Existing law generally regulates social media platforms, including, among other laws, the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act that prohibits an operator of an addictive internet-based service or application, including a social media platform, from providing an addictive feed, as defined, to a minor user, except as prescribed. This bill would enact the Social Media Warning Law that would require a covered platform, as defined, to display a certain black box warning to certain users each day the user initially accesses the social media platform, again after 3 hours of cumulative active use, and thereafter at least once per hour of cumulative active use, as prescribed. This bill would specify that its provisions shall not be interpreted to serve as the basis for a private right of action, as specified. The bill would make its provisions operative on January 1, 2027, and would declare these provisions severable.
The California AI Transparency Act requires a person that creates, codes, or otherwise produces a generative artificial intelligence system that has over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users and is publicly accessible within the geographic boundaries of the state to make available an AI detection tool at no cost to the user that, among other things, allows a user to assess whether image, video, or audio content, or content that is a combination thereof, was created or altered by that person's generative artificial intelligence system and outputs any system provenance data that is detected in the content. Existing law makes the California AI Transparency Act operative on January 1, 2026. This bill would delay the operation of the California AI Transparency Act until August 2, 2026. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, additionally require a large online platform, as defined, to, among other things related to the provenance of content on the platform, detect whether any provenance data that is compliant with widely adopted specifications adopted by an established standards-setting body is embedded into or attached to content distributed on the large online platform. The bill would also require, beginning January 1, 2028, a capture device manufacturer, with respect to any capture device the capture device manufacturer first produced for sale in the state on or after January 1, 2028, to, among other things, provide a user with the option to include a latent disclosure in content captured by the capture device that conveys certain information, including the name of the capture device manufacturer. The bill would define "capture device" to mean a device that can record photographs, audio, or video content, including, but not limited to, video and still photography cameras, mobile phones with built-in cameras or microphones, and voice recorders. Existing law requires a covered provider to include a latent disclosure in AI-generated image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, created by the covered provider's GenAI system that, among other things, conveys certain information and is permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove, to the extent it is technically feasible. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a GenAI system hosting platform, as defined, from knowingly making available a GenAI system that does not place disclosures, pursuant to those provisions. This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.
Existing law generally provides for the regulation of law enforcement agencies, including, among other things, requiring each local law enforcement agency to conspicuously post on their internet websites all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures, and education and training materials that would otherwise be available to the public under specified circumstances. This bill would require each law enforcement agency to maintain a policy to require an official report prepared by a law enforcement officer or any member of a law enforcement agency that is generated using artificial intelligence either fully or partially to include specified information, including a disclosure statement and the signature of the law enforcement officer or member of a law enforcement agency who prepared the official report, as specified. If an officer or any member of an agency uses artificial intelligence to create an official report, the bill would require the first draft created to be retained for as long as the official report is retained. The bill would, except for the official report, prohibit a draft of any report created with the use of artificial intelligence from constituting an officer's statement. The bill would require an agency utilizing artificial intelligence to generate a first draft or official report to maintain an audit trail that identifies, at a minimum, certain things, including the person who used artificial intelligence to create a report. The bill would prohibit a contracted vendor from sharing, selling, or otherwise using information provided by a law enforcement agency to be processed by artificial intelligence, except as provided. The bill would define terms for purposes of these provisions. By requiring local law enforcement agencies to adopt a new policy, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law makes any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without that person's prior consent liable for damages, as specified. This bill would provide that a party seeking relief pursuant to those provisions may also seek an injunction or temporary restraining order according to specified procedures. The bill would require the respondent to comply with the order within 2 business days from the day the order is served, unless otherwise required by the order, if the court grants the applicant a temporary restraining order without notice to the opposing party that requires the respondent to remove, recall, or otherwise cease the publication or distribution of the petitioner's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness. The bill would make other nonsubstantive changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3344 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 11 to be operative only if this bill and SB 11 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
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, including the right to request that a business disclose specified information that has been collected about the consumer, to request that a business delete personal information about the consumer that the business has collected from the consumer, and to direct a business not to sell or share the consumer's personal information, as specified. The CCPA defines various terms for these purposes. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) , 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 (agency) and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce the CCPA. Existing law requires a data broker to register with the agency, and defines "data broker" to mean a business that knowingly collects and sells to third parties the personal information of a consumer with whom the business does not have a direct relationship, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law requires a data broker, in registering with the agency, to pay a registration fee in an amount determined by the agency and provide specified information, including, among other things, the name of the data broker and its primary physical, email, and internet website addresses, and whether the data broker collects the personal information of minors, consumers' precise geolocation, or consumers' reproductive health care data. This bill would require a data broker to provide additional information to the agency, including whether the data broker collects consumers' names, dates of birth, ZIP Codes, email addresses, phone numbers, login or account information, various government identification numbers, mobile advertising, connected television, or vehicle identification numbers, citizenship data, union membership status, sexual orientation status, gender identity and gender expression data, biometric data, and up to 3, but no fewer than one, of the most common types of personal information that the data broker collects, as provided. The bill would also require a data broker to provide information regarding whether, in the past year, the data broker shared or sold consumers' data to a foreign actor, as defined, the federal government, other state governments, law enforcement, as provided, or a developer of a GenAI system, as defined. The bill would make changes to the administrative fines and costs that apply to data brokers who fail to register. Existing law requires, beginning January 1, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency to establish an accessible deletion mechanism that, among other things, allows a consumer, through a single verifiable consumer request, to request that every data broker that maintains any personal information delete any personal information related to that consumer held by the data broker or associated service provider or contractor. Existing law requires, beginning August 1, 2026, a data broker to access the accessible deletion mechanism at least once every 45 days and, among other things, process a denied request to delete personal information as an opt-out of the sale or sharing of the consumer's personal information under the CCPA, as specified. This bill would require a data broker to process the above-described denied request within 45 days of receiving the request. Existing law requires the agency to create a page on its internet website where registration information provided by data brokers and the accessible deletion mechanism is accessible to the public. This bill would prohibit the agency from making accessible to the public on its internet website information regarding whether the data broker collects consumers' names, dates of birth, zip codes, email addresses, phone numbers, mobile advertising, connected television, or vehicle identification numbers, and the most common types of personal information that it collects. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes and intent of the CPRA for specified reasons.
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. 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 the CCPA. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a business from developing or maintaining a browser, as defined, that does not include functionality configurable by a consumer that enables the browser to send an opt-out preference signal, as defined, to businesses with which the consumer interacts through the browser, as prescribed. The bill would require a business that develops or maintains a browser to make clear to a consumer in its public disclosures how the opt-out preference signal works and the intended effect of the opt-out preference signal. The bill would grant a business that develops or maintains a browser that includes this functionality immunity from liability for a violation of those provisions by a business that receives the opt-out preference signal. The bill would authorize the agency to adopt regulations as necessary to implement and administer those provisions. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Under existing law, in-person, face-to-face contact is not required under the Medi-Cal program when covered health care services are provided by video synchronous interaction, asynchronous store and forward, audio-only synchronous interaction, remote patient monitoring, or other permissible virtual communication modalities, when those services and settings meet certain criteria. Existing law required the department, on or before January 1, 2023, to develop a research and evaluation plan that, among other things, proposes strategies to analyze the relationship between telehealth and access to care, quality of care, and Medi-Cal program costs, utilization, and program integrity. The department created that plan in December of 2022 and published the Biennial Telehealth Utilization Report in April of 2024. This bill, the Telehealth for All Act of 2025, would require the department, commencing in 2028 and every 2 years thereafter, to use Medi-Cal data and other data sources available to the department to produce analyses in a publicly available Medi-Cal telehealth utilization report. The bill would authorize the department to include those analyses in each of the department's Biennial Telehealth Utilization Reports, as specified. The bill would require the analyses to address telehealth access and utilization data, including various metrics on telehealth visits and claims, disaggregated by geographic, demographic, and social determinants of health categories to identify disparities. The bill would require the department to identify additional data elements for inclusion in future reports to help to identify and address access-to-care issues or provide greater insight into utilization of telehealth modalities.
Existing law generally governs the transactions between a rental car company, also referred to as a rental company, and its customers, as provided. Existing law prohibits a rental company from using, accessing, or obtaining any information relating to the renter's use of the rental vehicle that was obtained using electronic surveillance technology, as defined, except under specified circumstances. Existing law permits a rental company and a renter to limit the responsibilities of a renter in specified events, including loss due to theft of the rented vehicle up to its fair market value, as provided. Existing law establishes, in the situation described in the previous sentence, a presumption that the renter has no liability for loss due to theft if specified conditions are met, including that an authorized driver has possession of the ignition key or establishes that the ignition key was not in the vehicle at the time of the theft, as provided. This bill would allow a rental company to use geofence technology, as specified, to detect rental vehicle movement in prescribed circumstances. The bill, with respect to the above-described provisions relating to the renter's liability for loss due to theft, would revise the presumption that the renter has no liability for loss due to theft to instead apply this presumption if an authorized driver returns the ignition key.
Existing law provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all public schools, teaching kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, operated by a school district, in cooperation with specified entities and individuals, develop a comprehensive school safety plan, as provided. Existing law provides that school districts and county offices of education are responsible for the overall development of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of its schools, as provided. Existing law requires a comprehensive school safety plan to, among other things, identify appropriate strategies and programs that will provide or maintain a high level of school safety and address the school's procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, by July 1, 2026, develop and adopt 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 school district, county office of education, or charter school. Existing law, however, specifies circumstances in which a pupil may not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone, including, among others, in the case of an emergency or in response to a perceived threat of danger. This bill would instead authorize the prohibition on the use of a smartphone by a pupil in the case of an emergency or in response to a perceived threat of danger if that circumstance is explicitly addressed in a comprehensive school safety plan.
Existing law requires an individual or a business that conducts business in California, and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, to disclose a breach of the security of the system following discovery or notification of the breach in the security of the data to a resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was compromised, as specified, and requires that disclosure to be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement, as specified, or any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. This bill would require that data breach disclosure to be made within 30 calendar days of discovery or notification of the data breach but would authorize an individual or business to delay the disclosure to accommodate the legitimate needs of law enforcement, as specified, or as necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. Existing law also requires an individual or business that is required to issue the security breach notification described above to more than 500 California residents as a result of a single breach of the security system to electronically submit a single sample copy of that security breach notification, excluding any personally identifiable information, to the Attorney General. This bill would require that submission to the Attorney General to be made within 15 calendar days of notifying affected consumers of the security breach.
