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.
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.
The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to exempt from taxation, in whole or in part, property that is used exclusively for religious, hospital, or charitable purposes, and is owned or held in trust by a nonprofit entity. Pursuant to that authority, existing law provides for a welfare exemption under which property used exclusively for an exempt purpose and owned and operated by specified entities, including foundations, limited liability companies, or corporations meeting certain statutory requirements is exempt from taxation. This bill would specify that for the purposes of the welfare exemption provisions above, "property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes" shall not include property, or any portion thereof, operated as a detention facility, as defined. The bill would declare that the above provision is declarative of, and not a change in, existing law.
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.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants to a consumer various rights with respect to personal information that is collected by a business, including the right to request that a business delete personal information about the consumer that the business has collected from the consumer. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA. Existing law, the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, establishes privacy standards for the collection, use, and disclosure of information gathered in connection with insurance transactions by insurance institutions, agents, and insurance-support organizations. The Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act imposes various monetary penalties for violations of the act and makes a person who knowingly and willfully obtains information about an individual from an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization under false pretenses guilty of a misdemeanor. On and after July 1, 2028, this bill would revise the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act to establish new standards for the processing and sharing of consumers' personal information by insurance licensees, surplus line insurers, reinsurers, and third-party service providers. The bill would authorize processing or sharing of a consumer's personal information for specified purposes, including sharing in connection with an insurance transaction. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider to provide a clear and conspicuous privacy notice presented as a stand-alone document that includes specified information to a consumer within a specified period of time, and would prohibit the sharing of a consumer's personal information unless it is reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve specified purposes related to an insurance transaction or another purpose that is fully disclosed to the consumer and to which the consumer has consented. The bill would also require a licensee to provide a privacy rights notice, as specified, to each consumer with whom the licensee has an ongoing business relationship. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider to obtain a consumer's consent to take specified actions, and would set forth the means by which consent is obtained. The bill would authorize a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to retain personal information, as specified, and would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to develop a written records retention policy and schedule. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to provide specified information to a consumer if it makes an adverse underwriting decision, and would provide a process by which a consumer may access, correct, amend, or delete any personal information about the consumer in the possession of the licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or its third-party service providers. The bill would require a contract between a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer and a third-party service provider to govern the processing and sharing of personal information performed on behalf of the licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer. The bill would prohibit retaliation against a consumer because the consumer exercised or attempted to exercise their rights under the act. The bill would prohibit public disclosure of specified systems, processes, policies, procedures, and plans that are disclosed to the Insurance Commissioner. The bill would also make technical and conforming changes. This bill would authorize a penalty of at least $5,000, not to exceed $1,000,000 in the aggregate for multiple violations of the act. The bill would increase the fine if a cease and desist order is violated to at least $15,000 for each violation, and would increase a fine to at least $50,000 for each violation if the commissioner finds the violations to be a general business practice. Under the bill, a person who knowingly and willfully obtains information about a consumer from a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider under false pretenses would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $50,000, imprisonment in a county jail for up to 6 months, or both, thus expanding the applicability of a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 791.07, 791.11, and 791.12 of the Insurance Code proposed by AB 1798 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1798 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
(1) The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, a contractor, or a corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates from intentionally sharing, selling, using for marketing, or otherwise using any medical information, as defined, for any purpose not necessary to provide health care services to a patient, except as provided. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions that results in economic loss or personal injury punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law deems a business that offers a mental health digital service or reproductive or sexual health digital service to a consumer for the purpose of allowing the individual to manage the individual's information, or for the diagnosis, treatment, or management of a medical condition of the individual, to be a provider of health care subject to the requirements of the CMIA. The bill would additionally deem a business that offers a health care chatbot, as defined, to a consumer for the above-described purposes to be a provider of health care subject to the requirements of the CMIA. Because the bill would expand the scope of a crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires a health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group practice that uses generative artificial intelligence to generate written or verbal patient communications pertaining to patient clinical information, as defined, to ensure that those communications include both a disclaimer that indicates to the patient that a communication was generated by generative artificial intelligence, as specified, and clear instructions describing how a patient may contact a human health care provider, employee, or other appropriate person, except as specified. This bill would require a health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group practice to take reasonable steps to ensure that a licensed health care professional, acting within their scope of practice, retains the ability to exercise independent professional judgment in their care of a patient whenever that care is informed by the output of a clinical decision support system, as defined. The bill would prohibit a health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group practice from using or deploying a tool, system, or device that includes artificial intelligence to independently perform any clinical function that is required by law to be performed by a person with a professional license. The bill would make a violation of these provisions by a physician subject to the jurisdiction of the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. The bill would also authorize the appropriate professional licensing board to pursue an injunction or restraining order to enforce these provisions to the extent that a violation constitutes the practice of a health care profession without a license. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to the use of automated decision systems for documentation and communication that does not involve the application of professional judgment, including automated messages to inform patients of updates to their health records. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law prohibits a public agency, which includes the state, a city, a county, a city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state, a city, a county, or a city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, from selling, sharing, or transferring automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. Existing law defines ALPR information as information or data collected through the use of an ALPR system. This bill would provide that "public agency" does not include a transportation agency, a public transit operator, department of transportation, public works department, or campus transportation agency, as specified, a public agency or contracted parking operator when engaging in specified activities in a parking facility, a state agency operating specified parking facilities, or the State Air Resources Board. The bill would require a public agency that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to maintain a record of that access, as provided. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, require new, updated, renewed, extended, expansions of, or addendums of contractual agreements with ALPR vendors, manufacturers, or suppliers to mandate that no default access is provided to any national ALPR database and that an agency's collected scans are by default not accessible to any other agency, except as specified, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. This bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to use ALPR information only for purposes of locating vehicles or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense or locating an individual who has been reported as missing to a law enforcement agency. The bill, as of January 1, 2028, would require a public agency to archive all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days within 14 days, unless that ALPR information is retained in the evidence file of an active investigation or criminal proceeding or matches information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and retain ALPR information that becomes part of an investigation or criminal proceeding in the evidence file as long as the evidence file is required to be held by state law or court order. The bill would prohibit a public agency from querying any archived information except pursuant to a warrant, as specified. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, which include local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines an ALPR operator as a person that operates an ALPR system, which does not include a transportation agency. Existing law defines an ALPR end-user as a person that accesses or uses an ALPR system, which does not include, among other things, a transportation agency. This bill would additionally exclude from the definitions of "ALPR operator" and "ALPR end-user" a public transit operator, department of transportation, public works department, campus transportation agency, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. The bill would also exclude from the definition of "ALPR operator" the Department of General Services and its operators when engaging in specified activities in a parking facility and would exclude from the definition of "ALPR end-user" a state agency operating specified parking facilities and the State Air Resources Board. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would require those security procedures and practices to include safeguards for managing which employees can see the data from their systems, as specified, and requiring data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to implement a usage and privacy policy that includes, among other things, a description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. This bill would require the usage and privacy policy to identify what purpose employees and independent contractors access and use ALPR information for. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to, beginning October 1, 2029, and contingent upon an appropriation of sufficient funds, conduct annual random audits on a public agency that is an ALPR operator or ALPR end-user to determine whether they have implemented and are adhering to that usage and privacy policy. Existing law requires an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy and to maintain a record of that access that includes, among other things, the purpose for accessing the information. This bill would instead require that record of access maintained by the ALPR operator to include a brief, accurate, specific, and plain language statement describing the purpose for accessing ALPR information. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) , grants to a consumer various rights with respect to personal information that is collected by a business. Among those rights, the CCPA includes the right to request that a business delete personal information that the business has collected from the consumer. This bill would expand that right to include requesting the deletion of any personal information that the business has collected about the consumer. If the business did not obtain the personal information from the consumer, the bill would allow the business to retain a record of the deletion request and the minimum data necessary to ensure the consumer's personal information remains deleted from its records and is not being used for any other purpose. The bill would make findings and declarations relating to these provisions. Existing law generally requires businesses to make certain methods of communication available for consumers to submit personal information requests, including requests for deletion and correction. If a business operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with the consumer from whom it collects personal information, existing law requires the business to provide consumers an email address for submitting personal information requests. This bill would also require that business to make an online method, such as a web form or online portal, available to consumers for submitting personal information requests. Existing law, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
