(1) The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, a contractor, or a corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates from intentionally sharing, selling, using for marketing, or otherwise using any medical information, as defined, for any purpose not necessary to provide health care services to a patient, except as provided. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions that results in economic loss or personal injury punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law deems a business that offers a mental health digital service or reproductive or sexual health digital service to a consumer for the purpose of allowing the individual to manage the individual's information, or for the diagnosis, treatment, or management of a medical condition of the individual, to be a provider of health care subject to the requirements of the CMIA. The bill would additionally deem a business that offers a health care chatbot, as defined, to a consumer for the above-described purposes to be a provider of health care subject to the requirements of the CMIA. Because the bill would expand the scope of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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, as defined, to ensure that those communications include both a disclaimer that indicates to the patient that a communication was generated by generative artificial intelligence, as specified, and clear instructions describing how a patient may contact a human health care provider, employee, or other appropriate person, except as specified. This bill would require a health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group practice to take reasonable steps to ensure that a licensed health care professional, acting within their scope of practice, retains the ability to exercise independent professional judgment in their care of a patient whenever that care is informed by the output of a clinical decision support system, as defined. The bill would prohibit a health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group practice from using or deploying a tool, system, or device that includes artificial intelligence to independently perform any clinical function that is required by law to be performed by a person with a professional license. The bill would make a violation of these provisions by a physician subject to the jurisdiction of the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. The bill would also authorize the appropriate professional licensing board to pursue an injunction or restraining order to enforce these provisions to the extent that a violation constitutes the practice of a health care profession without a license. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to the use of automated decision systems for documentation and communication that does not involve the application of professional judgment, including automated messages to inform patients of updates to their health records. (3) 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 public agency, which includes the state, a city, a county, a city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state, a city, a county, or a city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, from selling, sharing, or transferring automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. Existing law defines ALPR information as information or data collected through the use of an ALPR system. This bill would provide that "public agency" does not include a transportation agency, a public transit operator, department of transportation, public works department, or campus transportation agency, as specified, a public agency or contracted parking operator when engaging in specified activities in a parking facility, a state agency operating specified parking facilities, or the State Air Resources Board. The bill would require a public agency that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to maintain a record of that access, as provided. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require new, updated, renewed, extended, expansions of, or addendums of contractual agreements with ALPR vendors, manufacturers, or suppliers to mandate that no default access is provided to any national ALPR database and that an agency's collected scans are by default not accessible to any other agency, except as specified, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. This bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to use ALPR information only for purposes of locating vehicles or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense or locating an individual who has been reported as missing to a law enforcement agency. The bill, as of January 1, 2028, would require a public agency to archive all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days within 14 days, unless that ALPR information is retained in the evidence file of an active investigation or criminal proceeding or matches information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and retain ALPR information that becomes part of an investigation or criminal proceeding in the evidence file as long as the evidence file is required to be held by state law or court order. The bill would prohibit a public agency from querying any archived information except pursuant to a warrant, as specified. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, which include local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines an ALPR operator as a person that operates an ALPR system, which does not include a transportation agency. Existing law defines an ALPR end-user as a person that accesses or uses an ALPR system, which does not include, among other things, a transportation agency. This bill would additionally exclude from the definitions of "ALPR operator" and "ALPR end-user" a public transit operator, department of transportation, public works department, campus transportation agency, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. The bill would also exclude from the definition of "ALPR operator" the Department of General Services and its operators when engaging in specified activities in a parking facility and would exclude from the definition of "ALPR end-user" a state agency operating specified parking facilities and the State Air Resources Board. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would require those security procedures and practices to include safeguards for managing which employees can see the data from their systems, as specified, and requiring data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to implement a usage and privacy policy that includes, among other things, a description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. This bill would require the usage and privacy policy to identify what purpose employees and independent contractors access and use ALPR information for. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to, beginning October 1, 2029, and contingent upon an appropriation of sufficient funds, conduct annual random audits on a public agency that is an ALPR operator or ALPR end-user to determine whether they have implemented and are adhering to that usage and privacy policy. Existing law requires an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy and to maintain a record of that access that includes, among other things, the purpose for accessing the information. This bill would instead require that record of access maintained by the ALPR operator to include a brief, accurate, specific, and plain language statement describing the purpose for accessing ALPR information. The bill would include findings 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. 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, 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.
Existing law generally regulates the business of renting passenger vehicles to the public. The law prohibits a rental company from taking various actions, including requiring the purchase of a damage waiver, optional insurance, or another optional good or service, and using electronic surveillance technology to track a renter in order to impose fines or surcharges relating to the renter's use of a rental vehicle. This bill would require any privately owned vehicle rented by, or furnished to, any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency for the use of detaining, arresting, or transporting persons who have violated, or are suspected of having violated, any law, to display a temporary decal displaying the agency name and logo, as specified. The bill would authorize certain attorneys, including the Attorney General, to pursue a civil action against the entity renting the vehicle from the private owner for failure to comply with these provisions. The bill would require the rental car contract to include a term that compliance with state law is mandatory. The bill would exempt privately owned vehicles rented or otherwise furnished or loaned to a law enforcement agency for specified purposes and rental car contracts entered into prior to January 1, 2027, from these provisions. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to appoint a chief internal auditor who holds office at the pleasure of the commission. Existing law makes the chief internal auditor responsible for the oversight of the internal audit unit. Existing law requires the chief internal auditor to plan, initiate, and perform audits of key financial, management, operational, and information technology functions within the commission to improve accountability and transparency to executive and state management, and to report their findings and recommendations directly to an audit subcommittee of the commission. This bill would instead require the Governor to appoint an Inspector General, subject to Senate confirmation, to be responsible for the oversight of the internal audit unit and would instead require the Inspector General to plan, initiate, and perform audits of key financial, management, operational, and information technology functions within the commission to improve accountability and transparency to executive and state management. The bill would also require the Inspector General to ensure, among other things, that the commission administers funds and programs in a prescribed manner, fulfills mandated requirements, develops an annual audit plan, administers an effective enterprise risk management program, and monitors reporting compliance. The bill would provide for the appointment and removal of the Inspector General, as specified. The bill would authorize the Inspector General to access and examine all records, files, documents, accounts, reports, correspondence, or other property of the commission and public utilities, and would require other entities that are regulated by the commission and participate in programs administered by the commission, upon request of the Inspector General, to provide or make available to the Inspector General for examination all relevant records, files, documents, accounts, reports, correspondence, or other property pertaining to participation in those programs, as specified. The bill would require the Inspector General to report specified information to the Governor and the Legislature, as provided.
Existing law, 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, as defined, including the right to direct a business that sells or shares personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell or share the consumer's personal information, as specified. 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 and establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce those provisions. Existing law requires a retail grocery store or grocery department within a general retail merchandise store that uses a point-of-sale system to have a clearly readable price indicated on 85% of the total number of packaged consumer commodities offered for sale, subject to specified exemptions. This bill would, subject to certain exceptions, prohibit a retailer from engaging in surveillance pricing. The bill would define "surveillance pricing" to mean offering or setting a customized price for a good for a specific consumer or group of consumers, based, in whole or in part, on personally identifiable information, as specified, and determined in whole or in part through the use of any technology, software, program, machine-based system, or computational process that uses statistical modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence, or other data processing techniques. The bill would also define "surveillance pricing" to mean random variations in prices to different consumers using a website, mobile application, or comparable online technology. The bill would provide that its provisions do not limit or impair any consumer right or remedy available under any other state or federal law. The bill would declare that any waiver of these provisions is against public policy and is void and unenforceable. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing law authorizes designated health care services providers, employees, volunteers, and patients, and individuals who face threats of violence or violence or harassment from the public because of their affiliation with a designated health care services facility, to complete an application to be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of enabling state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing a program participant's residence address contained in any public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of identity for that person, subject to specified conditions. Existing law defines "designated health care services" to mean gender-affirming health care services or reproductive health care services. Under existing law, any person who makes a false statement in an application is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law prohibits a person, business, or association from knowingly publicly posting or publicly displaying, disclosing, or distributing on internet websites or on social media, the personal information or image of any designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address, with the intent to incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, as specified, or to threaten the person identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, as specified. Existing law additionally prohibits a person, business, or association from soliciting, selling, or trading on the internet or social media the personal information or image of a designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant with the intent described above. Existing law establishes a cause of action for injunctive or declarative relief for a violation of these prohibitions. Existing law prohibits a person from posting on the internet or social media, with the intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence against a designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address, the personal information or image of a reproductive health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address. This bill would, commencing October 1, 2027, similarly establish an address confidentiality program for a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, as defined, who faces threats of violence or harassment from the public because of their affiliation with a designated immigration support services facility. This bill would additionally prohibit a person, business, or association from soliciting, selling, or trading on the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer with the intent described above. The bill would also, among other things, prohibit a person from posting on the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, or other individuals residing at the same home address, with the specific intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence that is likely to occur against such an individual. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. By imposing new duties on local agencies and creating new crimes, this bill would create 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. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, no later than July 1, 2026, develop and adopt, and update every 5 years, a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency. Under existing law, a pupil shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil's individualized education program. This bill, commencing July 1, 2028, would require the above-described policy to continue to apply only to pupils in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive. The bill would require the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school that serves pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, or grades 1 to 8, inclusive, to, no later than July 1, 2028, develop and adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones by those pupils while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency, as provided. The bill, commencing July 1, 2028, would prohibit instruction provided to pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, from requiring the use of a smartphone by a pupil. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require (1) a pupil in any grade to also be allowed to possess or use a smartphone when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil's plan developed pursuant to the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and (2) a policy adopted or updated pursuant to these provisions be included in a pupil handbook, if one is provided. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the State Department of Education, on or before January 1, 2029, to submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and post on their internet website, a report that contains (1) a description of the pupil smartphone policies of at least 30 selected local educational agencies that have provided consent to participate and that are representative of the demographic and geographic diversity of the state, including a copy of each policy, as provided, (2) the results of a survey of those local educational agencies, which the bill would require the department to conduct, and (3) recommended best practices for future local educational agency pupil smartphone use policies. The bill would authorize the department to collaborate with specified organizations with relevant expertise in preparing the report. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2033. 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.
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.
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.
