Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection Committee

. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Welcome to Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection hearing We'll call this hearing to order. We have eight bills on the agenda today with two bills on the consent calendar. AB 1571 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez and AB 1640 by Assemblymember Stephanie. We will take a motion for the consent calendar once we have a quorum. Oh, a fun announcement this morning. Slater Sharp, who is our former science fellow, has rejoined the committee as a senior consultant. So welcome back to the committee. Slater. I know, look, you got cheers from the audience, Slater. He hadn't gone far. He was in my personal office, but we brought him back because he has incredible talent. To effectively manage our time today, testimony will be limited to two witnesses for support, two in opposition on each bill. Witnesses are allowed three minutes to present their testimony. We will track that to make sure everybody gets equal time. And then, of course, anybody in the room can register their support or opposition. And as always, if you don't get to say everything you want to say, the website does allow for written testimony and we do read all the letters in the portal. So please write in. And so we are going to start as a subcommittee because there are only three of us, but the first bill is actually mine. And Assemblymember Dixon is AB 1705. So I will hand the

And with your encouragement, Chair, thank you so much. It's an honor to share this table with you and share the authorship of this bill. So good morning, Chair and members of the committee. This is familiar. It is just about identical to a bill that passed this committee unanimously last year, as well as the Assembly. So we will move it forward again this year with our partnership. And I believe that collaboration between Assemblymember Bauer-Kahn and myself demonstrates that this is a bipartisan issue, importantly, a bipartisan solution. AB 1705 deals with an extremely sensitive issue, the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit media and sexually explicit content of minors to pornographic Internet websites. This bill is fundamentally about ensuring content is posted consensually and protecting minors. With technological literacy and Internet usage at all-time highs, it is far too easy for individuals to upload non-consensual sexually explicit materials online. And as many of us know, once sexually explicit media is uploaded online, it is nearly impossible to remove it. The legislature has passed a number of worthwhile measures to provide protections for minors and victims by this committee, too, who have had their sexually explicit content either recorded or shared online without their consent. However, a core issue which has not been addressed is the identification of the uploader and holding websites accountable for the content hosted on their sites. In order to address these issues and protect Californians of all ages, AB-1705 does the following. First, it would require that an uploader provide a statement certifying that any individuals depicted in the content provided consent to be recorded to the sexually explicit material being uploaded and that the depicted individual was not a minor at the time the content was created. In other words, the subject of the images must consent to all of these aspects. Second, it would require that the statement provided by the uploader be signed under penalty of perjury. And third, AB-1705 allows an individual who did not give consent or who was a minor at the time of the recording of sexually explicit content to bring civil action against the operator of the pornographic Internet website and the user who uploaded the content. AB-1705 represents an important step towards protecting our children and Californians from the proliferation of non-consensually sexually explicit material. These protections are especially important for minors and victims of revenge pornography who often have little recourse once this type of content is uploaded to an adult website. By holding both the uploaders and the website operators accountable, this legislation allows victims to protect themselves from the seenness and predatory exploitation. I'm proud to be a joint author on this measure and respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

No. Well, there may be in the audience, but not primary.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Ed Howard, Senior Counsel of the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law.

Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the status of women and girls in support.

Good morning, Chair and members.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Missy Maseko, American Association of University Women, we support this bill.

Hello, I'm Jacqueline Lopez for the American Association of University of Women and we support this bill.

Sophia Garola, I represent the American Association of University Women and we support this bill.

I simply want to say how much we miss you on this. Dixon, truly. I wish I were sitting up there.

Well, I would want to commend that as well, too, just because committee assignments might change. That doesn't mean you can't still be a leader on these bills. And so we're grateful for your continued leadership and not letting this go, despite how things sometimes go under this dome. Critical bill, obviously, like, you know, very focused on making sure that, you know, really two things are crystal clear, that we are actively monitoring, all partners here are actively monitoring for age. Critically important to be able to protect our youth, as well as making sure that there's consent, an obvious factor that, you know, should certainly be afforded for any imagery that is afforded online. And I wanted to underscore as well that this will cover not just a true image, but also any artificially generated image. Is that correct? Yeah, so any nude images, no matter how they're generated. That's the definition, and I really appreciate you taking that extra step, too, as well, to be able to make sure that the user has liability here as well. So, you know, between the user, the site provider, that everybody has a role to play to make sure that, you know, consent was provided, that anything that is out there and available for public use is, you know, to a degree appropriately uploaded, and that there is recourse for making sure that that content is taken down. So happy to be able to support this bill today when the time is ready and we have a quorum.

We respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I just appreciate that this committee continues to be a bipartisan love fest.

And with that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for having me. I sure love to be early for a good fight. I'm kidding. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 1898 today, which ensures transparency and accountability by requiring employers to give workers advance notice before they implement artificial intelligence tools in the workplace. Let me just say right out the gate that there will be a lot of bills that come before this committee in the realm of artificial intelligence this year. I got some flack for it when I said it in the last committee, but I'm going to repeat it again. I believe this to be a common-sense measure to ensure that our workforce knows the conditions under which they are working. I absolutely believe there is a path forward. I think the committee process works, and as I'll discuss more later, very appreciative to the committee and staff for the amendments that I think strengthen this bill and address at least some of the concerns raised by the opposition. Please allow me to briefly describe what I see as the problem we're trying to solve with 1898. Artificial intelligence systems sold to employers are no longer just simple chatbots or search engines. Today, companies use a wide range of AI tools to monitor and manage workers, changing the modern workplace, if you will, and affecting millions of employees in the state of California. Earlier this year, as just one anecdotal example, fast food chain Burger King announced that they would be testing AI-powered headsets that can listen and track how friendly employees are with their customers. Other systems track workers using tools like keyboard monitoring, eye tracking, and biometric sensors that can predict fatigue. Employers are also using automated decision-making systems, or ADS for short, to automate oversight. ADS systems can set weekly schedules and even track, discipline, or fire employees, a practice recently reported in Amazon warehouses. Algorithmic firing is reportedly on the rise, with recent figures estimating that more than one in five managers allow AI systems to make final firing decisions without their input. This practice has invaded numerous industries, such as, and I would argue especially the gig economy, which often leaves rideshare drivers at the whim of AI-driven deactivation. While employers continue to purchase and utilize these artificial intelligence-powered systems, the vast majority of California workers are left in the dark about how these tools are being used to monitor or manage their day-to-day life at the work site. Without an understanding of these systems in the workplace, I would submit that workers are unable to navigate workplace expectations. So let's talk briefly about what AB 1898 seeks to accomplish. It would require an employer to provide workers with an advance notice at least 90 days before an AI-powered workplace tool is used to surveil or manage the workforce. And it would require employer notices to disclose the purpose of the AI tool, a description of the categories of worker data that would be captured by the tool, what employment-related decisions might be affected by use of the AI tool, and a general description of the general locations where these tools would be used in the workplace. I want to note before I close that the bill does not prohibit the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace or surveillance technologies. What it does say is that workers have a right to know This bill is important because California workers deserve transparency and accountability when it comes to AI in the workplace I would like to mention again that we have worked very closely with committee and the opposition to address at least some of their concerns And I would refer all of you, if you haven't already done so, to look at page seven of the committee analysis to further describe what some of those concerns were that were addressed. I will also emphasize that we understand that as we go through the legislative process, there's more work to be done and there are more conversations to be had with the opposition. and you all have my full commitment that should this bill move out of committee today, we will continue to engage with the opposition to address those concerns. With that, at the appropriate time, Madam Chair, I will respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify in support of the bill is Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions and Shane Gussman with the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, proud co-sponsor of AB 1898. AB 1898 is part of a package of bills the Labor Fed is sponsoring this year to update the labor standards for the 21st century. While the technology that exists today in the modern workplace may be more powerful than ever before, the principles guiding the creation and the need for worker-centered guardrails remain consistent. And labor has been at the forefront of making workplaces safer and more humane for decades. And today is absolutely no different. This committee has seen previous iterations of workplace AI bills, and we brought them back because we are at a junction point where we need to establish actual worker protections and establish best practices when you are bringing AI tools into the workplace. A few weeks ago, this committee held an informational hearing on surveillance broadly. During that hearing, Josh Black, an Amazon warehouse worker, described the stress he and his colleagues felt by simply being unaware of how and when they were being watched by management. Josh described the chilling effect a non-transparent surveillance regime can have on a worker's decision to engage in protected activities such as joining a union. And even in a unionized workplace, the likelihood of a worker reporting any workplace violations decreases due to the lack of knowledge of surveillance. And as noted by the Assemblymember, this is an issue that exists well outside of Amazon warehouses. Surveillance and the lack of transparency is proven to increase psychological distress amongst workers. The feeling of always being watched does not foster a healthy working environment, especially if you're always guessing how and when the boss is watching you. Now, regarding automated decision systems, these tools, as the Assemblymember also described, are used to replace human decision making, especially when it comes to the management of workers. While they're not capable of replacing human decision making, these tools are still used to set a worker's schedule, pay, and even determine whether or not that worker should be fired or disciplined. Workers cannot realistically be expected to know how to operate within the workplace and fulfill their tasks if they can't describe who or what is managing them. These are the challenges workers across all industries are experiencing. As described by the Assemblymember, AB 1898 simply requires that employers provide notices before introducing any AI-powered tool into the workplace. It does not prohibit or limit an employer's ability to use an AI tool, and it is a necessary step to empower workers with the knowledge needed to operate in the modern workplace. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you. Good morning. Shane Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, proud to co-sponsor this bill, along with the Amalgamated Transit Union, Unite Here, the Machinists Union, Utility Workers Union of America, and the Engineers and Scientists of California, all in support. What we have seen in the last few years is the use of AI technology, AI management tools, AI surveillance increase exponentially in the workplace across California and across the world It can be very dangerous if not used in the correct way And as the previous witness spoke about the testimony of the Amazon worker that is a common story, a common thread across many industries where workers are constantly monitored, constantly pressured by the technology and not really knowing what kind of decisions are going to be made with the data that's collected on them. So that has created several phenomena in the workplace. One is that it's unsafe. Workers are working faster because they don't know if the AI is going to fire them the next day for working too slow. They are distracted. They're stressed out. It's also led to a loss of privacy and dignity in the workplace. Constant monitoring. In some instances, employers are using it to figure out if the employee is going to the bathroom and how long they're spending in the bathroom. That is, in our view, not a great use of the employer's technology. The other thing is that it's not perfect. We have seen that predictive AI looking at movements of a worker and predicting that the worker is tired or driving while distracted when these movements were innocent behaviors and led to employee discipline wrongfully. So we see this bill, as was mentioned before, as a best practice. Let's open the black box and let workers and employers talk to each other again and talk about what systems are being used to monitor and hopefully lead to a workplace that is better and more productive rather than dangerous and creating a fearful environment. And for those reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Nevneet Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in support. Good morning, Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity in support. Thank you. Good morning, Jason Hannell on behalf of Aspia California in support. Good morning, Scott Brent, Smart Transportation Division, Local 1201 in support. Good morning, Chair and members. J.P. Hannell on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Louis Costa with the Safety and Literature Labor Board of Smart Transportation Division in support.

Move the bill.

Oh, sorry.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Sorry to have my back to several of the members. Chris, Kaylee here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California and Respectful Opposition. We do appreciate the author and sponsor working with us. We do continue to have a number of significant concerns. If I can walk you through some of those and pointing to the language. The first is, three of them are in the definitions. The first is the definition of an ADS. It uses two things of particular concern, any, and used to assist or replace. assist obviously has really no threshold. So no matter how little or how much that ADS is assisting or replacing, there is no threshold there. The definition of worker in subdivision F includes both employees and independent contractors. Again, regardless of how much work they do or how brief a period. And we're obviously concerned with including an independent contractor in the definition of worker. The last definition one is workplace surveillance tool, collecting or facilitating the collection. Again, very expansive. We think it could apply to just about anything, whether it's email, data storage, tools, security readers, etc. The next item is in subdivision B, the notice, where it has to be given and to whom, the worker, likely to be directly or indirectly. Again, very expansive. And so this list requires just about anybody, regardless of the amount of work or how long the engagement is. And I know that the notion of a notice seems rather simplistic, But if you look at subdivision F, it has 11 additional subparagraphs, all those required aspects of the notice. It is far more expansive than a simple notice to workers. And I'll note last year an SB 7 by Senator McNerney that was vetoed by the governor, narrower than this bill, we believe. And he talked about that even the most innocuous tools would be covered by the notices. And he also noted that it was overly broad in its restrictions. We think the governor's veto message of SB 7 is perfectly applicable to this measure as well, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the Cal Chamber. Appreciate discussions we've had with the author and the sponsor and continue to have those. I want to turn to really the content of the notice and some of the outstanding concerns we still have with that provision in the bill. For example, the bill would still require for every single tool disclosure of the specific actual model and developer of that tool. And we have concerns, especially when it comes to things like security tools, which would fit under the definition of a workplace surveillance tool primarily, the disclosure of specific system brands or models or platforms, but significantly increased potential for target exploitation identification of those security technologies. And again, as Mr. McKaylee mentioned, that information is going out not only to all employees, but also contractors, no matter how briefly they are performing work, including the full list, which is required to be provided to every one of tools used across the entire workplace as we read the bill. And if you think about things like social engineering attacks phishing scams right the more that those folks know about exactly what systems you are using and how they work the more that they are likely to be successful in getting information like passwords or what have you There have been instances where by obtaining that kind of information that unauthorized individuals, for example, have been able to access security footage and cameras across areas like school, health care facilities and others. And even though we do not profess to love every single word of the CCPA regulations on ADMT, even those pre-use notice requirements do have exemptions in them where disclosure of certain information would undermine an employer's ability to prevent or investigate security breaches or things of that nature. Finally, we think some of our concerns are enhanced by the private right of action in the bill. For example, you would have to disclose a high-level summary of risk assessments that are required by law as part of your notice. If you look, for example, at the CCPA regulations or other proposals, those are really intended to go to regulators or to be revealed to regulators as they ask for them. My concern as former litigator is if you are being sued under the private right of action and Plans Council is trying to prove that your notice was insufficient or is missing things or the description wasn't accurate or what have you, they're going to be propounding discovery to get access to some of these documents. And you're going to end up having to try and defend the confidentiality of proprietary information in a lot of this. Just in addition to the cost of the bill as well, that's propounded by the private right of action in it. So thank you so much.

NIEM, organization, and position. Madam Chair, members of the committee, Chris Walker on behalf of the California Craft Brewers Association, as well as the California Association of Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors. In opposition, this is endless litigation. Door being open.

Good morning. Jacob Rittman with California Resellers Association in opposition.

Good morning. Eileen Ricker with California's Credit Union Leagues in opposition.

Good morning, Dorothy Johnson of the Association of California School Administrators and also the California Association of School Business Officials in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of the California Moving and Storage Association and the state's largest public sector risk pool, PRISM, in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Marlon Lauer with the California Restaurant Association. Appreciate some of the amendments. Still in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Naomi Bedrone on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and also on behalf of Cal Broadband in opposition.

Good morning, Sam Mahood on behalf of the Security Industry Association. Respectfully opposed the bill today.

Good morning, Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association. Respectfully opposed. Good morning, Robert Boykin with TechNet. Respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California and also the rural county representatives of California in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Jason Schmelzer, lobbyist for Boeing, here today on behalf of our Trade Association, the Aerospace and Defense Alliance of California, who has federal conflicts with this bill and needs an exemption. Thank you. Good morning. Eric Lur on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities in opposition. Thank you.

Privacy Committee members Tom Sheehy on behalf of the California Landscape Contractors Association in opposition to this measure Thank you Thank you Good morning Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Grocery Association in opposition Good morning. Jackie, I'm speaking of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance and the California Trucking Association. Respectfully opposed. Thank you. Good morning. Mark Faruque on behalf of the California Hospital Association. Opposed. Thank you. Good morning. Matt Easley on behalf of the Associated General Contractors, both the California and San Diego chapters. Thank you.

So we saw this bill or portions of this bill last year, and I still have some of the same concerns. Certainly, Mr. Guzman talking about constant monitoring and the stress that it can create on employees where they're concerned that they're not being productive enough and then hearing that they're fired the next day. I definitely have sympathy for all those arguments. But some of the things that the opposition brought up are concerns that I had last year. Specifically, I'm very concerned about cybersecurity and why would we need the higher level information that you give to employees? If that information gets out, it certainly makes companies more vulnerable to hacking. So maybe you can explain why do you have to disclose the serial number and the information about tools that are being used to protect not only employees, but the companies as well from cyber attacks? Sure. Thank you very much, Assemblymember.

Thank you.

All right. And then thank you. I appreciate that. And I know that the amendments came very late, so it's not really clear exactly to me if that if the opposition list is still as as long as it was before. I would argue that it isn't. However, I understand there are still concerns that they have as certainly expressed today. All right. And then my understanding is if you let's say talking about cameras again, if you why is it that you have to disclose the make and model? Because, again, if we are talking about threats of hacking, it is much more likely if if you are disclosing, you know, very specific information about cameras.

Yeah, if they're collecting data, certainly I think that that should be disclosed. But the serial number – we've seen a lot of instances of security cameras being hacked, and it seems that the more information that you're giving the bad guys, the more likely it is that those security cameras would be hacked. So I agree with part of what you're saying. I think that that would be a real concern and should be disclosed, the information being gathered for these outside companies, but we also don't want to create additional problems with security and hacking. So I look forward to seeing your work with the

so. And I'll make two points. One is, just so we all understand, the bill does not require public

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. I think the intent is really centered around workers and protecting workers in the workplace and then being aware of how they're being surveilled, as well as being able to know when that factors into a hiring decision. And I think that's key and paramount. At the same time, as I support the overall intent, I do think that the language is still, even with the amendments, broad in nature and should be refined. I think some of the concerns around security are valid, whether it's security from cybersecurity or just being aware of what's happening in a workplace that other people can take advantage of, including workers, right? And I do think that there's some federal, like as it brought up, some of the opposition, a federal factor associated with it. And so I think that should be taken into consideration. I had the opportunity in a prior career to be an internal auditor for a county, and this is definitely prior to the common use of AI. And I remember having to be charged with sensitive information as related to surveillance and things like that. They were very different that another worker wouldn't see, but I as an internal auditor inspecting that would because there were things that we didn't want to, that just in that environment, not the AI environment, that if got out in any shape or form would be highly sensitive and put the county at risk. And so that's why I think the refinement needs to be there because that was pre-AI. And I do recognize that when you walk into a building, most buildings where people work, it will say under surveillance. So we do have already existing protections in saying that you're under surveillance when you go in. But now that we have AI that could actually, in the most expansive way and very quickly digest that data and do weird things with it, we need protections. And so I'll be supporting the bill today, and I just ask that you continue refining to make sure we're balancing the needs of workers, which is paramount, with the insurance that we're not creating undue risk or harm to the organizations that are employing those workers. And I think you can strike that balance. And so I support you.

Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Mr. Hoover.

Absolutely After I give my comments if my witnesses have anything to add please feel free through the chair of course But look I believe there is a path forward And with nothing but absolute respect to Mr McKaylee the veto message on SB 7 is not entirely applicable to this bill They are different approaches and different bills I could go on and on about how SB 7 prohibited the use of certain tools in the workplace. This bill does not seek to do that. We believe that the current version of the bill, while not perfect and certainly need more work, is already more focused than some of the requirements in SB 7. Our invitation to the governor's office is that if he and his team do not feel that it's focused enough, we want to work with them. As we want to work with the opposition, we believe there's a path forward here. And I'll also note just briefly before I turn it over to them, this is what we did in the course of one week, one week of conversations between the last committee and this committee. There was a concern about the workers having the ability to effectively veto the use of the technology. That was addressed in the course of the week. We refined the definition of workplace surveillance tool, perhaps not to the satisfaction fully of the opposition, but I would refer you all to section 1600I. That we did in the course of a week. We also addressed, at least tried to address some of the concerns about the leakage of proprietary information, and we broadened it to include the categories of data collected, as opposed to specific data collection. The point I'm trying to make is that's what we had an opportunity to do in one week. What we're asking the committee to do today is to give us the chance to continue working with the opposition to do it and to bring it full circle, Assembly member. We want the governor to be involved in this too. We don't want him to wait for this to land on his desk. If he has concerns, let's work together now. I don't know if my witnesses have anything else they'd like to add. Through the chair, I completely agree with the assembly member. I'd also like to note as a sponsor of SB7 last year, there were multiple other provisions relating to how ADSs are used in the workplace. As the assembly member mentioned, this bill is just streamlined and focused on notices. We took that veto and wanted to have the streamlined approach. And as we've indicated today, we know we're more than willing to work and continue the conversation. Thank you so much. Yeah, sorry. I'll just close here then. Appreciate that. And I will

Assemblymember C. Oh, yeah, Mr. Lontal. Yeah, I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think it's critically important. It's one of the great problems of our time. I say that as a business owner. You know, worker morale is one of the critical things that we think about on a regular basis as business owners in terms of optimizing our business, increasing productivity in every single way. So thank you so much for doing this. And I align myself with my colleague actually from Sassoon I feel there areas that need to be worked on even further and I confident that you will be doing those things I wanted to ask you about two questions One is about optimizing inventory and having those tools, which really isn't about workers, but is really about inventory and what your thoughts are. And I'd love to hear both proponents and opposition thoughts about that. and worker safety and things around those fronts. Not everything is anti-worker. As it relates, there are lots of pro-worker management out there, and so we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and so I wanted to get your feelings on those topics. Absolutely. I'll just offer a brief comment that I think hearing from all the witnesses might be most beneficial, but I would agree with you, Assemblymember. You know, there are valid AI can be a helpful tool in some instances. And certainly when we're trying to advance workplace safety, inventory management, perhaps there's a place for it. That's why this bill does not seek a ban or a prohibition on the use of those technologies. It is trying to strike that balance about having an informed and educated workforce. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to our witnesses, and we'll see if anyone else has anything to add. Through the chair, regarding the inventory, that requirement is of AI tools. as required under the disclosure and of the notice. So we're just trying to capture all these tools that we are trying to get the notification of, so it's just that ongoing inventory. Anything outside of the scope of the initial disclosure would not be included in that inventory, so I wanted to bring that forward. Regarding safety, our affiliates represent the workers, and our goal is always to make sure that the workplace is safe. If there's not a safe working environment, we have failed as the Labor Federation or as a union to ensure that workers have the best environment to operate and to work. So for us, safety is paramount. That's why in our language of the disclosure, we're requiring the general locations of certain surveillance equipment or tools, and that provides a lot of discretion to employers to make sure that they're not leaking any safety issues or making it so specific to a point where you understand or a person who is a malicious actor can understand how to operate or move through a workplace to make that happen. So to that end, if I may, Madam Chair, To that end, the disclosure process isn't necessarily a pain point. It's not necessarily a pain point. The disclosure process is not necessarily a pain point. It's informative where there may be a lot of workers and management alike. Is that correct? Correct. I'd agree. Yes. Yeah, I think if I understand that question correctly on the inventory type tools, It sounds like that would be required to be disclosed to workers when those kinds of tools are being used. I think part of our concern is at what point do, you know, are tools like that versus something that more directly impacts workers' potential adverse actions against workers or things also being required to be disclosed? And at one point, do you have an over-noticing problem, right, in the volume of the number of tools that we have to give this 11-piece notice about? I think that's some discussion that we should have as far as refining some of those definitions, if I understand your question correctly. And then, yes, workplace safety for us is paramount as well. And that's been a big focus of ours, especially these last two years on some of these bills. You know, I also handle workers' compensation. And so the more conferences I go to about risk management and workers' comp, there's a lot of tools out there that are actually reducing workplace incidents and assisting with risk management. And so we want to make sure that of course employees are as we discussed generally aware of some of these tools being used but we want to make sure that nothing is deterring the use of these tools or that we are not giving so much information that they are able to be evaded in some sort of way And so again striking that balance as we move forward Thank you.

I want to thank again, thank the author and the opposition sponsors, of course, for their engagement on this bill. You know, the analysis itself notes that we aren't sure that it really does narrow as much as maybe it should to make the notices meaningful to the worker. I think part of what you're trying to achieve is that workers understand. And I think Susan did a good job of explaining this. If I'm a driver in a car and it's watching my every move, I should know that. you know, I had a conversation last year with the Chamber of Commerce about tools that when somebody walks into a work site, make sure the PPE is all on properly. It isn't as if to say, I don't believe the author thinks that's a bad tool, but the worker absolutely has a right to know that's happening. And, you know, I'm of the belief that this is actually something that we can, by the end of the legislative process, see agreement on, because in order for these notices to be meaningful, they can't be so expansive that the workers like, you know, everything in California causes cancer, right? That's sort of where we are with some of our warnings these days. And so we all ignore that. We know that. And that's not what we want for this. We want this to be the tools that are really, that are surveilling workers, that are affecting workers every day, and that they understand that, that they are engaging in a way that is understanding that they've, in some ways, can, you know, enter the job, understanding what these tools are. I know there are other bills that will address other aspects of AI surveillance, but this is really a knowledge piece. And so again, I think that we all believe that some of these tools may make sense in the workplace, but that workers have a right to know. And so I think that is where the author is trying to go. And I do believe you can get there. And again, thank you for the amendments that you've taken here today. I was personally concerned about the rights of workers to not sign, and then the tools would not be able to be used, and you address that like that. So like I said, I see your willingness to address it. And I think you will continue to do this so that at the end of this process, these are meaningful to everybody, including the worker. And with that, would you like to close? Just very briefly, I would mention first that the bill received bipartisan and unanimous support in the previous committee, and we're hoping to see something akin to that today, because it sends a message. It may not be possible, but I got to ask. Number two, I would say, look, what we're asking for, in my view, is not that controversial. I want to throw out one more point to close the conversation. In 2022, as noted in the committee analysis, the White House Office of Science and Technology released the blueprint for an AI bill of rights. This is what we should be doing. We're trying to codify best standards, best practices. And so my invitation to the opposition, should it get out of committee, is we're waiting to see those proposed amendments. We want to work with you. My ask of the committee today is give us the chance to do so. If it doesn't pass out of committee today, you're silencing the conversation. This is far too important. It should have an opportunity to move forward. And with that, through the chair, I respectfully and humbly ask for an aye vote.

Look, this committee is so good. I really appreciate your willingness to work with us on this. Madam Chair, it's quite the opposite. I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for the thoughtful work on the recent amendments to the bill. And if I could quote my staff, hello. So if I could quote my staff, they all said, man, the bill looks so much better now. Really makes sense. So thank you. AB 2076 does two things. It adds nitrous oxide to the list of products requiring age verification for online purchase under the California Parents Accountability and Child Protection Act. And it strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties for large sellers who fail to comply. Nitrous oxide, which is commonly known as laughing gas or whippets, is increasingly ending up in the hands of young people. What was once primarily a medical and culinary product can now be ordered online by a teenager with a few clicks and a prepaid gift card. It is cheap, it is easy to find, and it is being delivered straight to doorsteps with little to no barrier. And the health consequences are severe. Regular and recreational use can cause nerve damage, vitamin B12 deficiency, and in severe cases, paralysis or death. In fact, it is so dangerous that everybody knows the high one gets from a whippet, their brain cells dying right then and there. California already has a framework in place to keep dangerous products out of children's hands, but we know it isn't working. Just this past fall, the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of California San Diego School of Law investigated whether major online retailers are actually complying with the Parents' Accountability and Child Protection Act. The findings were alarming. I believe Mr. Howard is here. Researchers were able to purchase restricted products using prepaid gift cards with minimal age verification. In one test, a researcher submitted a false driver's license and a birthday to buy a BB gun. And the order went through anyway. The BB gun was then left unattended in a shared apartment courtyard. No adult signature, no ID check, just dropped and left. And that is the system that exists today. And nitrous oxide, whippets, easily searchable, cheaply purchased, and deliverable to any doorstep, fits squarely into that gap. The current penalty of $7,500 per violation is not a meaningful deterrent for large-scale sellers. and frankly, it's not an enticing number for prosecutors to pursue either. When the cost of litigation can easily exceed the potential recovery, enforcement becomes impractical. AB 2076 addresses this in a targeted and proportionate way. To protect small businesses, the enhanced penalties only apply to sellers with more than $25 million in annual gross revenues. For those large sellers, courts will have discretion to impose penalties of up to $250,000 per violation when necessary to deter future violations. The punishment should fit the scale of the violator, and AB 2076 gives courts the tools to make that happen. No parent should have to worry that their child can order nitrous oxide cartridges as easily as ordering a book. AB 2076 closes that gap and gives the parents accountability and the Child Protection Act the enforcement power it is always needed I so pleased to be joined by Kristen Heidelback speaking in her role as a parent and Matthew Gallagher the Deputy DA from El Dorado County both here to testify in support of AB 2076

I'm speaking in my capacity as a parent too, Madam Chair.

Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Kristen Heidelbach. I'm here on behalf of my children. As a parent, I unfortunately had a terrible experience of my 16-year-old using Amazon to procure hemp cigarettes that were marketed as an herbal alternative. I had no idea that she opened an Amazon account. that she was able to do this, had the product delivered. And as I got ready to testify on AB8, a bill that would have at least reined in some of the hemp discussions that we were going through, she walked into my room and apologized and said, I'm sorry that I bought this. I didn't realize what I was buying, but I noticed on the side that it has THC and CBD percentages. And she gave me the box. So kudos to Charlotte for giving it to me. But I immediately asked her how she was able to obtain this particular product. And she told me that she went to the grocery store and bought a gift card using her Apple Pay, which I use to pay her for certain chores that she gets done. And she was able to buy hemp cigarettes. Sadly, the problem is not going away. She's also shared with me she's got friends who have been able to procure tattoo guns on Amazon. So when we have this unchecked power and really we have certain protections in place, but it's just not enough because I think some of these larger businesses are doing the math on the profitability versus being able to actually hold the business accountable. So.

Good morning, Bowden Chair, members. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers in support, also in support. We got our letter in late. There's a number of police officer associations around the state, also in strong support of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Nora Angeles with Children Now in support. Thank you. Madam Chair, members, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition here today? Brief comments. Great. We love brief comments.

Look at that.

Ryan Lane with the California Retailers Association. We're opposed to less amended to the previous version, looking at the amends, and we appreciate working with the office. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Naomi Pajoran on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, we would align our comments with that of TechNet. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, Ms. Petrie-Norris. Good morning, Assemblymember. I just want to say thank you for bringing this measure forward. So important. We'd love to move the bill at the appropriate time and would love to be added as a co-author. One more team.

Madam Chair. Do you mind if Mr. Howard answers technical questions in regards to the bill? Yeah, that's fine. Thank you.

Okay. And then, and so could you explain why we're limiting consumer choice to use that mode of purchasing in comparison to a debit card or a credit card? Because all of those don't require ID when you're purchasing them online.

assembly member closely. So we're happy to take a look at that. Thank you for pointing that out.

Assembly member, this is worthy of discussion. I appreciate you bringing it forward.

There's not. Madam Chair. Nobody move. We have a quorum. If you don't mind, Mr. Lowenthal.

Can we call the attendance? Bauer-Kaham.

Brian. DeMaio. DeMaio here. Hoover.

Here. Lowenthal here. McKinner. Ortega. Here. Ortega here.

Ward. Here. Ward here.

Wilson. Here. Wilson here.

I'd love, Madam Chair, if you could comment on this, but I think this is one of the men's take an assembly member. And I think that the concern here is that when you have a gift card, since it can typically be anonymous, there's no way to verify age whatsoever. That was the concern of the committee, I believe. So we honestly narrowed the bill significantly.

wait, say- To get a credit card or a debit card, right? To receive one. But if you're not doing verification of age for that purchase, then I don't see how it

concerned that that would hurt adults. I would say, back to differ, I think that adults should have choice in what tender they use for whatever purchases. And I think that putting the liability on the seller to verify age for these products makes perfect sense, including if you use an anonymous gift card that doesn't have a name in charge, requiring that they affirm their age or affirm who they are. You can't check out as a guest, so to speak, which is allowable in most commercial places is good. But I do think preventing the use of gift cards, using this as a way to prevent the use of cards does impact adults. I'll be supporting the bill because overall, attend is good. I just think that seems glaring of why we would limit consumer choice for adults when there are other ways to get at verifying those types of purchases and making sure that they're of legal age and not doing it by form of tender. Thank you.

supporting the bill. And it happens I'm doing a bill also trying to ban certain items from online sales. But I just, I do have some concerns that are similar to what Assemblymember Wilson said, and it's a completely different part of the age range. My mother is 86, and she thinks that the only way she can buy off Amazon is with a gift card. And then I said, well, just put your credit card on there. And she says, well, I don't want Opa to see what I'm buying. And so she goes to the grocery store, buys a gift card, and uses that for her purchases. So there might need to be a little nuance on that. I don't think she's going to be buying Whippets or some of these other things, but she might, maybe she's 86, who knows? I didn't hear the list of other items, but I understand how it's a solution because with credit cards, you have to have a name attached, but there could be some complications This is tricky Yeah I appreciate your points Assembly member if might be okay with you Mr Howard would you mind reading through the list again on the Assemblymember behalf Of course.

It is weapons, BB guns, ammunition, tobacco products, e-cigarettes, and, quote, less lethal weapons, which, as defined in current law, commonly means things like buoy knives or hunting knives.

This committee always takes turns that just surprise me. But thank you, Assemblymember Irwin. And anybody else have any questions? I think to both my colleague from Sassoon and my colleague from Thousand Oaks, I would say that we will continue to have discussions on these. And if there are ways, we will be happy to explore any ways that could be tightened that we're not thinking of right now as this bill moves through. And I appreciate you both for bringing these up. Amazing. With that, we have no further questions. And we can entertain a motion in a second. So we have a motion and a second, and we will call the roll. Item number five, AB 20. Did I let him close? Did you want to close?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. I agree with my colleagues that this is a really important effort to protect kids, and I appreciate the witnesses being here to describe that. With that, we'll call the roll. Okay. AB 2076 by Assemblymember Lowenthal. The motion is due passed to the Judiciary Committee.

Macedo.

No. DeMaio, no.

Lowenthal. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner.

Ortega, aye. Patterson. Pellerin. Petrie-Norris. Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward. Wicks. Ward, aye. Wicks. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. That bill has seven notes. We'll leave it on call for absent members. Thank you. If anyone wants to entertain a motion on the consent calendar, we have a motion and a second. We'll call the roll on the consent calendar. On the consent calendar, item number two, AB 1571 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. The motion is due pass. Item number three, AB 1640 by Assemblymember Stephanie. The motion is due pass to the Judiciary Committee. So on the consent calendar, do pass to the consent calendar. Barcahan. Aye. Barcahan, aye. Macedo. Brian. DeMaio. Aye. DeMaio, aye. Hoover. Irwin. Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal. This is the consent. Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson. Pellerin. Petrie-Norris. Miss Petrie-Norris on the consent. Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward. Aye. Ward, aye. Wicks. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. And I know that we had an attempted motion by Mr. Lowenthal and Ms. Ortega on the Schultz bill. Did you want to make a motion? No. Okay. This is on AB 1898. Well, I just did that one. Sorry. Schultz's bill. Schultz, 1898. Okay. AB 1898 by Assemblymember Schultz. Motion is due passed to the Judiciary Committee Barra Cahan Aye Barra Cahan aye Mocito Brian DeMaio No DeMaio no Hoover Irwin Aye Irwin aye Lowenthal Aye Lowenthal aye McKinner Ortega Aye Ortega aye Patterson Pellerin Petrie Not voting Petrie not voting Ward Aye Ward aye Wicks Wilson Aye Wilson aye And then if that bill is six votes, it is on call for absent members. Do we have a motion on AB 1705? So moved. Motion by Mr. Ward. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Wilson. Call the roll. AB 1705, by Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan. The motion is do pass to the Judiciary Committee. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Macedo, Brian, DeMaio. AB 1705. My bill, Mr. DeMaio. Thank you. First eye of the day for Mr. DeMaio for me. DeMaio, aye. Hoover, Irwin. Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal, aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner, Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris. Aye. Petrie-Norris, aye. Ward. Aye. Ward, aye. Wicks, Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. That bill has a vote. It is out, but we'll leave it on call for absent members. And now, thank you, Mr. Ward, for your patience while we did that. We will move to AB 2564. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this bill is a reintroduction of a bill this committee passed out last year in AB 446 with significant improvements that we worked on with a number of stakeholders during that bill's lifetime. So I'm proud to be able to introduce to you AB 2564, which will continue the work that we need to do on an issue that is affecting every consumer, and that is something called surveillance pricing. Now, right now, you know, companies are using personal identifiable information, which are collected on a consumer, like your age, gender, marital status, geolocation, or online search history, or any of these attributes, to adjust the price of goods or services based off of their perceived willingness to pay. Simply put, companies are using what they know about you, who you are, where you are, where you like to shop, how much you spend, even your location, to decide how much to charge you. Now, at a time when prices for basic necessities are rising across the board, it is more critical than ever to ensure that people are not being unfairly charged higher prices due to their actual or perceived characteristics. And let's be clear, this practice hits hardest on lower-income individuals and those with limited shopping options. Now, while these practices are incredibly hard to track due to lack of transparency in pricing, we've been able to document them. Last year, an investigation by Consumer Reports revealed that grocers created detailed profiles on shoppers based on inferences from data collected through loyalty programs and purchase search histories. In January of 2025, the Federal Trade Commission released a preliminary study indicating a wide range of personal data being used to set individualized consumer prices, with the initial findings revealing details like a person's precise location or browser history can be frequently used to target consumers with different prices for the same goods or services. Unfortunately, with the change administration, it seems that the FTC and the federal government have abandoned this issue, and it's very unlikely that Congress will take any meaningful action. So that's why California, in addition to a number of other states this session, are acting to be able to prevent surveillance pricing before it becomes an industry standard, and in fact, setting the best standard for this issue. Right now, legislatures are waking up. Over 30 bills have been introduced this year alone in both red and blue states. California has always been a leader in consumer protections, and we must ensure that we're not left behind at the expense of our constituents AB 2564 will put a stop to this practice to ensure that consumers are protected from predatory and discriminatory practices designed to maximize consumer spending I understand we will talk about some concerns for retailers or business owners, whether discounts and loyalty programs are affected. We worked hard over the last year on exemption language to ensure that consumer-friendly programs are protected, and we're going to continue to commit to work to that to further refine that language. We want to ensure fairness in pricing because it's not just about economic justice. It's about preventing a new form of digital exploitation. We believe that fair pricing should not be a privilege. It should be a right. And that's why we bring this bill back before this committee here today. With me in support, I have Becca Kramer-Mauter from the Consumer Reports and Samantha Gordon with TechEquity. When the time is appropriate, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Ward. Moving to your witnesses when they're ready. Becca Kramer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Reports, proud sponsors of AB2564. AB2564 would make California a leader on affordability by prohibiting surveillance pricing or the practice of discriminating against consumers by providing different prices to each of us based on what information the company knows, guesses, or has bought about us. Surveillance pricing undermines the concept of a uniform price. Not long ago, before the rise of online shopping and mass data collection, we could shop anonymously, confident that the price tag we saw on the shelf wasn't influenced by the store's knowledge of our families, our shopping habits, our online browsing ability, ability to pay, or any other particular situation that could increase our urgency to purchase a particular product. That is no longer the case. With surveillance pricing, the price that you see may not be the price that someone else sees, and you usually have no idea. Surveillance pricing hurts consumers in several ways, including by discriminating in prices based on who we are, pushing us to pay the most that we are individually willing to pay, taking advantage of us in moments of desperation when our willingness to pay increases, and driving up prices by hampering our ability to comparison shop. Retailers only feel the need to compete to offer the best price if consumers can comparison shop with ease, identify the best price, and make a decision based on that knowledge. AB 2564 will prohibit surveillance pricing while still allowing discounts that are generally available and transparent. In doing so, AB2564 will help level the playing field and ensure everyone has access to affordable prices. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Samantha Gordon. I'm with TechEquity. I want to make just really two kind of broad points. First is, you know, I think in this bill we often get deep into the details of the policy, and I'd like us to pull out and just have perspective about what's happening in the economy, right? As a woman going into a car dealership, there's a longstanding trope, right? I will often be overcharged or pressured to pay more. I've never bought a car without a man with me, to be frank, right? So we know that that's something that can happen, whether or not it happens to every single car salesperson, probably not, right? But that's a thing that we carry in as a risk, right, with our gender to going to buy a car. Now, think about this practice being spread all over the economy, right? in a way that we cannot see, we cannot feel, we don't know what data is being used to set prices for each of us. And I think that's really the situation that Americans and Californians are responding to is to not want to be in that type of economy where whether or not it's happening is an open question. If I'm being priced differently because of my gender, if I'm shopping for something and I decided not to buy it. And then four hours later, it was more expensive when I went to buy it again. So is that just because the supply went down or is that because they knew I was shopping and debating about it? So I think that's one big piece. The second is obviously the discounts, which I know have been a core question on this bill. The bill's been redrawn to carefully exempt longstanding discounts like things for veterans, seniors, students, making sure that those discounts are accessible to everyone in that group. What it does prohibit is individualized discounting. And one piece I want to bring up in this puzzle is something that often doesn't get discussed, which is what some dead fictitious pricing, where retailers inflate the advertised price of a product and then offer a discount on top of it, constantly moving the baseline price. A study last year found 25 major retailers advertised discounts, not as special prices or in savings, but really all retailers were bumping up the reference price and then artificially discounting that so that you never actually knew the price you were paying. And the investigation found that 12 of the 25 companies, shoppers found more than half the items tracked were offered at these kind of false discounts every week or almost every week that it was checked. So I think it's important that discounts don't become a misnomer for constantly moving the baseline price. What consumers are asking for is one product, one price, and making sure we're prohibiting practices that use technology to artificially inflate all of our costs. And we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you both. Anyone else here in support of this measure? Name, organization, and position. Mariko Yoshimara. I know. Everyone wants to touch the mic, but it's horrible. Registering support for Consumer Federation of California, Oakland Privacy, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, American Federation of Musicians, Local 7, Secure Justice, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Courage Campaign, and Equal Rights Advocates. Asking for support. Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support. Nathalie Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support. Good morning, Beth Malnowski with SEO California in support. Thank you. Good morning, Scott Brent, SMART, Local 1201 in support. Thank you. Good morning, Jason Hanel on behalf of ASPE California in support. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Fed in support. Tasia Stevens on behalf of UDW, ASME Local 3930 in support. J.P. Hanel on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support. Madam Chair and members, Louis Costa on behalf of the Safety and Legislative Board, Smart Transportation Division, in support. Thank you. I just wanted to start early. No, I appreciate that, and we will wait. We are patient people. Appreciate it. Now that everyone's comfortable, when you are ready, go ahead. Good morning, Chair and Committee. My name is Ryan Elaine, Vice President of Government Relations with the California Retailers Association, speaking in opposition to 82564. I want to start by saying that we've been in communication with the author, staff, sponsors, committee, and those conversations will continue. First thing I like to say that this bill compared to AB446 from last year has a major difference as this bill only applies to retailers of tangible goods and not services and just want to highlight that a few of the examples that were of surveillance pricing in the analysis were actually considered services and therefore not covered under this bill The main issue that we have with this bill is how it applies to using personal information to raise and lower prices. While there are some exemptions for certain types of discounts, we believe that if the fundamental concern is about using personal data to raise prices for consumers, then the focus of the bill should solely address raising prices. For example, part of the conditions that would allow retailers to offer discounted prices include listing available discounts, which change frequently, and one wrong listing that could be an unintentional oversight would be in violation and result in a penalty up to $12,500 per violation. This liability adds to the compliance burden that retailers would face under this bill and ultimately risk the availability of discounts for Californians. Again, as I mentioned, unfortunately, this bill is not limited to preventing higher prices, targeting discounts, and in limited circumstances where discounts are permitted, the bill sets forth those burdensome compliance requirements. This combination of civil penalties with burdensome compliance requirements may create a scenario where the number and types of these discounts are severely limited. For example, be permitted to preemptively offer a consumer a discount on a matching pair of shoes after they purchase a dress. That consumer purchase address is personal information, and this discount does not meet the limited circumstance where discounts based on personal information are permitted. Another example would be permitted, that would be prohibited to offer consumer discounts on groceries to encourage them to continue to shop at specific grocer. that the consumer shopped at a grocery in the past is personal information. That discount does not meet the limited circumstance where discounts are based on personal information are permitted. And loyalty discounts are only permitted where the consumer has affirmatively purchased or signed up for the program, in addition to posting all available discounts online. I could provide more examples, but I could never provide a complete list, and I don't believe any list would be complete because pricing competition is at the core of the competitive nature in the retail industry. Retailers are constantly searching for ways to reach consumers with incentives that matter, which is a win-win for consumers and retailers. So the question that follows, why not just target price increases? One also thing I would like to mention is that fictitious discounts were mentioned earlier. Those are currently illegal under current law. There is established case law as well that back that up, that you can't say something is a discount if there's no reference to a price within the past three months. Thank you. I didn't want to interrupt, but making comments about my staff is one thing that will go remarked on in this committee. So since you threw shade at the analysis, I will note that the analysis specifically said the list was given by the sponsors. Moving on to the second witness. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Robert Moutry, California Chamber of Commerce. We are opposed to AB2564 as a cost driver. for the core reasons flagged on my colleague, Mr. Lane, that we see it as creating potential liability for us around the discounts that exist. I know the committee is familiar from last year's discussion too. I just want to highlight a couple of key pieces. First, to be clear, we certainly do not support personally targeted prices. I'd like to note that a number of the examples given relating to gender and others are thankfully covered by existing discrimination law. I want to just touch on two examples that have been given by the sponsors that have been flagged publicly. and actually given time I'll probably only have time to get to one, but I want to touch on one that's been repeated often and show that we do not see evidence that this is happening, but we think the misunderstanding is going to create liability for our members. Specifically this is an SFGate article from 2025 referenced around the idea that online business was charging people different prices for the same room depending on the location you booked from What actually happened here is that the author of the article did not include screenshots What appears is he looked at the California price booking in early, late 2024, actually. And because California had all in pricing laws in effect at the time, right, the price demonstrated if you book from California was the price of multiple nights with all fees. and so it looked higher, right? The states which he looked from, in addition, this was Missouri and Arizona, did not have all-in pricing laws in effect at the time. Subsequently, federal regulations came into effect, which changed this, and made federal, then all states now do that. But the point is, his research really discovered a difference in price disclosure laws, and not a difference in surveillance pricing, though it's been cited that way. I won't have time to touch on the other examples, just because I want to respect the committee's time. One other piece I want to flag that we've discussed over the last year is vagueness concerns around some of the terminology in the bill. This comes up particularly in the context of the definition of electronic surveillance technology. This was flagged in the analysis. I think we will disagree slightly, but electronic surveillance technology is, as an example, defined only by what it, quote, includes. The definition does not give you terms that you could define going forward. This would be like saying, defining the term neighbors as saying this includes the house next to me. But does it include three houses down? Does it include the next street, right? A definition that only says this includes something does not help you predict going forward what is covered, right? So that's some of the vagueness concerns we have had on the bill. I think we have differed with analysis on that point, but I want to flag that as where I think our concerns come from. There's a lot to say here, obviously, but in respect to the committee's time, thank you for the time. I'm obviously glad to continue to meet with authors and sponsors, but at this moment, we are still strongly opposed as a cost driver. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second. With that, we will take additional opposition in the room. Name, organization, and position, please. Hello, Chair and members. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Chamber of Progress in opposition. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Annalie Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in opposition. Good morning, Chair and members. Robert Boykin with TechNet, in respectful opposition. Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Grocer Association in opposition. Jackie Onus on behalf of the California Fuels Community Alliance, respectfully opposed. Chair and members, Matt Morrity on behalf of the Association of National Advertisers in opposition. Thank you. With that, seeing no additional opposition in the room, we'll bring it back to the dais. I'm going to look on this side first. Mr. Patterson. Well, hello. Well, thanks for this bill. I opposed a similar bill last year, and I think I just wanted to say I know what you're trying to get at and appreciate it. And even though I don't necessarily think all the things that were identified are an issue. I mean, I do know of retailers that have intentionally higher prices and then mark them down. That's kind of like their deal, you know, and everybody kind of knows that. So I don't know if that's really a problem in and of itself. But, you know, I do have the idea of surveillance pricing does concern me. But I don't think we're quite ready to legislate on that yet because there could be so many benefits to it And I know you not trying to stop those benefits but they get kind of lumped in just the way the statute has to be written and how it defined and you know mentioned the ambiguous terms and things like that. But I like your intent. I just, I don't think we're quite there. I'm not quite there yet. The legislature may be, but many times the legislature goes in a different direction than what Joe Patterson is ready for. But, but feel free to obviously respond to my comments if you'd like. But again, I, I don't like just the idea surveillance pricing, surveillance, I hate it. You know, it's, it's, it's terrible, but also like I kind of the examples, you're kind of like, yeah, I don't really want to regulate those, you know? And so again, feel free to respond, but I don't think I'm, my position has changed from last year, at least as of yet. So thank you. Is what makes a legislature an amazing thing. Takes a majority to do anything. I'll respond to my clothes. You respond to your clothes. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Okay. Mr. DeMaio, you can go and then we'll take my speech or Norris. Like Mr. Patterson, I also opposed the bill last year. And I understand your intent, but I think the point can also be made that various technologies can reduce the price of a product to someone, and we certainly don't want to limit that. The state of California has applied so many onerous regulations to consumers and to small businesses and large businesses and retailers that we're a toxic environment for people to buy and sell. and I think this bill, while well-intentioned, just adds so many onerous regulations that can be hurtful to consumers and businesses alike. So I think we have to go back to the drawing board. It's a good issue for us to be evaluating, but it almost smacks of price controls, and we know from economics price controls don't work. It creates more scarcity and higher costs. And now we're getting into price regulation when the market is probably the best place still, better than government. Are there flaws? You bet there are flaws. Are there benefits? Absolutely. But getting more government involved, I think, will have more negative consequences and positive impacts. So with that, I will continue to oppose, although I do appreciate the fact that you're interested in this issue and you're trying to make refinements in your bill. Thank you, Mr. DeMaio. Ms. Petrie-Norris. Okay. Good morning. So before I ask a couple questions, I want to just, I think, take a little bit of a step back. And I think just think philosophically about what it means for us in this committee to make any new requirement on a business. And for us to all recognize that any time we are placing a new mandate or requirement on a California business, that's not free. That costs businesses money. Those costs ultimately filter down to California consumers. So I think that when we're looking at proposals before the committee, it's really, really important for us to make sure that there is going to be a consumer benefit. that makes that inevitable consumer cost worthwhile. And as I shared with the author, I continue to have concerns about the proposal before us because I'm not actually sure that this is going to result in any benefit for California consumers. And in fact, I am rather persuaded by, I think, some of the arguments highlighted in the analysis. So I think, not the committee's arguments, but the arguments in opposition. So as noted in the analysis, so I think surveillance pricing sounds really, really bad and scary and, you know, a lot of people wouldn't want it. But in practice, the analysis notes, in practice, personal pricing looks like this. Personalized coupons. Your grocery store's app sends you a $2 off coupon for the cereal you buy every week or a deal on diapers because you have a baby at home. So that would be banned under this provision. Sorry, if this bill becomes law, that would no longer be allowed? We would disagree, but I'm happy to answer. Okay. Maybe in some way. Or win back offers. You have an order from your favorite restaurant in two months. They send you a 20% off coupon to come back. Cart abandonment discounts. You put a pair of shoes in your online cart, but don't check out. The retailer emails you a 10% off code to complete the purchase. Like, those don't sound like bad things. And I think, you know, I know that certainly for the sponsors, I think your starting point is that retailers are using this for nefarious purposes.

We might actually have to take a vote on this?

Do you have a chart you want to show us?

Would you like to respond?

Thank you. I just want to know if this was the first committee with dueling ad hoc charts, because it brought me such great joy that I hope it happens more often. Assemblymember Irwin. As a dated Democrat, right?

Thank you, Ms. Irwin. I think Ms. Wilson?

Thank you. Do we already have a motion and all that stuff on this? I don't remember now. Yes, we have a motion in a second. Thank you. Ms. Ortega.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega. Anybody else? Okay, I think that might be it. So I just want to say, I really appreciated this conversation because I think we as a caucus have said that affordability for Californians needs to be a top priority. And we said that before gas prices got as high as they are today. And so I do think we should be diving in deep to figure out the actual impact of this And so these conversations are really important And I think I have seen since we saw it in this committee last year because it did get far beyond this committee, that the author did work on the question of discounted pricing. And I think you will continue to, as you have mentioned here today, because everybody loves a good deal and Californians should be protected in getting that deal. But on the other hand, we also know that there are examples of people who are getting prices raised on them based on surveillance online. Honestly, the real answer here is privacy. So fundamentally, if we had better privacy online, we would be able to avoid the surveillance that is causing these manipulations. We have not, as hard as California has tried, we have not succeeded, and the surveillance continues. and now it's being used to manipulate prices in a way that does harm some Californians. And so I trust that this bill will continue to be a work in progress to ensure that at the end of the day, it is a cost savings for Californians and that that remains top of mind for all of that. And so with that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Assemblymember. With that, we will call the roll. No, we'll let it rip. Okay.

The motion is due pass to the Judiciary Committee. Barakahan.

Aye. Darcahan, aye.

No. Macedo, no. Bryan? Aye. DeMaio? No. DeMaio, no. Hoover? Irwin? Aye. Irwin, aye. Lowenthal? Aye. Lowenthal, aye. McKinner? Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Patterson? No. Pellerin? Pellerin, aye. Petrie-Norse? Not voting. Petrie-Norse, not voting. We will leave it open for people to bat on.

Now we have Madam Chair presenting her bills. We have a motion by Mr. Bryan and a second by Ms. Ortega. We're going to do that first anyway. Which bill would you like to start with? We're going to start in 1865, and I've invited him to stay at the table so he doesn't have to go back and forth. Begin whenever you're ready.

Yes, I appreciate actually the issue flagged by the author regarding time zones. That was one of the issues flagged, and this is a rare occurrence. I think maybe I can be the one to say I think you've already addressed one of those concerns on the time zones. We appreciate the amendment to specify the Pacific time. Okay. This is one of those where I've given the earliest of this hearing in the year. I'm still waiting on feedback for some members. But I absolutely appreciate the goal and I want to work with you to just make sure we can clean up any unintentional issues. So that's that. Thank you so much. That was such a pleasant opposition. Oh, I never said my – sorry, I should slate for the record.

Thank you. I forgot to slate. Is there anybody else in the room in opposition?

Thank you. I will bring it back to the dais. Mr. Patterson.

Would you like to?

With the chair's permission. Yeah.

Yeah. So you think maybe you could potentially get to a spot at neutral? That's certainly my hope. I have to, like I said, get out early it is. I just, I wish I had more information to give. I'm still waiting on feedback from members, but that's certainly our hope. All right. Thanks.

Absolutely.

Mr. Bryan?

Anybody else? Ms. Wilson.

try to make this not onerous. Frankly, Texas actually requires the marketers to register and pay a fee. So Texas has gone significantly and maintain all this data. Texas goes much further than I'm going here today, just so we're clear. And he's acknowledging that. So yeah. Yeah. So we did try to keep this pretty minimal. And in so doing, it does make it harder to make exceptions because we don't want to put that burden on businesses, which I imagine business would not want. So it does make it hard. I will say that, you know, the individualized text message or someone who's purchasing something we can look at. But that being said, I think the vast majority of people, and my guess is this is why Texas did it 9 to 9, are asleep. I know that there was a comment made in the opposition letter about the ability to put it on do not disturb. I'm probably not the only parent in the room who often turns off my do not disturb because my teenager is driving. And I don want you know maybe someone else I want someone else to be able to call me not from his phone at those times And so you know I think that we need to be careful about you know assuming everyone uses those techniques when in fact for safety reasons, we might not be using them. And so the ability to sleep and not be disturbed by these unwanted things is obviously very welcome. Do you have a comment as the chair on

Okay. So I'm open to supporting this. No one wants to get a text at an inappropriate time of the evening. But I've had this happen actually a couple times in my own case. Not a couple times, one time. It was mortifying. And that is you send out a text, but the provider throttles and there's some sort of software mishap. And so the text, do no fault of your own. Goes later. Goes out late. My concern about your bill is if they're, you know, for people who are sending out texts late at night, I think we can establish a regulation and a standard there because it's a nuisance. But for people who do not intend, and it's a no fault of their own, a software glitch, and they can show, like, look, we had scheduled it for this time, but there was a network outage and everything kind of got screwed up. Can we make some language in your bill to provide that sort of safe harbor? Absolutely. This is why the committee process is so important. So Yeah, we're happy to look at that.

So, thank you. Yeah, no, appreciate that feedback, Mr. Yeah, something you guys hadn't thought of.

Thank you. What I will say is to my colleagues that are dealing with this with mortgages, on TikTok, it is actually a trend right now to play a prank on your friends and put their phone numbers or emails in that you're interested in insurance or mortgages. So ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends doing that is obviously something we need to look into. Additionally, I agree. Nine o'clock and after, it should be family time. It should be rest time. I understand glitches happen in the software, but we can work on that. I think there's such good feedback from the committee. What's really exciting for me is I get to see this bill again as the vice chair of judiciary, and there we can discuss the PRA and some issues I have around that. But I will be supporting the bill today. And, oh, Mr. Jemaya, did you have something?

If I may, Mr.

So, I mean, I will say, and I'm trying to find the definition right now, and I'm not sure I can find it as we speak. This focus is on advertisements. So, you know, a direct cancellation, I would assume, wouldn't fall under an advertisement, but I can look at that definition. No, no, not in the state of California, not with the folks that we're dealing with, not with lawyers and private right of action. So I think some cleanup language there, because, you know, you don't want to send a text at 6 a.m., But if there's an event at 8 o'clock in the morning or 8.30 and you want to basically let people know, hey, something happened, we're not going to hold this breakfast, I think that maybe we say a 7 a.m. start. So we are, again, modeling this after Texas, and I'm trying not to deviate too much to those consistency across day lines, but happy to look at it.

You know, as I don't apologize for this as someone who wants to keep our our members and supporters informed, we have sent texts during the eight o'clock hour for Zoom meetings. And your bill would presumably impact them. And I don't think necessarily that an 8 a.m. for people who are part of your network who are opt in is too intrusive. So of course, we're looking at the beginning. I'm going to get a commitment that we'll look at that morning time slot. I said I would look at it. I'm not committed to changing the hours because, like I said, I'm trying to keep it consistent, but happy to look at it. With that, Madam Chair, would you like to close? Respectfully ask your aye vote.