Existing unfair competition laws make various unfair competition practices unlawful, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. Existing law makes it unlawful for any person doing business in California and advertising to consumers in California to make any false or misleading advertising claim. Existing law makes a person who violates specified false advertising provisions liable for a civil penalty, as specified, and provides that a person who violates those false advertising provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law makes it unlawful for healing arts licensees, as specified, to disseminate or cause to be disseminated any form of public communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement, claim, or image in order to induce the provision of services or products in connection with their licensed professional practice or business. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor and, in the case of a licensed person, provides that a violation constitutes unprofessional conduct and grounds for suspension or revocation of a license by the relevant board. This bill would require a person who creates or causes to be created an advertisement that includes a digital replica or synthetic performer depicted as a health care provider to promote the sale of a health-related consumer product or service to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the health care provider depicted in the advertisement was generated or substantially altered by artificial intelligence or that no human health care provider is depicted. The bill would also define terms for its purposes. This bill would provide that a violation of its provisions constitutes a violation of specified unfair competition and false advertising laws. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also authorize a natural person whose digital replica is used in an advertisement to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions. The bill would specify that a violation of the bill does not constitute a misdemeanor under provisions regulating healing arts licensees. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law requires the Office of Emergency Services to, as appropriate, perform a risk analysis of potential threats posed by the use of generative artificial intelligence to California's critical infrastructure, including those that could lead to mass casualty events. Existing law requires that risk analysis to be provided to the Governor, and, if appropriate, include recommendations reflecting changes to artificial intelligence technology, its applications, and risk management, including further private actions, administrative actions, and collaboration with the Legislature to guard against potential threats and vulnerabilities. This bill would require that recommendations in the risk analysis reflecting changes to artificial intelligence technology include agentic artificial intelligence, as defined. Existing law requires the Department of Technology to annually submit to certain legislative committees a report regarding a specified required comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been, or are being, used, developed, or procured by a state agency. Existing law defines "high-risk automated decision system" to mean an automated decision system that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisions that have a legal or similarly significant effect, including decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice. This bill would further require the comprehensive inventory in the report to include agentic artificial intelligence that has been, or is being, used, developed, or procured by a state agency.
The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. Under the act, rates and premiums for automobile insurance are determined based on specified factors, including the insured's driving safety record. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 23 vote. This bill, the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, would authorize a consumer to opt to use telematics to establish their driving record, thus amending Proposition 103. The bill would prohibit the use of telematics data for a purpose other than rating private passenger automobile insurance. The bill would require a rate application under which telematics would be used to establish an insured's driving record to include specified materials related to the insurer's telematics program. This bill would prohibit an insurer that uses telematics from taking specified actions, including conditioning eligibility for a discount upon participation in a telematics program, unless the discount is approved by the commissioner. The bill would also set forth written consent and privacy requirements for the collection and use of telematics data. The bill would authorize the commissioner to impose specified penalties for violations of the bill's provisions, including civil penalties and suspension of an insurer's telematics program. This bill would require an insurance provider or third-party vendor to take specified actions with respect to the telematics data, including immediately deleting the data once a rating has been assigned to the consumer and obtaining an express written or electronic signature of a consumer on a notice meeting specified conditions. The bill would additionally prohibit an insurance provider or third-party vendor from keeping the telematics data for longer than 6 months and collecting audio or visual recordings of the occupants of the vehicle or persons outside the vehicle, among other specified prohibitions. The bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes of Proposition 103. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants to a consumer various rights with respect to personal information that is collected by a business, including the right to delete personal information. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA and establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce the CCPA. The CCPA excludes from the definition of "personal information" publicly available information. Existing law defines "publicly available" for these purposes to include 3 types of information. One type is information that a business has a reasonable basis to believe is lawfully made available to the general public by the consumer or from widely distributed media. This bill would revise that part of the definition of "publicly available" by removing the condition that the business have a reasonable basis to believe the information is lawfully made available. The CCPA also includes in that definition of "publicly available" information made available by a person to whom the consumer has disclosed the information if the consumer has not restricted the information to a specific audience. This bill would delete that part of the definition of "publicly available." This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, establishes the California Cybersecurity Integration Center within the Office of Emergency Services to serve as the central organizing hub of state government's cybersecurity activities and to coordinate information sharing with various entities. Existing law also requires the Technology Recovery Plan element of the State Administrative Manual to ensure the inclusion of cybersecurity strategy incident response standards for each state agency to secure its critical infrastructure controls and information, as prescribed. This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2026, an operator, defined as a state agency responsible for operating, managing, overseeing, or controlling access to critical infrastructure, that deploys a covered artificial intelligence (AI) system, as defined, to establish a human oversight mechanism that ensures a human monitors the system's operations in real time and reviews and approves any plan or action proposed by the covered AI system before execution, except as provided. The bill would require the Department of Technology to develop specialized training in AI safety protocols and risk management techniques to oversight personnel. The bill would require oversight personnel for an operator to conduct an annual assessment of its covered AI systems, as specified, and to submit a summary of the findings to the department. The bill would make findings and declarations related to its provisions. The bill would preclude disclosure of specified information by the office. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) , grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information, as defined, that is collected or sold by a business, as defined, including the right to direct a business that collects sensitive personal information about the consumer to limit its use, as prescribed. Existing law defines "sensitive personal information" to mean, among other things, personal information that reveals a consumer's precise geolocation. Existing law, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA. This bill would require a business that collects precise geolocation information to prominently display, when information is being collected, a notice to the consumer whose information is being collected that states certain information related to the collection of the information and its use by the business, including the goods or services requested by the consumer for which the business is collecting, processing, or disclosing the geolocation information and a description of how the business will process the geolocation information to carry out those purposes. This bill would prohibit a business that collects precise geolocation information from, among other things, retaining the information longer than necessary to provide the goods or services requested by the consumer or longer than one year after the consumer's last intentional interaction with the business, whichever is earlier. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the PUC, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the Independent System Operator, to take specified actions to facilitate the commercialization of microgrids for distribution customers of large electrical corporations, including developing microgrid service standards necessary to meet state and local permitting requirements and developing methods to reduce barriers for microgrid deployment without shifting costs between ratepayers. This bill would require a large electrical corporation, upon request, to collaborate with local governments, tribal governments, or community choice aggregators within its service area to support resiliency planning, as provided. The bill would require large electrical corporations to provide local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators with access to data, including electrical distribution equipment data, transmission and distribution circuit data, grid hardening plans, and other information as directed by the commission, to support resiliency planning by local governments and tribal governments to ensure local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators are able to plan potential microgrid projects to support critical facilities. The bill would authorize the commission to require large electrical corporations to share this information in aggregated and anonymized form to protect customer privacy and electrical grid security. Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because the violation of a PUC action implementing the bill's requirements would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
This measure would urge President Donald J. Trump and Congress to protect and maintain the historic investments made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
Existing law establishes the Department of Industrial Relations in the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to administer and enforce various laws relating to employment and working conditions. This bill would require a business, as defined, to annually provide a notice to the department of all the workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. The bill would require the notice to include, among other information, a list of the workplace surveillance tools being used that surveil employees and the categories of information being collected on employees by the workplace surveillance. The bill would also require a business to send the notice to employees and any union that represents employees of the business. The bill would make a business that violates these provisions subject to a civil penalty of $500 per violation. This bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2029, compiling the above-described notices provided by businesses. The bill would require that the report include, among other requirements, a breakdown of notices by industry type.
The Digital Financial Assets Law, on or after July 1, 2026, prohibits a person from engaging in digital financial asset business activity or holding itself out as being able to engage in digital financial asset business activity, with or on behalf of a resident unless any of specified conditions is true. The law defines "digital financial asset" to mean a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender, whether or not denominated in legal tender and defines "digital financial asset business activity" to mean, among other similar things, exchanging, transferring, or storing a digital financial asset or engaging in digital financial asset administration, whether directly or through an agreement with a digital financial asset control services vendor. This bill, the Digital Financial Asset Banking Act, would generally regulate a bank or a credit union under the examination authority of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation with respect to its provision of digital asset custody services, staking services, and digital asset transaction services, as those terms are defined, including by requiring certain disclosures to costumers and requiring certain financial safety measures. The bill would require a financial institution engaged in digital financial asset custody services to conduct an annual audit of its custodial activities and holdings that is either an independent audit or a review by the financial institution's board of directors for accuracy and signed be each board member under penalty of perjury. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize the department to enforce its provisions with administrative and civil remedies, as specified. The Corporate Securities Law of 1968 generally regulates the offering and selling in this state of a security, as defined. This bill would define "security" to not include a staking reward, as defined. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
