Existing law grants to a depicted individual a cause of action against a person who creates and intentionally discloses sexually explicit material if the person knows, or reasonably should have known, that the depicted individual in that material did not consent to its creation or disclosure or who intentionally discloses sexually explicit material that the person did not create if the person knows the depicted individual in that material did not consent to the creation of the sexually explicit material. Existing law defines "sexually explicit material" for purposes of that provision to mean any portion of an audiovisual work that shows the depicted individual performing in the nude or appearing to engage in, or being subjected to, sexual conduct and defines "depicted individual" to mean an individual who appears, as a result of digitization, to be giving a performance the individual did not actually perform or to be performing in an altered depiction. Existing law authorizes a plaintiff to recover, among other relief, statutory damages of not less than $1,500 but not more than $30,000, or $150,000 for a malicious violation, as prescribed. This bill would revise and recast the provision described above to additionally grant to a depicted individual a cause of action against a person who knows, or reasonably should know, that the depicted individual was a minor when the digitized sexually explicit material was created and would additionally grant a cause of action to that depicted individual against a person who knowingly facilitates or recklessly aids or abets conduct prohibited by that provision. The bill would define "digitized sexually explicit material" to mean any portion of a visual or audiovisual work created or substantially altered through digitization, including an image, that shows the depicted individual in the nude or appearing to engage in, or being subjected to, sexual conduct. This bill would make a person that provides a service that enables the ongoing operation of a deepfake pornography service presumed to be engaged in knowing facilitation or reckless aiding or abetting, as described above, if a depicted individual or public prosecutor provides the person with evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the person is providing services that enable the ongoing operation of a deepfake pornography service that engages in conduct described in the provisions described above, and the person fails to take all necessary steps to stop providing services that enable the ongoing operation of a deepfake pornography service within 30 days of receiving that evidence, as specified. This bill would increase the maximum statutory damages available to a depicted individual to $50,000 if the violation was not malicious and $250,000 for a malicious violation and would authorize certain public attorneys to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions, as specified.
The California AI Transparency Act requires a person that creates, codes, or otherwise produces a generative artificial intelligence system that has over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users and is publicly accessible within the geographic boundaries of the state to make available an AI detection tool at no cost to the user that, among other things, allows a user to assess whether image, video, or audio content, or content that is a combination thereof, was created or altered by that person's generative artificial intelligence system and outputs any system provenance data that is detected in the content. Existing law makes the California AI Transparency Act operative on January 1, 2026. This bill would delay the operation of the California AI Transparency Act until August 2, 2026. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, additionally require a large online platform, as defined, to, among other things related to the provenance of content on the platform, detect whether any provenance data that is compliant with widely adopted specifications adopted by an established standards-setting body is embedded into or attached to content distributed on the large online platform. The bill would also require, beginning January 1, 2028, a capture device manufacturer, with respect to any capture device the capture device manufacturer first produced for sale in the state on or after January 1, 2028, to, among other things, provide a user with the option to include a latent disclosure in content captured by the capture device that conveys certain information, including the name of the capture device manufacturer. The bill would define "capture device" to mean a device that can record photographs, audio, or video content, including, but not limited to, video and still photography cameras, mobile phones with built-in cameras or microphones, and voice recorders. Existing law requires a covered provider to include a latent disclosure in AI-generated image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created by the covered provider's GenAI system that, among other things, conveys certain information and is permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove, to the extent it is technically feasible. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a GenAI system hosting platform, as defined, from knowingly making available a GenAI system that does not place disclosures, pursuant to those provisions. This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.
Existing law makes any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without that person's prior consent liable for damages, as specified. This bill would provide that a party seeking relief pursuant to those provisions may also seek an injunction or temporary restraining order according to specified procedures. The bill would require the respondent to comply with the order within 2 business days from the day the order is served, unless otherwise required by the order, if the court grants the applicant a temporary restraining order without notice to the opposing party that requires the respondent to remove, recall, or otherwise cease the publication or distribution of the petitioner's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness. The bill would make other nonsubstantive changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3344 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 11 to be operative only if this bill and SB 11 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information that is collected or sold by a business, including the right to request that a business disclose specified information that has been collected about the consumer, to request that a business delete personal information about the consumer that the business has collected from the consumer, and to direct a business not to sell or share the consumer's personal information, as specified. The CCPA defines various terms for these purposes. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) , 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 (agency) and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce the CCPA. Existing law requires a data broker to register with the agency, and defines "data broker" to mean a business that knowingly collects and sells to third parties the personal information of a consumer with whom the business does not have a direct relationship, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law requires a data broker, in registering with the agency, to pay a registration fee in an amount determined by the agency and provide specified information, including, among other things, the name of the data broker and its primary physical, email, and internet website addresses, and whether the data broker collects the personal information of minors, consumers' precise geolocation, or consumers' reproductive health care data. This bill would require a data broker to provide additional information to the agency, including whether the data broker collects consumers' names, dates of birth, ZIP Codes, email addresses, phone numbers, login or account information, various government identification numbers, mobile advertising, connected television, or vehicle identification numbers, citizenship data, union membership status, sexual orientation status, gender identity and gender expression data, biometric data, and up to 3, but no fewer than one, of the most common types of personal information that the data broker collects, as provided. The bill would also require a data broker to provide information regarding whether, in the past year, the data broker shared or sold consumers' data to a foreign actor, as defined, the federal government, other state governments, law enforcement, as provided, or a developer of a GenAI system, as defined. The bill would make changes to the administrative fines and costs that apply to data brokers who fail to register. Existing law requires, beginning January 1, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency to establish an accessible deletion mechanism that, among other things, allows a consumer, through a single verifiable consumer request, to request that every data broker that maintains any personal information delete any personal information related to that consumer held by the data broker or associated service provider or contractor. Existing law requires, beginning August 1, 2026, a data broker to access the accessible deletion mechanism at least once every 45 days and, among other things, process a denied request to delete personal information as an opt-out of the sale or sharing of the consumer's personal information under the CCPA, as specified. This bill would require a data broker to process the above-described denied request within 45 days of receiving the request. Existing law requires the agency to create a page on its internet website where registration information provided by data brokers and the accessible deletion mechanism is accessible to the public. This bill would prohibit the agency from making accessible to the public on its internet website information regarding whether the data broker collects consumers' names, dates of birth, zip codes, email addresses, phone numbers, mobile advertising, connected television, or vehicle identification numbers, and the most common types of personal information that it collects. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes and intent of the CPRA for specified reasons.
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Under existing law, in-person, face-to-face contact is not required under the Medi-Cal program when covered health care services are provided by video synchronous interaction, asynchronous store and forward, audio-only synchronous interaction, remote patient monitoring, or other permissible virtual communication modalities, when those services and settings meet certain criteria. Existing law required the department, on or before January 1, 2023, to develop a research and evaluation plan that, among other things, proposes strategies to analyze the relationship between telehealth and access to care, quality of care, and Medi-Cal program costs, utilization, and program integrity. The department created that plan in December of 2022 and published the Biennial Telehealth Utilization Report in April of 2024. This bill, the Telehealth for All Act of 2025, would require the department, commencing in 2028 and every 2 years thereafter, to use Medi-Cal data and other data sources available to the department to produce analyses in a publicly available Medi-Cal telehealth utilization report. The bill would authorize the department to include those analyses in each of the department's Biennial Telehealth Utilization Reports, as specified. The bill would require the analyses to address telehealth access and utilization data, including various metrics on telehealth visits and claims, disaggregated by geographic, demographic, and social determinants of health categories to identify disparities. The bill would require the department to identify additional data elements for inclusion in future reports to help to identify and address access-to-care issues or provide greater insight into utilization of telehealth modalities.
Existing law generally governs the transactions between a rental car company, also referred to as a rental company, and its customers, as provided. Existing law prohibits a rental company from using, accessing, or obtaining any information relating to the renter's use of the rental vehicle that was obtained using electronic surveillance technology, as defined, except under specified circumstances. Existing law permits a rental company and a renter to limit the responsibilities of a renter in specified events, including loss due to theft of the rented vehicle up to its fair market value, as provided. Existing law establishes, in the situation described in the previous sentence, a presumption that the renter has no liability for loss due to theft if specified conditions are met, including that an authorized driver has possession of the ignition key or establishes that the ignition key was not in the vehicle at the time of the theft, as provided. This bill would allow a rental company to use geofence technology, as specified, to detect rental vehicle movement in prescribed circumstances. The bill, with respect to the above-described provisions relating to the renter's liability for loss due to theft, would revise the presumption that the renter has no liability for loss due to theft to instead apply this presumption if an authorized driver returns the ignition key.
Under existing law, the residence address, telephone number, and email address of a registered voter is confidential, except that under certain circumstances a county elections official must provide that information to any candidate for federal, state, or local office, to any committee for or against any initiative or referendum measure, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purposes. This bill would exempt the residence address, telephone number, and email address of a federal, state, or local elected official or candidate from that disclosure requirement, except that the information may be disclosed for journalistic or governmental purposes under specified conditions. The bill would require the Secretary of State to provide each county elections official with a list identifying each federal and state elected official or candidate residing in the county, require the county elections official to add each local elected official or candidate to that list, and require the county elections official to make the elected official or candidate's information confidential within 5 business days. The bill would require the county elections official to exclude the elected official or candidate's confidential information when producing any list, roster, or index. The bill would require an elected official or candidate to contact their county elections official to ensure their voter registration record has been made confidential. The bill would authorize an elected official or candidate to opt out of making their residence address, telephone number, and email address confidential. By adding new duties for county elections officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 2194 of the Elections Code proposed by AB 827 to be operative only if this bill and AB 827 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the Office of Emergency Services to establish and lead the California Cybersecurity Integration Center. Existing law states that the center's mission is to reduce the likelihood and severity of cyber incidents that could damage California's economy, its critical infrastructure, or public and private sector computer networks in the state. Existing law requires the center to serve as the central organizing hub of state government's cybersecurity activities and coordinate information sharing with specified entities, including local, state, and federal agencies. This bill would require the California Cybersecurity Integration Center to develop, on or before January 1, 2027, in consultation with the Office of Information Security and the Government Operations Agency, a California AI Cybersecurity Collaboration Playbook, as specified, to facilitate information sharing across the cyber and artificial intelligence communities and to strengthen collective cyber defenses against emerging threats. The bill would require the center to review federal requirements, standards, and industry best practices, as specified, and to use those resources to inform the development of the California AI Cybersecurity Collaboration Playbook. Except as specified, the bill would provide that any information related to cyber threat indicators or defensive measures for a cybersecurity purpose shared in accordance with the California AI Cybersecurity Collaboration Playbook is confidential and would prohibit that information from being disclosed, except as specified. The bill would also make findings and declarations related to its provisions. 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 Financial Protection Law requires the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to prepare and publish on the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation's internet website an annual report detailing actions taken during the prior year under the law and requires the report to include information on actions taken with respect to, among other things, the activities of the Financial Technology Innovation Office. This bill would additionally require the report to include information on actions taken with respect to the Office of the Ombuds.
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in this state online with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for the purposes of knowingly deceiving the person about the content of the communication in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or to influence a vote in an election, unless the person using the bot discloses that it is a bot. Existing law defines a "bot" as an automated online account where all or substantially all of the actions or posts of that account are not the result of a person. This bill would require a person who uses a bot to autonomously communicate with another to ensure that the bot discloses to any person with whom the bot communicates when the bot first communicates with the person that the bot is a bot and not a human being, answers truthfully any query from a person regarding its identity as a bot or a human, and refrains from attempting to mislead a person regarding its identity as a bot. The bill would redefine "bot" to mean an automated online account or application that a reasonable person could believe is a human being and with respect to which substantially all of the actions or posts of that account or application are the outputs of generative artificial intelligence, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions a person who uses a bot that is required to comply with a more prescriptive disclosure scheme. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to bring a civil action to punish noncompliance, as prescribed.
