(1) Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members. Existing law requires the superintendent of a school district, the superintendent of a county office of education, and the principal of a charter school, as applicable, to report to the respective governing board or body of the local educational agency in a timely manner any requests for information or access to a schoolsite by an officer or employee of a law enforcement agency for the purpose of enforcing the immigration laws in a manner that ensures the confidentiality and privacy of any potentially identifying information. This bill would prohibit school officials and employees of a local educational agency from allowing an officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement to enter a nonpublic area of a schoolsite, as defined, for any purpose without being presented with a valid judicial warrant, judicial subpoena, or a court order. The bill would require school officials and employees of a local educational agency, to the extent practicable, to request valid identification of any officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement seeking to enter a nonpublic area of a schoolsite. The bill would also prohibit a local educational agency and its personnel from disclosing or providing, in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil or a pupil's family and household without the pupil's parents' or guardians' written consent, a school employee, or a teacher to an officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement without a valid judicial warrant or judicial subpoena, or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the Attorney General, by April 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, and ensuring that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status, as provided. Existing law requires local educational agencies, by July 1, 2018, to adopt those model policies developed by the Attorney General or equivalent policies. This bill would require the Attorney General, by December 1, 2025, to update those model policies to ensure that the policies align with the above-described prohibitions on school officials and employees of local educational agencies allowing an officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement to enter a nonpublic area of a schoolsite without a valid judicial warrant or judicial subpoena, or a court order and from disclosing or providing certain information to those officers or employees, as provided. The bill also would require a local educational agency to update its model policy by March 1, 2026, and to make the policy available to the State Department of Education upon request. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) This bill would make these provisions severable. (4) 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. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would state, among other things, the Legislature and the State of California's commitment to protecting, to the fullest extent of the law, all the data and information provided by students and their families to California's postsecondary education.
Existing law establishes the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice, with charge of all legal matters in which the state is interested, except as specified. Existing law imposes various responsibilities on the Attorney General related to consumer protection, including, among others, the supervision of charitable trusts and the enforcement of antitrust laws. Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts that are unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement through civil actions. This bill would enact the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, to prohibit a person, as described, from distributing or making recommendations based on the use of a pricing algorithm to 2 or more competitors, as defined, under specified circumstances, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm processes competitor data, as defined. This bill would also prohibit a person from using the recommendation of a pricing algorithm that processes competitor data, as specified, if the person knows or should know that the pricing algorithm uses or incorporates competitor data. The bill would establish an affirmative defense to liability under this prohibition for a person who demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that they exercised reasonable due diligence before using the recommendations of a pricing algorithm, as specified. The bill would specify when the use, recommendation, or distribution of a pricing algorithm constitutes separate violations. The bill would declare that these provisions do not apply if all of the competitor data processed by the pricing algorithm was collected more than one year before the use, recommendation, or distribution of the pricing algorithm. The bill would declare that a contract that violates these provisions is to that extent void. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring a civil action for violation of the above-described provisions to seek restitution, punitive damages, a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, and other appropriate relief, as provided. The bill would declare that its provisions shall not impair or limit the applicability of antitrust laws, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions the development, distribution, output, or use of a credit score or other computational tool either subject to specified law or provided by a commercial credit reporting agency, as specified.
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.
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, as specified, and that application is approved. A violation of the Vehicle Code or a local ordinance adopted pursuant to that code is an infraction. This bill would prohibit the delivery of commercial goods, as defined, directly to a residence or to a business for its use or retail sale through the operation of an autonomous vehicle without a human safety operator on any highway within the State of California. The bill would make a first violation of this provision subject to a $10,000 administrative fine and a $25,000 administrative fine for subsequent violations. The bill would authorize the department to suspend or revoke the permit of an autonomous vehicle manufacturer for repeated violations of this provision. The bill would require the department to submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the performance of autonomous vehicle technology and its impact on public safety and employment, as specified. This bill would require all relevant state agencies, including, among others, the Department of Transportation and the State Air Resources Board, to provide information to the department to research this report. The bill would prohibit the department from issuing a deployment permit for the use of an autonomous vehicle to deliver commercial goods without a human safety operator until a later enacted statute authorizes the issuance of a permit for that purpose. The bill would also make certain findings and declarations related to these provisions.
Existing law makes it unlawful for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in this state online with the intent to mislead the other person about its artificial identity for the purposes of knowingly deceiving the person about the content of the communication in order to incentivize a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or to influence a vote in an election, unless the person using the bot discloses that it is a bot. Existing law defines a "bot" as an automated online account where all or substantially all of the actions or posts of that account are not the result of a person. This bill would require a person who uses a bot to autonomously communicate with another to ensure that the bot discloses to any person with whom the bot communicates when the bot first communicates with the person that the bot is a bot and not a human being, answers truthfully any query from a person regarding its identity as a bot or a human, and refrains from attempting to mislead a person regarding its identity as a bot. The bill would redefine "bot" to mean an automated online account or application that a reasonable person could believe is a human being and with respect to which substantially all of the actions or posts of that account or application are the outputs of generative artificial intelligence, as defined. The bill would exempt from its provisions a person who uses a bot that is required to comply with a more prescriptive disclosure scheme. This bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to bring a civil action to punish noncompliance, as prescribed.
Existing law establishes the Office of Information Security within the Department of Technology for the purpose of ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of state systems and applications and to promote and protect privacy as part of the development and operations of state systems and applications to ensure the trust of the residents of this state. Existing law requires specified state entities to implement the policies and procedures issued by the office. Existing law additionally authorizes the office to conduct, or require to be conducted, an independent security assessment of every state agency, department, or office, as specified. Existing law requires every state agency, as specified, to certify, by February 1 annually, to the office that the agency is in compliance with all adopted policies, standards, and procedures and to include a plan of action and milestones, as specified. This bill would require every state agency, as specified, and subject to specified exceptions, to implement Zero Trust architecture for all data, hardware, software, internal systems, and essential third-party software, including for on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments, to achieve prescribed levels of maturity based on the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Maturity Model, as defined, by specified dates. In implementing Zero Trust architecture, the bill would require state agencies to prioritize the use of solutions that comply with, are authorized by, or align to federal guidelines, programs, and frameworks and, at a minimum, prioritize multifactor authentication for access to all systems and data, enterprise endpoint detection and response solutions, and robust logging practices, as specified. The bill would require the office's chief to develop or revise uniform technology policies, standards, and procedures for use by all state agencies in Zero Trust architecture to achieve specified maturity levels on all systems in the State Administrative Manual and Statewide Information Management Manual. The bill would require the chief to update requirements for existing annual reporting activities to collect information relating to the progress state agencies are making to increase internal defenses of agency systems. The bill would authorize the chief to update existing annual reporting activities to include how a state agency is progressing with respect to specified goals. The bill would also state the Legislature's intent that the bill's provisions be implemented in a manner consistent with the state's timely compliance with requirements that are conditions to receipt of federal funds. The bill would also make related legislative findings and declarations.
Existing law creates the California Computer Science Coordinator as a position within the State Department of Education to provide statewide coordination in, among other things, implementing the computer science content standards and leading the implementation of the Computer Science Strategic Implementation Plan, as provided. This bill would establish the California Computer Science Demonstration Grant Program for specified purposes, including increasing the number of public high schools offering a computer science course to increase pupil access to computer science education and increasing the computer science course access of pupils eligible for free or reduced-priced meals and pupils that are underrepresented in the field of computer science. The bill would also establish the California Computer Science Demonstration Grant Program Working Group that includes the coordinator and nonprofit organizations and private industry stakeholders with relevant expertise and experience in computer science education. The bill would authorize only public high schools that do not offer computer science courses to be eligible to voluntarily participate in the grant program. The bill would require the funding entity or funding entities, as defined, to administer the grant program. If there are multiple funding entities, the bill, among other things, would require each funding entity to determine how the funds that it contributes to the grant program will be spent, provided that expenditure aligns with the grant program's purposes, and require the funding entities to coordinate implementation of the grant program. The bill would require the funding entities, in coordination with the working group, to select the public high schools to participate in the grant program, as provided. The bill would require the grant program to be funded through contributions, gifts, grants, in-kind donations, and donations from the funding entity or funding entities, and would specify the allowable uses of those funds. The bill would require the funding entity or funding entities, in coordination with the working group, to evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program and submit an interim report to certain legislative committees on or before August 1, 2027, and a final report on or before July 1, 2028, as specified. The bill would repeal the grant program's provisions as of January 1, 2029. The bill would separately require the department, on or before June 30, 2028, and annually thereafter, to publicly post specified computer science course-related data on its internet website, as specified.
Existing law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prohibits a government entity from compelling the production of, or access to, electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions. Existing law authorizes a government entity to access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device in certain circumstances, including, pursuant to the specific consent of the authorized possessor of the device or if the government entity, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person requires access to the information. Existing law requires a government entity that obtains electronic information pursuant to an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to a person, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to file with the appropriate court an application for a warrant or order setting forth the facts giving rise to the emergency. Existing law requires the court to promptly rule on the application and to destroy all information obtained upon a finding that the facts did not give rise to an emergency or upon rejecting the application on any other ground. This bill would additionally authorize a government entity to access electronic device information with the specific consent of an individual who locates a tracking or surveillance device, as defined, and the device is reasonably believed to have been used to track or record the individual without their permission. The bill would require a government entity that obtains information through this method, within 3 court days after obtaining the electronic information, to follow the above process for applying for a warrant or order from a court by setting forth the facts that describe the circumstances and would require the court to promptly rule on the application and order the immediate destruction of all information obtained upon a finding that the facts were not as described. Existing law authorizes an individual whose information is targeted by a warrant, order, or other legal process, or other specified recipients of a warrant, that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, to petition the issuing court to void or modify the warrant, order, or process, or to order the destruction of any information obtained in violation of the act or the California or United States Constitution. This bill would recast the provisions described above to authorize an individual whose information is sought or obtained by a government entity in a manner that is inconsistent with the act or the California or United States Constitution, or other specified recipients of a warrant, order, legal process, request, or demand seeking the individual's information, to petition a court to void or modify the warrant, order, other legal process, request, or demand to order the destruction of the information.
Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to appoint a chief internal auditor to hold office at the pleasure of the commission. Existing law requires the chief internal auditor to be responsible for the oversight of the internal audit unit and to plan, initiate, and perform audits of key financial, management, operational, and information technology functions within the commission to improve accountability and transparency to executive and state management. This bill would delete the provision providing for the appointment of the chief internal auditor and instead provide that, effective January 1, 2026, the internal audit unit of the commission and its staff are transferred to the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations, which the bill would establish within the commission, as specified. The bill would provide for the appointment and removal of the director of the office, who would have the title of Inspector General. The bill would require that the office have access and authority to examine all records, files, documents, accounts, reports, correspondence, or other property of the commission, public utilities, and other entities regulated by the commission, as specified. The bill would require the Inspector General to report to the Governor and the Legislature, as provided. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and because a violation of a commission action implementing the bill's requirements would be a crime, 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.
