Existing law generally regulates artificial intelligence, including companion chatbots, as defined. Existing law requires an operator, as defined, to prevent a companion chatbot on its companion chatbot platform from engaging with users unless the operator maintains a protocol for preventing the production of suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm content to the user. Existing law requires an operator, for a user the operator knows is a minor, to, among other things, notify the user that the user is interacting with artificial intelligence and to disclose that companion chatbots may not be suitable for some minors, as specified. The Digital Age Assurance Act requires a person who owns, maintains, or controls a software application, as defined, to request age bracket data sent by a real-time secure application programming interface or operating system with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched. This bill would require an operator, as defined, of a companion chatbot to, on or before July 1, 2027, do various things with respect to child safety and companion chatbots, including annually perform and document a comprehensive risk assessment to identify any child safety risk, as defined, posed by the design, configuration, and operation of the companion chatbot that assesses, among other things, the likelihood of a covered harm, as defined, occurring to child users. The bill would require an operator to submit to an independent audit of its compliance with those provisions, as specified, and would require, within 90 days of completing an independent audit, the auditor to submit an AI child safety audit report to the Attorney General for any audited companion chatbot. The bill would, except as specified, require those audit reports to be kept confidential. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2028, require the Attorney General to issue an annual public report on the audits submitted pursuant to the above-described provision, as specified. The bill would authorize a public prosecutor to bring a certain civil action to enforce the bill's provisions and would authorize a child who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of this chapter, or a parent or guardian acting on behalf of that child, to bring a civil action against the operator to obtain, among other relief, punitive damages. 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.
Existing law charges the Labor Commissioner with enforcement of various labor laws, including investigation of employee complaints. This bill would declare it is the policy of the state that a worker providing direct patient care be free to use their professional judgment to make assessments and decisions within their scope of practice as appropriate for their patients. The bill would prohibit an employer from retaliating or discriminating against a worker providing patient care, as specified. The bill would authorize a worker who is subject to retaliation or discrimination in violation of these provisions to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner against an employer. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these provisions, as specified. Existing law provides that everyone is responsible not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person. Existing law prohibits a defendant who developed, modified, or used artificial intelligence, as defined, from asserting a defense that the artificial intelligence autonomously caused the harm to the plaintiff. This bill would prohibit a defendant who developed, modified, selected, or deployed a clinical decision support system that is alleged to have harmed the plaintiff from asserting a defense that the failure of a licensed health care professional or other health care worker to override an output of the clinical decision support system is a superseding cause severing the defendant's liability for the alleged harm.
Existing law requires the operator of a private detention facility, as defined, to comply with, and adhere to, the detention standards of care and confinement agreed upon in the facility's contract for operations, as specified. Existing law requires a private detention facility operator to comply with, and adhere to, all local and state public health orders and occupational safety and health regulations. This bill, the Protecting Vulnerable Immigrant Detainees Model Act, would require the Attorney General, on or before December 31, 2027, to submit to the Legislature a report including a proposed oversight plan for private civil detention facilities that protects the health, safety, and welfare of persons detained in those facilities, as specified. The bill would require the Governor to direct the appropriate state entity to cooperate with the Attorney General for the purposes of developing the oversight plan, as specified. The bill would make related findings and declarations. 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.
Existing law requires 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 (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations. This bill, beginning on July 1, 2027, would prohibit an employer, as defined, from using an ADS to perform certain functions and would limit the purposes for and way in which an ADS may be used. The bill would, when an employer primarily uses an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, authorize an employee to request, and require an employer to provide, a description of the employee's own data primarily used by an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied upon an ADS to make a disciplinary or termination decision to provide the affected employee with a written postuse notice, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any employee for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bill's provisions and also authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil enforcement action, as specified. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty per violation. This bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bill's provisions. The bill would provide that it does not prohibit the use of an automated decision system 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, if the use of an automated decision system is reasonably necessary to comply with the federal statute, the federal regulation, or the binding federal contract, as specified. The bill would include a statement 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. This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.
(1) Existing law authorizes the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads for testing purposes by a driver who possesses the proper class of license for the type of vehicle operated if specified requirements are satisfied. Existing law prohibits the operation of an autonomous vehicle on public roads until the manufacturer submits an application to the Department of Motor Vehicles (department) , as specified, and that application is approved. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application, including, among other things, any testing, equipment, and performance standards the department concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, as specified. Existing law requires manufacturers of autonomous vehicles that operate without a human operator physically present in the vehicle, except as provided, to comply with certain requirements, including, among other things, to maintain a dedicated emergency response telephone line that is available for emergency response officials and to equip each autonomous vehicle with a 2-way voice communication device that enables emergency response officials who are near the vehicle to communicate effectively with a remote human operator, as specified. Under existing law, an "emergency response official" includes, but is not limited to, emergency dispatchers, peace officers, as specified, and first responders. This bill would require manufacturers of autonomous vehicles to maintain communications capacity sufficient to support the maximum number of concurrent remote assistance or teleoperations sessions, as specified. The bill would require remote drivers to be located within the United States and hold a driver's license that is valid for operation in California, is of the appropriate class, and includes any required endorsements. The bill would require an autonomous vehicle manufacturer to ensure, through its staffing and assignments, that local incident technicians are immediately dispatched upon notification, electronically or otherwise, of a crash or other incident or upon receiving a request from an emergency response official or 911 dispatch center. The bill would, in the event of a fleetwide emergency or system failure that may create a traffic hazard or impeded emergency response, require an autonomous vehicle manufacturer to immediately notify affected local jurisdictions, including emergency dispatch, of the location and status of their fleet and deploy local incident technicians, where appropriate, whenever affected vehicles cannot be remotely recovered. The bill would require the department, on or before July 1, 2028, to adopt guidelines establishing reasonable response times for local incident technicians to be present at the scene upon the request of an emergency response official or 911 dispatch center. The bill would expand the definition of "emergency response official" for these purposes to also include traffic control, traffic enforcement, and parking enforcement personnel from a public agency in an applicable jurisdiction. The bill would require autonomous vehicle manufacturers, for an autonomous vehicle that operates as a commercial vehicle and that is not equipped with manual controls for completing the dynamic driving task, to ensure that remote assistants or remote drivers have the ability to place the autonomous vehicle in neutral to allow an emergency response official to move the vehicle, cause the autonomous vehicle to move as directed by an emergency response official, or turn off the vehicle and have it remain stationary until otherwise directed by an emergency response official. The bill would require autonomous vehicle manufacturers to maintain data on response times of local incident technicians and responses to fleetwide emergencies or system failures, emergency events, immobilizations, obstructions, crashes, and requests from emergency response officials. The bill would require autonomous vehicle manufacturers to provide this data to the department quarterly and would require the department to publish summary statistics on its internet website, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to share records with the Public Utilities Commission to support regulatory oversight of autonomous vehicle passenger service operations. The bill would specify that a violation of the above provisions is not a crime. The bill would authorize a city attorney or county counsel to bring a civil action on behalf of a city, county, or city and county to enforce specified violations of the above provisions. The bill would authorize a court to impose specified civil penalties payable to the jurisdiction bringing the action, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) within the Department of Justice and requires the commission to develop guidelines and implement courses of instruction regarding specified topics, including, among others, racial profiling, handling domestic violence, and human trafficking. This bill would require POST to develop uniform guidelines and requirements for, and to provide approval of, the training and written guidance required to be provided by autonomous vehicle manufacturers. The bill would authorize POST to impose fees sufficient to cover the reasonable regulatory costs associated with administering these provisions. The bill would require POST to implement a course or courses of instruction for voluntary training of law enforcement officers, as defined, on autonomous vehicles that operate as commercial vehicles as it relates to public safety and to develop related uniform minimum guidelines for voluntary use by California law enforcement agencies, as specified. The bill would require the course or courses, learning and performance objectives, training standards, and guidelines to be developed in consultation with appropriate groups and individuals that have an interest and expertise in the field of the operation of autonomous vehicles, as specified. (3) The bill would make its provisions operative July 1, 2028.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information, as defined, that is collected or sold by a business, as defined, including the right to direct a business that collects sensitive personal information, as defined, about the consumer to limit its use, as prescribed. 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. This bill would, under the CCPA, prohibit a business, service provider, or contractor from selling or sharing sensitive personal information to a third party, except as specified. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
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 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 makes the violation of a county ordinance or a city ordinance a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. Existing law specifies monetary fines for any violation of local ordinances that is an infraction, not to exceed specified amounts that vary based on the circumstances of the violation, as prescribed. This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, authorize the county board of supervisors to impose fines, penalties, and forfeitures for violations of ordinances and to fix the penalty by a fine or imprisonment, or both. The bill would also establish the amount of the fine that may be imposed for the violation of a city or county ordinance, where the violation pertains to a nonresidential structure with a floor area of 20,000 or more square feet and the violation poses a threat to health and safety, to not exceed $1,000 for the first violation, $2,000 for the 2nd violation within 5 years of the first violation, and $5,000 for subsequent violations within 5 years of the first violation, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.
Under existing law, a county elections official is required to prepare a certified statement of the results of an election and submit it to the county board of supervisors within 30 days of the election. This bill would make it a felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or 2 or 3 years, to seize or cause or assist in the seizure of ballots, election records, or certified voting technology before election results are certified by the elections official. The bill would also make it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 3, or 4 years for any person with authority to direct another person subject to their supervision or authority to seize ballots, election records, or certified voting technology before election results are certified. By creating new crimes, 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.
