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.
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. 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. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a business from developing or maintaining a browser, as defined, that does not include functionality configurable by a consumer that enables the browser to send an opt-out preference signal, as defined, to businesses with which the consumer interacts through the browser, as prescribed. The bill would require a business that develops or maintains a browser to make clear to a consumer in its public disclosures how the opt-out preference signal works and the intended effect of the opt-out preference signal. The bill would grant a business that develops or maintains a browser that includes this functionality immunity from liability for a violation of those provisions by a business that receives the opt-out preference signal. The bill would authorize the agency to adopt regulations as necessary to implement and administer those provisions. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
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.
Existing law requires an individual or a business that conducts business in California, and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, to disclose a breach of the security of the system following discovery or notification of the breach in the security of the data to a resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was compromised, as specified, and requires that disclosure to be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement, as specified, or any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. This bill would require that data breach disclosure to be made within 30 calendar days of discovery or notification of the data breach but would authorize an individual or business to delay the disclosure to accommodate the legitimate needs of law enforcement, as specified, or as necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. Existing law also requires an individual or business that is required to issue the security breach notification described above to more than 500 California residents as a result of a single breach of the security system to electronically submit a single sample copy of that security breach notification, excluding any personally identifiable information, to the Attorney General. This bill would require that submission to the Attorney General to be made within 15 calendar days of notifying affected consumers of the security breach.
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.
(1) Existing law generally regulates artificial intelligence, including by requiring, on or before January 1, 2026, and before each time thereafter, that a generative artificial intelligence system or service, or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service, released on or after January 1, 2022, is made publicly available to Californians for use, the developer of the system or service to post on the developer's internet website documentation regarding the data used by the developer to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service, as prescribed. This bill would enact the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) that would, among other things related to ensuring the safety of a foundation model, as defined, developed by a frontier developer, require a large frontier developer to write, implement, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework that applies to the large frontier developer's frontier models and describes how the large frontier developer approaches, among other things, incorporating national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices into its frontier AI framework. The TFAIA would also require a large frontier developer to transmit to the Office of Emergency Services a summary of any assessment of catastrophic risk, as defined, resulting from internal use of its frontier models, as specified. The TFAIA would require the Office of Emergency Services to establish a mechanism to be used by a frontier developer or a member of the public to report, as prescribed, a critical safety incident, as defined, and would also require the Office of Emergency Services to establish a mechanism to be used by a large frontier developer to confidentially submit summaries of any assessments of the potential for catastrophic risk resulting from internal use of its frontier models, as prescribed. The TFAIA would exempt from the California Public Records Act a report of a critical safety incident submitted to the Office of Emergency Services, a report of assessments of catastrophic risk from internet use, and a covered employee report made pursuant to the whistleblower protections described below. The TFAIA would impose a civil penalty for noncompliance with the TFAIA to be enforced by the Attorney General, as prescribed. (2) Existing law establishes the Department of Technology within the Government Operations Agency. Existing law requires the department to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. This bill would establish within the Government Operations Agency a consortium required to develop a framework for the creation of a public cloud computing cluster to be known as "CalCompute" that advances the development and deployment of artificial intelligence that is safe, ethical, equitable, and sustainable by, among other things, fostering research and innovation that benefits the public, as prescribed. The bill would require the Government Operations Agency to, on or before January 1, 2027, submit a report from the consortium to the Legislature with that framework and would dissolve the consortium upon submission of that report. The bill would make those provisions operative only upon an appropriation in a budget act, or other measure, for its purposes. (3) Existing law prohibits employers and their agents from making, adopting, or enforcing a rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to certain entities or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a law, as specified, and prohibits retaliation against an employee for, among other things, exercising these rights. This bill would, among other things related to protecting whistleblowers working with foundation models, prohibit a frontier developer from making, adopting, enforcing, or entering into a rule, regulation, policy, or contract that prevents a covered employee, as defined, from disclosing, or retaliates against a covered employee for disclosing, information to the Attorney General, a federal authority, a person with authority over the covered employee, or another covered employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the reported issue, if the covered employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses that the frontier developer's activities pose a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk or that the frontier developer has violated the TFAIA. This bill would require a large frontier developer to provide a certain internal process through which a covered employee may anonymously disclose information to the large frontier developer if the covered employee believes in good faith that the information indicates that the large frontier developer's activities present a specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk or that the large frontier developer violated the TFAIA. The bill would specify provisions particular to the enforcement of those whistleblower protections and would authorize attorney's fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation. This bill would preempt any rule, regulation, code, ordinance, or other law adopted by a city, county, city and county, municipality, or local agency on or after January 1, 2025, specifically related to the regulation of frontier developers with respect to their management of catastrophic risk. 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.
