Existing law makes it a crime to knowingly or willfully cause another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms or knowingly or willfully aiding, abetting, prompting, or facilitating the unlawful manufacture of firearms, including the manufacture of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles or the manufacture of any firearm using a 3-dimensional printer, as specified. Existing law authorizes a civil action against a person who knowingly distributes or causes to be distributed any digital firearm manufacturing code to any person, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney to bring an action against this person and seek a civil penalty, as specified, for each violation, as well as injunctive relief. This bill would require the Department of Justice to check on a quarterly basis beginning no later than July 1, 2027, whether ASTM International has published industry standards for equipping 3-dimensional printers with firearm blocking technology. The bill would require, if the department determines that ASTM International has published or adopted industry standards for firearm blocking technology for 3-dimensional printers, that the department publish written guidance or regulations within 24 months after making that determination. The bill would require, among other things, the written guidance or regulations to describe minimum performance standards for 3-dimensional printer firearm blocking technology before a printer can lawfully be sold or offered for sale in the state. If, as of July 1, 2029, the department determines that ASTM International has not published industry standards for firearm blocking technology for 3-dimensional printers, the bill would relieve the department of any further responsibility to ascertain whether ASTM International has published or adopted industry standards. The bill would make it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or transfer for consideration, a 3-dimensional printer in the State of California that is not equipped with firearm blocking technology that also meets the above-described industry standards. The bill would exempt printers used exclusively for the manufacturing of properties (props) in the entertainment industry, and would authorize the department to adopt regulations that provide for additional exceptions to these provisions. This bill would also exempt a person who distributes, or causes the distribution of, digital firearm manufacturing code, solely for the bona fide purpose of, among other things, developing, refining, and testing the functionality of a firearm blocking technology from civil liability. This bill would make these provisions severable.
Existing law establishes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations. Existing law authorizes the division, which is headed by the Labor Commissioner, to enforce the Labor Code and all labor laws of the state, the enforcement of which is not specifically vested in any other officer, board, or commission. This bill would, with certain exceptions, prohibit an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool that uses artificial intelligence to, among other things, collect neural data or recognize an individual's emotional state. The bill would define an employer to include a governmental entity, including, among other entities, charter cities and the University of California. This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner or a public prosecutor to enforce the bill's provisions. The bill would subject an employer who violates the bill's provisions to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation. The bill would define various terms for purposes of its provisions. This bill would exempt from its provisions an employer's use of a workplace surveillance tool in specified operations where the use of a workplace surveillance tool is reasonable necessary to comply with a federal statute, federal regulation, or binding federal contract 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Existing federal law, through copyright, provides authors of original works of authorship, as defined, with certain rights and protections. Existing federal law generally gives the owner of the copyright the right to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords and the right to distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public. Existing federal law provides that sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not subject to copyright but are subject to similar rights and protections under the Classics Protection and Access Act. Existing law requires, before each time that a generative artificial intelligence system or service, as defined, or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service, released on or after January 1, 2022, is made available to Californians for use, regardless of whether the terms of that use include compensation, a developer of the system or service to post on the developer's internet website documentation, as specified, regarding the data used to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service. This bill would require a developer of a generative artificial intelligence model to make available on its internet website a mechanism allowing a rights owner to request information about the developer's use of the rights owner's covered materials that would allow the rights owner to provide the developer with, among other things, registration, preregistration, or index numbers for one or more covered materials. The bill would require a developer to document and retain any requests received from rights owners for a specified time period. The bill would, subject to specified exceptions, require a developer to, within 30 days of receiving that request from the rights owner, assess whether the developer used the rights owner's covered materials to develop the model and provide the rights owner with a list of covered materials, as specified. The bill would provide that each day following the 30-day period that a developer fails to provide a rights owner with that information constitutes a discrete violation. The bill would authorize a rights owner who complies with specified requirements for submitting a request that is not provided with information according to these provisions to bring, subject to a certain notice and cure opportunity, a civil action against the developer for specified relief. The bill would provide that its requirements do not apply to a model that meets certain criteria, including, among other things, being trained exclusively using data the developer makes publicly available at no cost to users. The bill would provide that it does not impose liability on a telecommunications service, information service, or cable service provider, as specified. The bill would define various terms for these purposes.
(1) Existing law, the Digital Financial Assets Law, prohibits a person, on or after July 1, 2026, 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 certain criteria are met, including that the person is licensed with the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, as prescribed, or the person submits an application on or before July 1, 2026, and is awaiting approval or denial of that application. This bill would revise the above-described latter criterion to specify that the person submits a completed application, as provided. The Digital Financial Assets Law authorizes the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to issue a conditional license to an applicant who holds or maintains a license to conduct virtual currency business activity in the State of New York, as specified, provided the license was issued or approved no later than January 1, 2023. This bill would revise the above-described authorization to require that the license be issued or approved no later than January 1, 2025. (2) The Digital Financial Assets Law defines "digital financial asset business activity" to mean any of specified activities, including, among others, exchanging, transferring, or storing a digital financial asset, as specified, or exchanging one or more digital representations of value used within one or more online games, game platforms, or family of games, as provided. This bill would remove exchanging one or more digital representations of value used within one or more online games, game platforms, or family of games from the definition of "digital financial business activity." The bill would specify that a "digital financial asset" does not include, among other things, a transaction in which a merchant grants digital representations of value that primarily relate to an affinity or rewards program, as provided, or a digital representation of value issued by or on behalf of a publisher and used primarily within online games or game platforms and that is not otherwise a digital financial asset. The Digital Financial Assets Law declares that its provisions do not apply to specified activity, including by a person who does not receive compensation for providing digital financial asset products or services or for conducting financial asset business activity or that is engaged in testing products or services with the person's own funds. This bill would specify that the above-described exclusion includes a person who merely retains the ability to terminate, suspend, or interrupt a digital financial transaction solely to prevent unauthorized or fraudulent activity and who is not compensated for that service. The Digital Financial Assets Law prohibits a covered person from exchanging, transferring, or storing a digital financial asset that is a stablecoin or engaging in digital financial asset administration of a stablecoin, as specified, unless certain conditions are met. However, existing law authorizes a covered person to exchange, transfer, or store a stablecoin or engage in digital financial asset administration of that stablecoin, as specified, if the stablecoin is approved by the commissioner and complies with certain requirements, restrictions, or prohibitions established by the commissioner. This bill would repeal the above-described provisions related to stablecoins. (3) The Digital Financial Assets Law requires a licensee to submit an annual report, as provided, containing specified information, including a description of any data security breach or cybersecurity event of the licensee. Existing law requires a licensee to file with the department, as applicable, a report of, among other things, a change in the licensee's business for the conduct of its digital financial asset business activity with, or on behalf of, a resident that meets one of specified criteria, including that the proposed change might raise safety and soundness or operational concerns. This bill would revise the above-described annual report to instead include a description of any material data security breach or cybersecurity event of the licensee. The bill would revise the specified criteria in the requirement to file the above-described report of a change in the licensee's business to instead include that the proposed change might raise material safety and soundness or operational concerns. Before engaging in digital financial asset business activity with a resident, the Digital Financial Assets Law requires a covered person, defined as a person required to obtain a license pursuant to that law, to disclose, as provided, certain information, including the resident's right to at least 14 days' prior notice of specified changes that have a material impact on digital financial asset business activity with the resident, or the policies applicable to the resident's account. Existing law requires a covered exchange, as provided, to certify on a form provided by the department that the covered exchange has taken specified actions, except for any digital financial asset approved for listing on or before January 1, 2023. In a transaction for or with a resident, existing law prohibits the covered exchange from interjecting a third party between the covered exchange and the best market for the digital financial asset in a manner inconsistent with specified requirements. This bill would prohibit the 14-day notice requirement from applying to changes in terms, conditions, or policies that are reasonably necessary to address a risk of loss to the resident or covered person, to the extent that the change does not relate to the fee schedule. The bill would instead exclude from the above-described certification requirement a digital financial asset approved for listing on or before January 1, 2025. The bill would require a covered person to provide and make available an up-to-date description of the order execution practices of the covered person, as specified. The bill would exempt a transaction in which a resident receives stablecoin, as defined, in exchange for legal tender or bank or credit union credit from the above-described prohibition against interjecting a third party. The Digital Financial Assets Law requires an applicant, as provided, to create, and during licensure, maintain in a record specified policies and procedures. Existing law requires these policies and procedures be disclosed separately from other disclosures made available to a resident, as specified, except for, among other things, an adopted information security program or an operational security program. This bill would instead exclude from the above-described requirement to disclose separately from other disclosures programs with information that is sensitive to potential security risks, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
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, or a local department of transportation or public works department, as specified. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2026, require new, updated, 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, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. The 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. The bill would prohibit a public agency from retaining ALPR information for more than 60 days after the date of collection if it does not match information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and as of January 1, 2026, would require a public agency to delete all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days and does not match information on an authorized hot list within 14 days. 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 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, a local department of transportation or public works department, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. 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, 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 the case file number or task force name, as applicable, that justifies the search query, and would provide that no queries shall be allowed without a log entry with a valid and current case file number or task force name from the agency conducting the query. 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 provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all public schools, teaching kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, operated by a school district, in cooperation with specified entities and individuals, develop a comprehensive school safety plan, as provided. Existing law provides that school districts and county offices of education are responsible for the overall development of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of its schools, as provided. Existing law requires a comprehensive school safety plan to, among other things, identify appropriate strategies and programs that will provide or maintain a high level of school safety and address the school's procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, by July 1, 2026, develop and adopt 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 school district, county office of education, or charter school. Existing law, however, specifies circumstances in which a pupil may not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone, including, among others, in the case of an emergency or in response to a perceived threat of danger. This bill would instead authorize the prohibition on the use of a smartphone by a pupil in the case of an emergency or in response to a perceived threat of danger if that circumstance is explicitly addressed in a comprehensive school safety plan.
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 grocery establishment, as defined, from engaging in surveillance pricing. The bill would define "surveillance pricing" to mean offering or setting a customized price increase for a good or service for a specific consumer or group of consumers, based, in whole or in part, on personally identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance technology, as specified. The bill would provide that only a public prosecutor, as specified, may bring an action against a violator of these provisions to recover specified civil penalties, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and would authorize a consumer to bring an action for injunctive relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 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.
