Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, no later than July 1, 2026, develop and adopt, and update every 5 years, a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency. Under existing law, a pupil shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil's individualized education program. This bill, commencing July 1, 2028, would require the above-described policy to continue to apply only to pupils in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive. The bill would require the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school that serves pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, or grades 1 to 8, inclusive, to, no later than July 1, 2028, develop and adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones by those pupils while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency, as provided. The bill, commencing July 1, 2028, would prohibit instruction provided to pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, from requiring the use of a smartphone by a pupil. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require (1) a pupil in any grade to also be allowed to possess or use a smartphone when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil's plan developed pursuant to the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and (2) a policy adopted or updated pursuant to these provisions be included in a pupil handbook, if one is provided. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the State Department of Education, on or before January 1, 2029, to submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and post on their internet website, a report that contains (1) a description of the pupil smartphone policies of at least 30 selected local educational agencies that have provided consent to participate and that are representative of the demographic and geographic diversity of the state, including a copy of each policy, as provided, (2) the results of a survey of those local educational agencies, which the bill would require the department to conduct, and (3) recommended best practices for future local educational agency pupil smartphone use policies. The bill would authorize the department to collaborate with specified organizations with relevant expertise in preparing the report. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2033. 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.
The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act of 1988, an initiative measure enacted by Proposition 103, as approved by the voters at the November 8, 1988, statewide general election, prohibits specified insurance rates from being approved or remaining in effect that are excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of the act. Under the act, rates and premiums for automobile insurance are determined based on specified factors, including the insured's driving safety record. Existing law authorizes the provisions of Proposition 103 to be amended by a statute that furthers the purposes of the act and is enacted by the Legislature with a 23 vote. This bill, the Consumer Driving Data Protection Act of 2026, would authorize a consumer to opt to use telematics to establish their driving record, thus amending Proposition 103. The bill would prohibit the use of telematics data for a purpose other than rating private passenger automobile insurance. The bill would require a rate application under which telematics would be used to establish an insured's driving record to include specified materials related to the insurer's telematics program. This bill would prohibit an insurer that uses telematics from taking specified actions, including conditioning eligibility for a discount upon participation in a telematics program, unless the discount is approved by the commissioner. The bill would also set forth written consent and privacy requirements for the collection and use of telematics data. The bill would authorize the commissioner to impose specified penalties for violations of the bill's provisions, including civil penalties and suspension of an insurer's telematics program. This bill would require an insurance provider or third-party vendor to take specified actions with respect to the telematics data, including immediately deleting the data once a rating has been assigned to the consumer and obtaining an express written or electronic signature of a consumer on a notice meeting specified conditions. The bill would additionally prohibit an insurance provider or third-party vendor from keeping the telematics data for longer than 6 months and collecting audio or visual recordings of the occupants of the vehicle or persons outside the vehicle, among other specified prohibitions. The bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes of Proposition 103. 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, 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 about the consumer to limit its use, as prescribed. Existing law defines "sensitive personal information" to mean, among other things, personal information that reveals a consumer's precise geolocation. 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. This bill would require a business that collects precise geolocation information to prominently display, when information is being collected, a notice to the consumer whose information is being collected that states certain information related to the collection of the information and its use by the business, including the goods or services requested by the consumer for which the business is collecting, processing, or disclosing the geolocation information and a description of how the business will process the geolocation information to carry out those purposes. This bill would prohibit a business that collects precise geolocation information from, among other things, retaining the information longer than necessary to provide the goods or services requested by the consumer or longer than one year after the consumer's last intentional interaction with the business, whichever is earlier. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing federal law, through copyright, provides authors of original works of authorship, as defined, with certain rights and protections. Existing federal law generally gives the owner of the copyright the right to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords and the right to distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public. Existing federal law provides that sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not subject to copyright but are subject to similar rights and protections under the Classics Protection and Access Act. Existing law requires, before each time that a generative artificial intelligence system or service, as defined, or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service, released on or after January 1, 2022, is made available to Californians for use, regardless of whether the terms of that use include compensation, a developer of the system or service to post on the developer's internet website documentation, as specified, regarding the data used to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service. This bill would require a developer of a generative artificial intelligence model to make available on its internet website a mechanism allowing a rights owner to request information about the developer's use of the rights owner's covered materials that would allow the rights owner to provide the developer with, among other things, registration, preregistration, or index numbers for one or more covered materials. The bill would require a developer to document and retain any requests received from rights owners for a specified time period. The bill would, subject to specified exceptions, require a developer to, within 30 days of receiving that request from the rights owner, assess whether the developer used the rights owner's covered materials to develop the model and provide the rights owner with a list of covered materials, as specified. The bill would provide that each day following the 30-day period that a developer fails to provide a rights owner with that information constitutes a discrete violation. The bill would authorize a rights owner who complies with specified requirements for submitting a request that is not provided with information according to these provisions to bring, subject to a certain notice and cure opportunity, a civil action against the developer for specified relief. The bill would provide that its requirements do not apply to a model that meets certain criteria, including, among other things, being trained exclusively using data the developer makes publicly available at no cost to users. The bill would provide that it does not impose liability on a telecommunications service, information service, or cable service provider, as specified. The bill would define various terms for these purposes.
Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations. Existing law requires the PUC, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the Independent System Operator, to take specified actions to facilitate the commercialization of microgrids for distribution customers of large electrical corporations, including developing microgrid service standards necessary to meet state and local permitting requirements and developing methods to reduce barriers for microgrid deployment without shifting costs between ratepayers. This bill would require a large electrical corporation, upon request, to collaborate with local governments, tribal governments, or community choice aggregators within its service area to support resiliency planning, as provided. The bill would require large electrical corporations to provide local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators with access to data, including electrical distribution equipment data, transmission and distribution circuit data, grid hardening plans, and other information as directed by the commission, to support resiliency planning by local governments and tribal governments to ensure local governments, tribal governments, and community choice aggregators are able to plan potential microgrid projects to support critical facilities. The bill would authorize the commission to require large electrical corporations to share this information in aggregated and anonymized form to protect customer privacy and electrical grid security. Under existing law, a violation of any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because the violation of a PUC action implementing the bill's requirements would be a 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.
Existing law requires the State Department of Education, on or before January 1, 2024, to develop a plan to expand mental health instruction in California public schools. This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to develop a plan to expand digital wellness instruction in California public schools, as provided.
This measure would urge President Donald J. Trump and Congress to protect and maintain the historic investments made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
Existing law requires, beginning on January 1, 2028, a vehicle with connected vehicle service to clearly indicate to a person who is inside the vehicle when a person who is outside the vehicle has accessed, among other things, connected vehicle location access. For these purposes, existing law defines "connected vehicle service" to mean any capability, including through a software application that is designed to be operated on a mobile device, to remotely obtain data from, or send commands to, a vehicle, and "connected vehicle location access" to mean a type of connected vehicle service that allows a person, who is outside of a vehicle, to view or track the location of the vehicle, as specified. If a vehicle includes connected vehicle location access, existing law requires a covered provider, as defined, to provide a mechanism that can be used by a driver who is inside a vehicle to immediately disable connected vehicle location access. Existing law delays the operation of this requirement depending on whether the vehicle was manufactured prior to, or on or after, January 1, 2028. Unless otherwise provided, a violation of the Vehicle Code constitutes an infraction. This bill would, instead, limit the provisions above to specified vehicles with connected vehicle access. The bill would apply the requirement for a vehicle with connected vehicle service to indicate to a person inside the vehicle if connected vehicle location access is enabled to all vehicles beginning with the 2031 model year. The bill would make this requirement operative beginning with the 2031 model year, for 2028, 2029, and 2030 model year vehicles, as soon as practicable after the vehicle is sold unless technologically infeasible, and on or before July 1, 2027, for 2027 model year or older vehicles unless technologically infeasible. By establishing a new duty on vehicle manufacturers, this bill would expand the general crime applicable to provisions under the Vehicle Code, thereby imposing 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.
(1) Existing law, the Digital Financial Assets Law, prohibits a person, on or after July 1, 2026, from engaging in digital financial asset business activity, or holding itself out as being able to engage in digital financial asset business activity, with, or on behalf of, a resident, unless any of certain criteria are met, including that the person is licensed with the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, as prescribed, or the person submits an application on or before July 1, 2026, and is awaiting approval or denial of that application. This bill would revise the above-described latter criterion to specify that the person submits a completed application, as provided. The Digital Financial Assets Law authorizes the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to issue a conditional license to an applicant who holds or maintains a license to conduct virtual currency business activity in the State of New York, as specified, provided the license was issued or approved no later than January 1, 2023. This bill would revise the above-described authorization to require that the license be issued or approved no later than January 1, 2025. (2) The Digital Financial Assets Law defines "digital financial asset business activity" to mean any of specified activities, including, among others, exchanging, transferring, or storing a digital financial asset, as specified, or exchanging one or more digital representations of value used within one or more online games, game platforms, or family of games, as provided. This bill would remove exchanging one or more digital representations of value used within one or more online games, game platforms, or family of games from the definition of "digital financial business activity." The bill would specify that a "digital financial asset" does not include, among other things, a transaction in which a merchant grants digital representations of value that primarily relate to an affinity or rewards program, as provided, or a digital representation of value issued by or on behalf of a publisher and used primarily within online games or game platforms and that is not otherwise a digital financial asset. The Digital Financial Assets Law declares that its provisions do not apply to specified activity, including by a person who does not receive compensation for providing digital financial asset products or services or for conducting financial asset business activity or that is engaged in testing products or services with the person's own funds. This bill would specify that the above-described exclusion includes a person who merely retains the ability to terminate, suspend, or interrupt a digital financial transaction solely to prevent unauthorized or fraudulent activity and who is not compensated for that service. The Digital Financial Assets Law prohibits a covered person from exchanging, transferring, or storing a digital financial asset that is a stablecoin or engaging in digital financial asset administration of a stablecoin, as specified, unless certain conditions are met. However, existing law authorizes a covered person to exchange, transfer, or store a stablecoin or engage in digital financial asset administration of that stablecoin, as specified, if the stablecoin is approved by the commissioner and complies with certain requirements, restrictions, or prohibitions established by the commissioner. This bill would repeal the above-described provisions related to stablecoins. (3) The Digital Financial Assets Law requires a licensee to submit an annual report, as provided, containing specified information, including a description of any data security breach or cybersecurity event of the licensee. Existing law requires a licensee to file with the department, as applicable, a report of, among other things, a change in the licensee's business for the conduct of its digital financial asset business activity with, or on behalf of, a resident that meets one of specified criteria, including that the proposed change might raise safety and soundness or operational concerns. This bill would revise the above-described annual report to instead include a description of any material data security breach or cybersecurity event of the licensee. The bill would revise the specified criteria in the requirement to file the above-described report of a change in the licensee's business to instead include that the proposed change might raise material safety and soundness or operational concerns. Before engaging in digital financial asset business activity with a resident, the Digital Financial Assets Law requires a covered person, defined as a person required to obtain a license pursuant to that law, to disclose, as provided, certain information, including the resident's right to at least 14 days' prior notice of specified changes that have a material impact on digital financial asset business activity with the resident, or the policies applicable to the resident's account. Existing law requires a covered exchange, as provided, to certify on a form provided by the department that the covered exchange has taken specified actions, except for any digital financial asset approved for listing on or before January 1, 2023. In a transaction for or with a resident, existing law prohibits the covered exchange from interjecting a third party between the covered exchange and the best market for the digital financial asset in a manner inconsistent with specified requirements. This bill would prohibit the 14-day notice requirement from applying to changes in terms, conditions, or policies that are reasonably necessary to address a risk of loss to the resident or covered person, to the extent that the change does not relate to the fee schedule. The bill would instead exclude from the above-described certification requirement a digital financial asset approved for listing on or before January 1, 2025. The bill would require a covered person to provide and make available an up-to-date description of the order execution practices of the covered person, as specified. The bill would exempt a transaction in which a resident receives stablecoin, as defined, in exchange for legal tender or bank or credit union credit from the above-described prohibition against interjecting a third party. The Digital Financial Assets Law requires an applicant, as provided, to create, and during licensure, maintain in a record specified policies and procedures. Existing law requires these policies and procedures be disclosed separately from other disclosures made available to a resident, as specified, except for, among other things, an adopted information security program or an operational security program. This bill would instead exclude from the above-described requirement to disclose separately from other disclosures programs with information that is sensitive to potential security risks, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Digital Financial Assets Law, on or after July 1, 2026, prohibits a person from engaging in digital financial asset business activity or holding itself out as being able to engage in digital financial asset business activity, with or on behalf of a resident unless any of specified conditions is true. The law defines "digital financial asset" to mean a digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, and that is not legal tender, whether or not denominated in legal tender and defines "digital financial asset business activity" to mean, among other similar things, exchanging, transferring, or storing a digital financial asset or engaging in digital financial asset administration, whether directly or through an agreement with a digital financial asset control services vendor. This bill, the Digital Financial Asset Banking Act, would generally regulate a bank or a credit union under the examination authority of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation with respect to its provision of digital asset custody services, staking services, and digital asset transaction services, as those terms are defined, including by requiring certain disclosures to costumers and requiring certain financial safety measures. The bill would require a financial institution engaged in digital financial asset custody services to conduct an annual audit of its custodial activities and holdings that is either an independent audit or a review by the financial institution's board of directors for accuracy and signed be each board member under penalty of perjury. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would authorize the department to enforce its provisions with administrative and civil remedies, as specified. The Corporate Securities Law of 1968 generally regulates the offering and selling in this state of a security, as defined. This bill would define "security" to not include a staking reward, as defined. 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.
