's what the intent of the bill is. Maybe we have the Screen Actors Guild here and they want to make sure that their people get work and they don't like AI. If that's the purpose, let's just simply state it as such. but I am really struggling with the public benefit of a new set of laws and regulations. And I really would encourage, if you want to have more widespread support, to clarify that benefit, because maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems like another regulation, another law that we're imposing on the marketplace. So I won't be supporting you today, but that would be my advice to try to make that case.

Yeah, and Assemblymember, I agree. We wouldn't be here. You know, we're protecting our artists. There's no question. but we also wouldn't be here if there wasn't a consumer benefit. The bill doesn't, we're not trying to outlaw AI advertisements. We simply want the consumers to have a choice and to see if what is being depicted is real or not. That's it. Thank you.

On behalf of Senator Ashby, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Second.

Secretary, please call the roll. Item number 7, SB 1050 by Senator Ashby. The motion is due pass to Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism Committee. Barcahan.

Barcahan, aye. Macedo. Bryan.

No. DeMaio, no. Hoover.

Lowenthal. McKenna. Ortega.

Ortega, aye. Patterson? Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petrie-Norris? Ward? Wicks? Wilson? Aye.

4-1. We will leave the roll open for absent members.

You guys want to join me? I'm here to present SB 1111 on behalf of Senator Ashby. Since 2019, the creation of AI-generated deepfakes has risen by over 500%. In 2020, over 100,000 AI-generated nude images of women were created, most of which consisted of AI-generated pornography. Over 9,500 websites have identified AI-generated pornography. Of the videos found on these sites, over 95% are sexually explicit and feature women who did not consent to their creation. 90% of cyber exploitation victims are women. 93% suffer significant emotional distress. 51% of victims have suicidal thoughts, and 49% report being stalked or harassed online by people who saw the material. SB 1111 creates a framework to hold AI users accountable for creating clear legal standing for victims and defining the boundaries of this AI technology. The bill expands liability only for very specific sets of instances when someone uses another person's voice or likeness to create the digital replica without their consent. The bill is sponsored by Paris Hilton 1111 Media Company and supported by SAG the California Federation of Labor Unions and the Transparacy Coalition amongst others With me today is Mikey Hothi the California Policy Director for Common Sense Media So, unfortunately, I'm not Paris Hilton, but I'll do my best to stand in her place. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Mikey Hothi. I'm California Policy Director for Common Sense Media, and we're proud to support SB 1111. Common Sense Media is a nonprofit operating nationwide whose focus is to protect kids' safety and well-being in the digital age. California is leading the nation in AI regulations. However, a significant gap remains. The lack of comprehensive legal framework to address the non-consensual creation of deepfake audio and images is dangerous and leaves victims with no remedy. This exposes individuals to various forms of exploitation, identity theft, scams, misinformation, and misrepresentation of character. While some deepfakes target public figures, AI software now allows users to create content featuring anyone. Often women and children are targeted victims, and the vast majority of incidents are sexually explicit in nature. This bill creates a framework to hold AI users accountable by creating clear legal standing for victims and defining the boundaries of AI technology. SB 1111 establishes violations in the right of publicity law and false impersonation law for using a person's voice or likeness to create digital replica without their consent. This bill is not about broad sweeping regulation of AI technology itself. It is about developing clear rules for the use of AI and providing a remedy for victims of its abuse. As technology changes, California must continue to advance the standard for protection against AI violence and those affected by it. I respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Crystal Strait with the Music Artist Coalition in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I will turn it over to the dais for any members' questions.

Seeing no comments or questions, we have a motion and a second. Secretary, sorry, Assemblymember, would you like to pose?

Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Aye.

DeMaio?

Aye.

Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

As many of you know, artificial intelligence has embedded itself into nearly every corner of modern life and has made its way into our workforces, our schools, our healthcare, and our homes. And recently, it has found its way into our children's toys. The market has been flooded with such toys as teddy bears that are powered by the same technology running chatbots such as Grot. Researchers testing these toys have found alarming outcomes. Various AI 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 usage through addictive features, and pose data privacy risks. In California, we have some of the strictest toy safety laws that protect children from a myriad of physical harm such as exposure to toxic substances and choking hazards. We need to update these regulations to address the psychological harm that products can pose as well. In the state of New York, for example, similar legislation is making its way through their state legislature. We are in a cycle. Technology moves faster than regulation and we are not yet fully aware of the harm often until it is too late This bill breaks that cycle by placing a four moratorium on the sale and manufacturing of AI chatbot toys allowing a proper time for lawmakers to modernize our toy safety regulations to fit the digital age. Innovation without guardrails, especially when it comes to our kids, is not boldness, it's recklessness. We need to put the time in and thought to get this right, because children's well-being is at stake. Joining me today to testify is Nicole Rocha with Children Now. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. I am Nicole Rocha here on behalf of Children Now. For years, young people have been sharing how their mental health has been negatively affected by their online interactions. After many years of fighting for legislation to keep kids safe on social media, youth and families have finally seen historic verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars with juries finding that social media intentionally addicted children have failed to protect them from known harm. In addition, the age-appropriate design code was largely affirmed by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year. Importantly, last year, Senator Padilla passed a first-in-the-country bill to regulate how companion AI interacts with children and created fundamental safeguards. And while these are historic wins, the work is far from over. As AI pours into every aspect of our lives, it is 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 to children that could have been prevented. We are not saying that the harm stemming from AI are the same as the harm stemming from social media use, and we are certainly not claiming that AI use by children has no benefit. Rather, we are asking that until the harms, and equally important, the benefits to children's healthy development are adequately researched and documented, young people should not be used as guinea pigs for these powerful new products. The 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 put a pause button on the use of companion AI in products designed specifically for play by children until we know how that technology is going to affect their developing minds. AB 867 is a sensible measure that will make space for thoughtful consideration before young people are exposed to potentially harmful technology. They deserve a digital world that supports their healthy mental development. I urge your aye vote. Thank you. Do we have

Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against Media Addiction in support. Diana Hawkins from Mama Silicon Valley in support. Hello, Kelly Backmillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in support.

Madam Chair and members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Just very quickly, I wanted to outline our concerns with the broad definition of toy in the bill and what constitutes a toy not being considered what you would think of as a children's product. We appreciate the conversations with the author's office and look forward to continuing to work with them. Thank you.

Okay. Jacob Brent with California Taylor's association with an imposed unless amended position contingent on a knowingly standard. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I remember your other bill that you brought forth in this space. And I would say that some of the concerns that the opposition has brought up in terms of amendments needed to bring greater clarity are important. And you should consider them. I recognize we're in the second house. You're in this committee. I don't remember. I think you go straight to a probes after this. But I think that those are valid. I'll be supporting today, but I think those are before I would vote for it on the floor. I think those types of things need to be resolved. Thanks.

Assemblymember DeMaio.

I'm a little more interested in getting, maybe in your close, specific commitments to the issues that have been raised. When I read through the bill, I said, I understand we don't want AI to be out of control for our kids. I started thinking about the age of 18. We had a similar bill on addictive features on social media that Mr. Lowenthal has been leading the charge on that I support. I just think all the way to age 18, the definition of toy, knowingly selling, exchanging, transferring. I mean, this is very widespread. I could see people getting caught up in non-compliance here. And I also have to ask, do we need a moratorium when there are some safeguards that are already in place regarding making sure companies are looking at these issues? So I'm very nervous about the unintended consequences of this bill, though I understand the intent behind it. I just think right now there's a whole bunch of definitional gray area that needs to be clarified. And my hope is that either we see that fixed by the time it gets to the assembly floor, or I would be very opposed to it and urge others to oppose as well.

Only adding on because we're still awaiting maybe another Senate author, but I wanted to really just echo as well, full faith in the author to sort of work on some of these definitional issues. I hope that there's no disagreement that, you know, the fundamental of what you're trying to work on here is the principle of the harms that we're seeing from this that we wouldn't want to see available to any of our children. And so you've been committed to this for several years now. I appreciate that you're really leading in this space. People, lives will be saved because of it. Hopefully mental health will improve because of it. And so I want to be able to see all that worked on and how the author can have the chance to be able to bring that to the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Appreciate the dialogue and always will continue to work diligently with all concerned parties to make sure that we can operationalize a piece of legislation and make it not just work and meaningfully impactful, but also equitable. That is the goal. I think to the Assemblymember from San Diego's comments a minute ago, we shouldn't lose sight of the obvious. There is a growing and overwhelming data set nationally, not just about the implementation or utilization in toys, some of which are designed for very small children, by the way, that employ chatbots as a design interactive feature. Sometimes we're finding out based on that data set that those are being deployed in these models that are being designed and marketed without regulation, sometimes without license from the developer or deployer of the technology. So there's a myriad of issues here that I think support the obvious premise of this bill, which is this has the potential to harm the most vulnerable among us, our children. It has the potential to occur at large, massive scale. Data is growing daily to support that, and that cries out for reasonable oversight. That the purpose of this bill I appreciate the dialogue I have heard you We continue diligently working the bill to make it impactful and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote Thank you We had a motion

Item number two, SB 867 by Senator Padilla. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Barcahan. Macedo. Macedo, aye. Brian.

Aye. Hoover, aye. Irwin. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson. Pellerin. Petrie-Norris. Ward. Aye. Ward, aye. Wicks. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. We have six votes. We'll leave the roll open.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present SB 1247, the Child Influencer Rights of Deletion Act. This bill gives children whose image and likeness were basically monetized in content by their families during the time they were juveniles the ability to delete content, allowing them to control their image and their privacy. Two years ago, I introduced SB 764, which created financial protections for child influencers in line with California's historic Cougan Act nearly a century ago.

Cheryl Westmont with Mothers Against Media Addiction in support. Diana Hawkins of Mama Silicon Valley in support Maddie Hyatt for California Civil Liberties Advocacy in support Kelly Macmillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics in support

Secretary, please call the roll. Item number three, SB 1247 by Senator Padilla. The motion is due pass to the Judiciary Committee. Barcahan. Macedo. Aye. Macedo, aye. Brian. Aye. Brian, aye. DeMaio. Aye. DeMaio, aye. Hoover. Aye. Hoover, aye. Irwin Lowenthal. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Aye. McKinner, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson. Pellerin. Petrie-Norris. Ward. Aye. Ward, aye. Wicks. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye.

Hola.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Dr. Adam Dougherty. I'm a board-certified emergency physician living and practicing medicine here in Sacramento and a trustee of the California Medical Association. I'm here representing CMA as the proud sponsor of SB 1146. by Senator Landa Gonzalez. I'd like to thank Senator Gonzalez for authoring this important measure and all of the work the committee and staff have put into this bill. SB 1146 seeks to crack down on the growing use of artificial intelligence to create fraudulent advertisements for health-related products that use a physician's image without their knowledge or consent. Deepfake doctors on digital platforms are garnering millions of views while endorsing potentially dangerous, non-FDA-approved weight loss supplements and questionable medical treatments and devices. We know that deep fakes are rampant online, but when it's health care that's infiltrated, patients' well-being is at a direct risk. We are combating misinformation daily in our exam rooms. These scams frequently target the elderly and those with chronic conditions, leading patients to waste money on ineffective products, believe and act on medical misinformation, or delay seeking medical care. Bad actors are exploiting the credibility of the medical profession and weaponizing the sacred trust between doctors and Patients with poor health literacy or those unable to access timely primary care may be at particular risk in this rapidly evolving space. This bill establishes simple common sense transparency requirements for advertisements for health-related consumer products and services. If the ad uses AI to generate or significantly alter a physician's likeness, including their physical appearance or their voice, they must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure informing consumers that the content was created using AI. This bill empowers the Attorney General to take enforcement action against fraudulent actors and gives individual physicians a narrowly tailored mechanism to legally defend themselves against scammers who have used their image without consent. Lastly, the bill does not prohibit the use of AI in legitimate health care settings. It builds on previous CMA-sponsored legislation, which prevents AI from misrepresenting itself as a licensed healthcare professional. These bills focus specifically on transparency in marketing and consumer protection. The physician-patient relationship is built on trust and is core to our profession and the communities that we serve. When scammers use AI to steal a doctor's identity, they are not just committing fraud, they are putting lives at risk. SB 1146 is a common sense measure to restore integrity to health information online and hold scammers accountable. For these reasons, we ask that you support this measure today. We appreciate your time and consideration, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support?

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses. Do we have any main witnesses in opposition? We shouldn't. Seeing no main witnesses in opposition, do we have any others in opposition? Seeing none, I will turn it over to the dais for questions or comments.

Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments other than thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward, would you like to close? I just respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I thank Dr. Doherty for being here. He came out of practice, look at that, to come here and testify. So I appreciate it. Thank you, members. Thank you. We had a motion and a second.

That measure has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. We will lift the call on consent.

We'll leave that roll open. Leave it open. Okay. And item number two, SB 867 by Senator Padilla.

That measure has nine votes. We will keep the roll open for absent members. Item number three, SB 1247 by Senator Padilla. We have nine votes.

That bill has ten. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Item number seven, SB 1050 by Senator Ashby. There are four votes. Macedo.

We have 12 votes that measure will leave open for absent members. Item number 8, SB 1111 by Senator Ashby. We have four votes.

That measure has 12 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Item number 9, SB 1146 by Senator Gonzalez. We have 9 votes.

That measure has 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. On the consent calendar, Patterson, Petra Norris, Wicks.

Item number two, SB867. Seven votes.

Bill has 10 We leave the roll open for absent members Item number 3 SB 1247 by Senator Padilla We have 10 votes

We have 11 votes. We have 11 votes. That bill will remain open for absent members. Is that it?

Thank you. If staff is listening, if we can get Senator Becker, Senator Perez, over to Privacy and Consumer Protection. Thank you.

Welcome, Senator Becker. We appreciate you being here this afternoon. Whenever you are ready, we will take item number six, SB1000. Thank you.

Thank you for letting me present SB1000. I want to thank the committee staff for their engagement on this issue over the last three years. In 2023, we passed the California AI Transparency Act, the first law in the country requiring AI content to be labeled with disclosures about where it came from. Since then, AI and the technologies used to embed and detect these disclosures have evolved rapidly, and that requires changes to be made in the act in order for it to accomplish its goals. The language in print today has been drafted in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders across industry, civil society, and international authorities, including those in the EU, who recently published the Code of Practice for Article 50 of the EU-AI Act. SB 1000 brings the Act into harmony with international regulations around content provenance and pushes industry to standardize methods of content disclosure that are readable by large online platforms. These changes will make sure the actual requirements will work for consumers and developers alike. Furthermore, this committee and I have engaged extensively with the entertainment industry to ensure there are no unintended consequences that harm craters and studios, and that we are confident the existing exemptions under the original law accomplish that. This bill will serve as a bedrock for future governance in this space and provide all Californians with additional information about where the content they see comes from. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Okay, do we have a witness in support? Yes.

Thank you. Seeing, do we have any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments from the dais? Seeing none, we have a motion. A second, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. Secretary, we have a motion to second. Please call the roll. Item number six, SB 1000 by Senator Becker. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Barra Kahan. Mastito. Brian. Brian. Aye. DeMaio. Aye. DeMaio. Aye. Hoover. Aye. Hoover. Aye. Irwin. Aye. Irwin. Aye. Lowenthal. McKinner. Aye. McKinner. Aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega. Aye. Patterson. Pellerin. Petrie-Norris. Ward. Aye. Ward. Aye. Wicks. Aye.

Nine votes. That measure has nine votes. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. One more.

Item number 9, SB 1146 by Senator Gonzalez. We have 10 votes, 10 ayes.

We have 12 votes. We'll leave the roll open perhaps in members. Thank you.

Do we have a Joe Patterson?

Senator Perez welcome I Central Yeah What hear SB 957 by Senator Perez when you ready

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 957, the Shield Act. Before I begin, I will be accepting the committee amendments reflected in comment four on page six of the committee analysis. I appreciate the work and collaboration of the committee staff to address the need to clarify from previous amendments in the Senate that social media companies also assess subpoenas issued pursuant to the Tariff Act. SB 957 requires social media companies to notify individuals when the federal government seeks their personal information through an administrative subpoena. This bill also ensures that users have 30 days to respond or challenge the subpoena, requires companies to disclose what information was shared, and establishes reporting requirements to the attorney general. Social media has become a critical tool for Californians to engage in activism, political expression, and information sharing. This is especially true now. Discussions around politics and government have been particularly prominent as communities across the state are responding to increased federal immigration enforcement. Community leaders and residents have organized to share updates about immigration enforcement activities, using social media platforms to track ICE presence, share alerts with their neighbors, and hold federal agencies accountable. Despite the federal and state constitutional right to freedom of speech, administrative subpoenas are being increasingly used by DHS to obtain information about individuals who operate accounts that post about or criticize ICE. These administrative subpoenas do not require judicial approval or probable cause, yet they can be used to obtain sensitive information like names, addresses, and phone numbers. We've already seen cases where individuals were targeted simply for expressing criticism of the federal government. For example, a New York Times article cites that in recent months Google, Meta, Discord, and Reddit have received multiple subpoenas from DHS requesting identifying details of anonymous accounts that have spoken out against ICE or tracked the location of ICE agents. In another example, a man in Philadelphia was subpoenaed after sending an email to DHS criticizing their treatment of an asylum seeker. DHS agents and local police showed up to his home to interrogate him. The subpoena was challenged in federal court as a violation of the First Amendment, and the court ruled that subpoenas cannot be used to intimidate individuals who criticize federal agencies. While some social media companies have willingly provided notice to individuals, others have shared information without ever letting the user know their data was requested. The lack of transparency in these instances undermines trust, exposes individuals to potential retaliation, and discourages people from speaking out publicly. People should not be intimidated into silence out of fear that their personal information may be secretly shared to the federal government without their knowledge. SB 957 would protect user privacy and free speech by ensuring that Californians are notified and given a fair opportunity to challenge a subpoena before their information is disclosed This bill is sponsored by the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus and is supported by the ACLU of California Action, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Oakland Privacy, Public Council, and others. Today with me to provide testimony in support of this bill is Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the

In one case covered by the Washington Post, a person targeted by a subpoena had agents show up to his home. These subpoenas are intimidation dressed up as law. They're an attack on people's fundamental rights, and we ask today that you vote yes on SB 957. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here in support of this measure, name, organization, and position?

Anyone here in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Mr. DeMaio.

Anybody else? No? Okay. Seeing and hearing no further comments. Sorry about that. There's a motion by Summer Ortega, seconded by Ms. Pellerin. I don't know why we have a feedback moment. I thought that was just me. I'm glad you guys heard today. If we could turn that mic off behind. Can you turn that mic off? Thanks. Appreciate it. Okay. No, still happening. Okay. Well, I'll just stand back for my mic. Maybe that'll help. So I think this is a critically important question we are asking. I think it's important to note that criminal subpoenas are different than administrative subpoenas, and the requirements on a government agency to get an administrative subpoena is different than a criminal subpoena. And we have seen cases, and the ACLU has been at the forefront of litigating these, where these administrative subpoenas appear to be intended just to get at First Amendment protected activities. And, you know, when the press broke this story about those subpoenas, which is when I heard about it, it may have been in other people's awareness prior to that, there was some incredible investigative reporting that helped me see this. It was frankly concerning to me because when the government starts to curb constitutionally protected activities through what appears to be witch hunts, that really concerning because people need to exercise their rights to speak And the Supreme Court has actually found that anonymous speech is part of the fundamental protection under the First Amendment Sometimes we want to speak anonymously and we have the right to do so And so I actually have a bill moving in the Senate that prohibits companies from responding to administrative subpoenas that are solely after First Amendment protected activity because I believe that those subpoenas are on their face and lawful. We have the same protections here for subpoenas going after abortion providers and the like, because that is protected activity. And so you cannot subpoena what is protected activity here in California. And first-time activity is protected across the nation under the federal constitution. And so I think that one of the things you're doing here, which is letting people know, basically giving them due process rights through that knowledge, because otherwise due process is meaningless if you don't know you need it, as the witness said. And so I think this is really important. I think you've worked really hard to not have opposition from the companies that will have to comply with this. I imagine that has not been true since the beginning of this bill, but that you have gotten to that point. And so clearly it is something the companies believe they can comply with and will protect California citizens. So I have an eye recommendation. But would you like to close?

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll. Item number five, SB957 by Senator Perez. The motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee.

Aye.

No.

Aye.

No.

Not voting.

Aye.

McKinner.

Ortega.

Patterson.

Aye.

Aye.

Wicks?

Wilson?

Wilson, aye. That bill has nine votes. It is out. We will leave it open for absent members. Thank you. Senator? So we will go back and do add-ons. Our A-plus student can leave. When you're ready. Okay. Okay For the consent calendar Patterson Aye Patterson aye Petra Norris Aye Petra Norris aye Item number two SB867 by Senator Padilla Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee Barra Kahan. Aye. Barra Kahan, aye. Patterson. Aye. Patterson, aye. Pellerin. Aye. Pellerin, aye. Petra Norris. Aye. Petra Norris, aye. Oh, that bill is out. 14-1. We'll leave it open for absent members. Item number 3, SB 1247 by Senator Padilla. The motion is due passed to the Judiciary Committee.

Barcahan, aye.

Pellerin? Aye.

Petra Norris, aye.

That bill is out 15-0. We'll leave it open for absent members. Item number 5, SB 957 by Senator Perez. The motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee.

Warren.

Okay. We'll come back to that one. Those are the only two absent members. Yeah. Item number six, SB 1000 by Senator Becker. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee.

Aye.

Aye.

Patterson.

Pellerin.

Petrie Norris? Aye. Petrie Norris, aye.

Ashby. Patterson.

That bill is out 13-2, but that one is complete. Item number 8, SB 11-11 by Senator Ashby.

Aye.

Aye.

That bill is out 14-1, and it is complete. Item number 9, SB 11-46 by Senator Gonzalez.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That bill is out 15-0, and it is also complete. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Two bills Item number five SB957 by by Senator Perez Lowenthal Aye Lowenthal aye Ward Item number 6, SB 1000 by Senator Becker. Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. Thank you. Thank you. We want to make sure you were included. Item number five, SB 957 by Senator Perez.

Aye.