Existing law prohibits a person from using a bot, as defined, to mislead another person about the bot's artificial identity to incentivize the purchase or sale of goods or services, among other things. Existing law requires an operator of a companion chatbot, as defined, to provide a disclosure regarding the companion chatbot's artificial identity if a reasonable person interacting with the companion chatbot would be misled to believe that the person is interacting with a human. This bill would prohibit a large private business, as defined, from representing that a customer service chatbot is a human. The bill would also require the large private business to provide certain disclosures if a reasonable person interacting with the chatbot would be misled to believe they are interacting with a human. This bill would require a large private business to provide a customer service feature allowing customers to contact a customer service agent during its regular business hours, as defined. This bill would require, except as specified, large private businesses to make a good faith effort to connect a customer to an agent within 15 minutes after a request for human customer service is made, or schedule an appointment with the customer, as specified. For online chatbot customer service platforms and telephonic customer service platforms, the bill would require a large private business to make a good faith effort to limit initial and cumulative telephonic hold times, and would require certain large private businesses to post prescribed contact information on their internet website. The bill would authorize a public prosecutor to enforce these provisions, and would make a large private business that violates these provisions liable for a penalty of up to $5,000 for an initial violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The bill would waive its requirements due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the reasonable control of a large private business or extraordinary or emergency situations, and would exempt a large private business that provides services subject to, and is in compliance with, specified public utilities law. The bill would further exempt exclusive business lines and communications by a hospital, as specified, and a consumer reporting agency, as prescribed. The bill would define terms for these purposes.
Existing law, the K–12 Pupil Online Personal Information Protection Act (KOPIPA) , generally protects the personal information of a student enrolled in a K–12 course of instruction, defined as a "pupil," by prescribing requirements and prohibitions applicable to an operator of an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application with actual knowledge that the site, service, or application is used primarily for K–12 school purposes and was designed and marketed for K–12 school purposes. Existing law, the Early Learning Personal Information Protection Act (ELPIPA) , generally protects the personal information of a child enrolled in a preschool or prekindergarten course of instruction, defined as a "pupil," by prescribing requirements and prohibitions applicable to an operator of an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application with actual knowledge that the site, service, or application is used primarily for preschool or prekindergarten purposes and was designed and marketed for preschool and prekindergarten purposes. This bill would instead apply the provisions of KOPIPA and ELPIPA to an operator, or an entity working on behalf of the operator, of an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application with actual knowledge that the site, service, or application is used for the applicable school purposes and was designed or marketed for those purposes, as specified. The bill would, among other changes to KOPIPA and ELPIPA related to protecting the personal information of students, prohibit an operator from using covered information, as defined, including persistent unique identifiers, created or gathered by the operator's site, service, or application to train a generative artificial intelligence system or service or develop an artificial intelligence system. This bill would also enact the Higher Education Student Information Protection Act (HESIPA) , which would generally protect the personal information of a student enrolled in a higher education institution, as defined, in a similar manner as KOPIPA and ELPIPA. The bill would make HESIPA operative on July 1, 2027. This bill would authorize a pupil or student actually harmed by noncompliance with KOPIPA, ELPIPA, or HESIPA to bring a civil action against the noncompliant operator, as prescribed, and would require a person bringing that action to furnish a copy of the complaint to the Attorney General within 10 days after filing the action.
Existing law requires that if a reasonable person interacting with a companion chatbot, as defined, would be misled to believe that the person is interacting with a human, an operator of a companion chatbot platform must issue a clear and conspicuous notification indicating that the companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human. Existing law requires a chatbot operator to maintain a protocol for preventing the production of suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm content to the user, as specified, and would require an operator to publish details on that protocol on the operator's internet website. Existing law requires an operator to take certain actions with respect to a user the operator knows is a minor, including instituting reasonable measures to prevent the companion chatbot from producing sexually explicit visual material or proposing sexually explicit conduct. This bill would instead require a companion chatbot operator to take the above actions when it has constructive knowledge that a user is a minor. This bill would instead require an operator to prevent its companion chatbot from producing or facilitating the exchange of any sexually explicit material or proposing sexually explicit conduct.
Existing law requires, on or before September 1, 2024, the Department of Technology, within the Government Operations Agency, 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. Existing law requires the department to annually submit a report of that comprehensive inventory to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection and the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization. Existing law, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, among other things related to ensuring the safety of certain artificial intelligence models, requires 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. This bill would require, on or before January 1, 2028, the Government Operations Agency to take certain actions related to the selection and regulation of certain entities, defined as "independent verification organizations," designated by the agency as having demonstrated expertise in assessing the risks posed by an AI system or model and identifying the metrics and methodologies that form the basis for that assessment. The bill would require the agency to convene working groups to solicit stakeholder input in the identification of standards and the development and revision of procedures and criteria, as specified. The bill would require the agency to provide a report to the Legislature on the findings of the working groups and would require a designated IVO to submit annually, and no sooner than 12 months after initial designation as an IVO, to the agency and Legislature a report, as specified.
Existing law requires law enforcement agencies, departments, or entities to consider specified best practices regarding the downloading and storage of body-worn camera data, such as specifically stating the length of time that recorded data is to be stored, when establishing policies and procedures for the implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system, as specified. This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2027, each law enforcement agency that has a body-worn camera policy to update that policy to include a procedure for emergency service personnel to request the redaction of evidentiary and nonevidentiary recordings of a patient undergoing medical or psychological evaluation, procedure, or treatment by emergency service personnel, and to maintain an unredacted copy of the recording consistent with the policies and procedures of the agency. By requiring local law enforcement agencies to adopt new policies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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 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 (1) a disclaimer that indicates to the patient that a communication was generated by generative artificial intelligence, as specified, and (2) clear instructions describing how a patient may contact a human health care provider, employee, or other appropriate person. Existing law exempts from this requirement a communication read and reviewed by a human licensed or certified health care provider. This bill would require developers and deployers, as defined, of an artificial intelligence system that produces a prediction, classification, recommendation, evaluation, or analysis that aids decisionmaking related to diagnosis or treatment, known as a clinical decision support system, to make reasonable efforts to identify clinical decision support systems developed for use by deployers that are known or have a reasonably foreseeable risk for biased impacts resulting from deployment of the system in health programs or activities. The bill would require developers to make a statement describing the intended uses and known or reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the use of the clinical decision support system and certain documentation available to deployers, as specified. The bill would require developers to make reasonable efforts to mitigate known or reasonably foreseeable risk for biased impacts resulting from use of the clinical decision support system in health programs or activities. The bill would require deployers to regularly monitor clinical decision support systems and take reasonable and proportionate steps to mitigate known or reasonably foreseeable risk of biased impacts. The bill would specify that a person, partnership, state or local governmental agency, or corporation may be both a developer and a deployer.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and requires the department to, among other things, bring civil actions to enforce the act. Existing law requires, on or before September 1, 2024, the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. This bill would generally regulate the development and deployment of an automated decision system (ADS) used to make consequential decisions, as defined. The bill would define "automated decision system" to mean a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is designed or used to assist or replace human discretionary decisionmaking and materially impacts natural persons. This bill would require a developer of a covered ADS, as defined, to take certain actions, including providing a potential deployer instructions explaining how the covered ADS should be used by the deployer to make or facilitate a consequential decision. This bill would require a deployer of a covered ADS to take certain actions, including provide certain disclosures to a subject of a consequential decision made or facilitated by the covered ADS that results in an adverse outcome, as defined, and provide the subject with an opportunity to appeal the outcome of the consequential decision, as prescribed. This bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring a specified civil action for noncompliance.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person having charge of a completed vote by mail ballot to interfere with a ballot's return to the local elections official. This bill would additionally make it a misdemeanor for any person having charge of a vote by mail ballot to interfere, as defined, with a ballot's delivery to a voter. The bill would make it a felony for a person with authority to direct one or more persons subject to their supervision or authority to interfere with a ballot's return to the local elections official or delivery to a voter. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the California AI Transparency Act, requires, among other things, a person that creates, codes, or otherwise produces a generative artificial intelligence (AI) 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. Existing law requires the AI detection tool to, among other things, allow a user to assess whether the image, video, or audio content was created or altered by that person's generative AI system. Existing law defines terms for these purposes and makes these provisions generally operative on August 2, 2026. Existing law also requires a large online platform to comply with specific duties relating to artificial intelligence, including, among other duties, allowing a user to inspect all available system provenance data that is compliant with widely adopted specifications adopted by an established standards-setting body by specified means. Existing law prohibits a large online platform from knowingly stripping any system provenance data or digital signature that is compliant with widely adopted specifications adopted by an established standards-setting body from content uploaded or distributed on the large online platform. Existing law makes these provisions, relating to a large online platform, operative on January 1, 2027. This bill would revise the duties and prohibitions applicable to a large online platform relating to artificial intelligence, including the requirement for allowing a user to inspect system provenance data. The bill would specify that these provisions do not require a large online platform to take any action with respect to provenance data, system provenance data, or digital signatures that are not compliant with widely adopted specifications issued by an established standards-setting body.
Existing law authorizes the California College Guidance Initiative to provide its services to all California school districts, including services that provide pupils and their families with direct access to online tools and resources for college and career planning. Existing law requires a school district, county office of education, or charter school to annually notify the parents or guardians of pupils admitted to, or advancing to, grades 7 to 12, inclusive, of any dual enrollment or International Baccalaureate courses offered by the local educational agency, as provided. This bill would require that notice to also include the benefits of the California College Guidance Initiative and encouragement to create parent accounts. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, 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, 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.
