Existing law requires the operator of a private detention facility, as defined, to comply with, and adhere to, the detention standards of care and confinement agreed upon in the facility's contract for operations, as specified. Existing law requires a private detention facility operator to comply with, and adhere to, all local and state public health orders and occupational safety and health regulations. This bill, the Protecting Vulnerable Immigrant Detainees Model Act, would require the Attorney General, on or before December 31, 2027, to submit to the Legislature a report including a proposed oversight plan for private civil detention facilities that protects the health, safety, and welfare of persons detained in those facilities, as specified. The bill would require the Governor to direct the appropriate state entity to cooperate with the Attorney General for the purposes of developing the oversight plan, as specified. The bill would make related findings and declarations. 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 requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations. This bill, beginning on July 1, 2027, would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would, when an employer primarily uses an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, authorize an employee to request, and require an employer to provide, a description of the employee's own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision to provide the affected employee with a written postuse notice, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any employee for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bill's provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation. This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bill's provisions. The bill would provide that it does not prohibit the use of an automated decision system relating to the development of aircraft for use in the national airspace or the development of products or services for national security, military, space, or defense purposes, if the use of an automated decision system is reasonably necessary to comply with the federal statute, the federal regulation, or the binding federal contract, as specified. The bill would include a statement that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.
Existing law prohibits the intentional use of an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record a confidential communication, as specified, without the consent of all parties to the communication. Existing law additionally prohibits tapping a communication wire or intercepting or recording a telephone communication, as specified, without the consent of all parties, and prohibits trespassing on property for the purpose of committing, or attempting to commit, a violation of those prohibitions. A violation of those provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, by imprisonment as either a misdemeanor or a felony, or by both the fine and imprisonment, unless otherwise exempted. If that person has previously been convicted of a violation of any of the above-described laws, except for the prohibition on trespassing, a violation of any of those provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000, by imprisonment as either a misdemeanor or a felony, or by both the fine and imprisonment. This bill would additionally prohibit a person from operating a wearable recording device, as defined, to capture sound or video of any other person in any area within a place of business, as defined, where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless the person operating the device has the explicit consent of that person to capture sound or video of that person. The bill would prohibit a person from disabling any light, sound, or other indicator on a wearable recording device that indicates that the device is capturing sound or video. The bill would exempt from these provisions the use of hearing aids, augmentative and alternative communication devices, and similar devices by persons with impaired hearing or communication disorders when used for the purpose of overcoming the impairment or disorder to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear or to support communication with the person or by persons with a disability if the device or technology is used for the purpose of enabling a person's access to, or participation in, activities of daily living or to support a person's functional needs related to the disability or condition. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,500, by imprisonment as a misdemeanor, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The bill would make the exemptions from the provisions described above applicable to violations of these prohibitions. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would, commencing on January 1, 2028, prohibit a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce a wearable recording device without a light, sound, or other indicator that is sufficiently prominent so that a reasonable person in the vicinity would be alerted to the capturing activity. The bill would prohibit a person or entity from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale in commerce any technology that is designed for the primary purpose of, primarily marketed for, or likely primarily used for enabling a person to disable any light, sound, or other indicator on a wearable recording device that indicates that the device is capturing sound or video and would prohibit a person from purchasing, trading for, otherwise acquiring, or using that technology, as specified. The bill would make a knowing violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not exceeding $2,500 per violation. 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 prohibits a person from using a bot, as defined, to mislead another person about the bot's artificial identity to incentivize the purchase or sale of goods or services, among other things. Existing law requires an operator of a companion chatbot, as defined, to provide a disclosure regarding the companion chatbot's artificial identity if a reasonable person interacting with the companion chatbot would be misled to believe that the person is interacting with a human. This bill would prohibit a large private business, as defined, from representing that a customer service chatbot is a human. The bill would also require the large private business to provide certain disclosures if a reasonable person interacting with the chatbot would be misled to believe they are interacting with a human. This bill would require a large private business to provide a customer service feature allowing customers to contact a customer service agent during its regular business hours, as defined. This bill would require, except as specified, large private businesses to make a good faith effort to connect a customer to an agent within 15 minutes after a request for human customer service is made, or schedule an appointment with the customer, as specified. For online chatbot customer service platforms and telephonic customer service platforms, the bill would require a large private business to make a good faith effort to limit initial and cumulative telephonic hold times, and would require certain large private businesses to post prescribed contact information on their internet website. The bill would authorize a public prosecutor to enforce these provisions, and would make a large private business that violates these provisions liable for a penalty of up to $5,000 for an initial violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The bill would waive its requirements due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the reasonable control of a large private business or extraordinary or emergency situations, and would exempt a large private business that provides services subject to, and is in compliance with, specified public utilities law. The bill would further exempt exclusive business lines and communications by a hospital, as specified, and a consumer reporting agency, as prescribed. The bill would define terms for these purposes.
Existing law establishes various healing arts boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs that license and regulate various healing arts licensees. Existing laws, including the Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Act, the Educational Psychologist Practice Act, the Clinical Social Worker Practice Act, and the Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor Act, make a violation of those acts a crime. Existing law regulates the use of artificial intelligence, as defined. Existing law requires a health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group practice that uses generative artificial intelligence to generate written or verbal patient communications pertaining to patient clinical information to ensure those communications include a disclaimer that indicates to the patient that a communication was generated by artificial intelligence and instructions describing how a patient may contact a human health care provider, employee, or other appropriate person. This bill would regulate the use of artificial intelligence in connection with providing or facilitating psychotherapy services, as defined. The bill, among other things, would authorize an individual, corporation, or entity that provides or facilitates psychotherapy services to use artificial intelligence tools or systems only to assist in providing administrative or supplementary support in psychotherapy services, as specified. The bill would prohibit an individual, corporation, or entity from using artificial intelligence to record or transcribe psychotherapeutic communications or sessions or to triage or screen a person for the need for psychotherapy services unless the patient or client or their authorized representative is informed that artificial intelligence will be used and the purpose of the artificial intelligence tool or system, and the patient or client or their authorized representative provides consent, as specified. The bill would prohibit an individual, corporation, or entity from advertising or otherwise purporting to offer psychotherapy services when the services are provided through the use of companion chatbots. The bill would prohibit an individual, corporation, or entity from allowing artificial intelligence to perform certain acts, including making therapeutic decisions or detecting emotions or mental states, as specified, without review and approval by a licensed professional. The bill would make a violation of the bill's provisions subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate health care professional licensing board or enforcement agency, as specified, and would authorize those boards and enforcement entities to pursue any remedies authorized by law. Existing law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, generally restricts the persons and entities to whom, and the purposes for which, a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor may release a patient's medical information. The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act additionally imposes certain disclosure requirements for the release of medical information that specifically relates to the patient's participation in outpatient treatment with a psychotherapist. In this regard, the act prohibits a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor from releasing that information to persons or entities who have requested that information and who are otherwise authorized by specified laws to receive that information, unless the requester makes certain written disclosures to the patient and to the provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor, as specified. Those disclosures include, among other things, the specific intended uses of the information, and the length of time during which the information will be kept before being destroyed or disposed of, as specified. Existing law makes a violation of those provisions that result in economic loss or personal injury to a patient punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would require the use of artificial intelligence in patient or client records for psychotherapy services to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the above-described provision of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and would prohibit a company or entity from sharing, selling, storing, or training their models on any data obtained from psychotherapy in a manner inconsistent with any applicable law. By expanding the scope of existing crimes, the 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.
Under existing law, a county elections official is required to prepare a certified statement of the results of an election and submit it to the county board of supervisors within 30 days of the election. This bill would make it a felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or 2 or 3 years, to seize or cause or assist in the seizure of ballots, election records, or certified voting technology before election results are certified by the elections official. The bill would also make it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 3, or 4 years for any person with authority to direct another person subject to their supervision or authority to seize ballots, election records, or certified voting technology before election results are certified. By creating new crimes, 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 bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person having charge of a completed vote by mail ballot to interfere with a ballot's return to the local elections official. This bill would additionally make it a misdemeanor for any person having charge of a vote by mail ballot to interfere, as defined, with a ballot's delivery to a voter. The bill would make it a felony for a person with authority to direct one or more persons subject to their supervision or authority to interfere with a ballot's return to the local elections official or delivery to a voter. By expanding the scope of an existing 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 bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits a person, other than a provider of electronic or wire communication service for specified purposes, from installing or using a pen register or a trap and trace device, as those terms are defined, without first obtaining a court order. Existing law authorizes a person who has been injured by a violation of that prohibition to bring an action against the person who committed the violation to enjoin and restrain the violation, as well as to bring an action for monetary damages, as specified. This bill would instead authorize only the Attorney General to bring that action for a violation of the above-described provision if the action is alleged to arise from conduct occurring on an internet website, online application, or mobile application. The bill would provide that this limitation applies retroactively to any pending claim in an action commenced within 2 years before the operative date of the bill. The bill would declare the severability of its provisions.
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 request that a business delete personal information about the consumer that the business has collected from the consumer. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA. Existing law, the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, establishes privacy standards for the collection, use, and disclosure of information gathered in connection with insurance transactions by insurance institutions, agents, and insurance-support organizations. The Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act imposes various monetary penalties for violations of the act and makes a person who knowingly and willfully obtains information about an individual from an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization under false pretenses guilty of a misdemeanor. On and after July 1, 2028, this bill would revise the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act to establish new standards for the processing and sharing of consumers' personal information by insurance licensees, surplus line insurers, reinsurers, and third-party service providers. The bill would authorize processing or sharing of a consumer's personal information for specified purposes, including sharing in connection with an insurance transaction. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider to provide a clear and conspicuous privacy notice presented as a stand-alone document that includes specified information to a consumer within a specified period of time, and would prohibit the sharing of a consumer's personal information unless it is reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve specified purposes related to an insurance transaction or another purpose that is fully disclosed to the consumer and to which the consumer has consented. The bill would also require a licensee to provide a privacy rights notice, as specified, to each consumer with whom the licensee has an ongoing business relationship. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider to obtain a consumer's consent to take specified actions, and would set forth the means by which consent is obtained. The bill would authorize a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to retain personal information, as specified, and would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to develop a written records retention policy and schedule. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to provide specified information to a consumer if it makes an adverse underwriting decision, and would provide a process by which a consumer may access, correct, amend, or delete any personal information about the consumer in the possession of the licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or its third-party service providers. The bill would require a contract between a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer and a third-party service provider to govern the processing and sharing of personal information performed on behalf of the licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer. The bill would prohibit retaliation against a consumer because the consumer exercised or attempted to exercise their rights under the act. The bill would prohibit public disclosure of specified systems, processes, policies, procedures, and plans that are disclosed to the Insurance Commissioner. The bill would also make technical and conforming changes. This bill would authorize a penalty of at least $5,000, not to exceed $1,000,000 in the aggregate for multiple violations of the act. The bill would increase the fine if a cease and desist order is violated to at least $15,000 for each violation, and would increase a fine to at least $50,000 for each violation if the commissioner finds the violations to be a general business practice. Under the bill, a person who knowingly and willfully obtains information about a consumer from a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider under false pretenses would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $50,000, imprisonment in a county jail for up to 6 months, or both, thus expanding the applicability of a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program. 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 791.07, 791.11, and 791.12 of the Insurance Code proposed by AB 1798 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1798 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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, 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. Among those rights, the CCPA includes the right to request that a business delete personal information that the business has collected from the consumer. This bill would expand that right to include requesting the deletion of any personal information that the business has collected about the consumer. If the business did not obtain the personal information from the consumer, the bill would allow the business to retain a record of the deletion request and the minimum data necessary to ensure the consumer's personal information remains deleted from its records and is not being used for any other purpose. The bill would make findings and declarations relating to these provisions. Existing law generally requires businesses to make certain methods of communication available for consumers to submit personal information requests, including requests for deletion and correction. If a business operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with the consumer from whom it collects personal information, existing law requires the business to provide consumers an email address for submitting personal information requests. This bill would also require that business to make an online method, such as a web form or online portal, available to consumers for submitting personal information requests. Existing law, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, an initiative measure 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 declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
