Existing law requires the Office of Emergency Services to establish and lead the California Cybersecurity Integration Center. Existing law states that the center's mission is to reduce the likelihood and severity of cyber incidents that could damage California's economy, its critical infrastructure, or public and private sector computer networks in the state. Existing law requires the center to serve as the central organizing hub of state government's cybersecurity activities and coordinate information sharing with specified entities, including local, state, and federal agencies. This bill would require the California Cybersecurity Integration Center to develop, on or before January 1, 2027, in consultation with the Office of Information Security and the Government Operations Agency, a California AI Cybersecurity Collaboration Playbook, as specified, to facilitate information sharing across the cyber and artificial intelligence communities and to strengthen collective cyber defenses against emerging threats. The bill would require the center to review federal requirements, standards, and industry best practices, as specified, and to use those resources to inform the development of the California AI Cybersecurity Collaboration Playbook. Except as specified, the bill would provide that any information related to cyber threat indicators or defensive measures for a cybersecurity purpose shared in accordance with the California AI Cybersecurity Collaboration Playbook is confidential and would prohibit that information from being disclosed, except as specified. The bill would also make findings and declarations related to its provisions. 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.
The California Consumer Financial Protection Law requires the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to prepare and publish on the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation's internet website an annual report detailing actions taken during the prior year under the law and requires the report to include information on actions taken with respect to, among other things, the activities of the Financial Technology Innovation Office. This bill would additionally require the report to include information on actions taken with respect to the Office of the Ombuds.
(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 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 generally regulates artificial intelligence, including by requiring the Office of Emergency Services to, as appropriate, perform a risk analysis of potential threats posed by the use of generative artificial intelligence to California's critical infrastructure, including those that could lead to mass casualty events. This bill would require the Attorney General to establish and maintain a specified program to build internal expertise in artificial intelligence, including its applications, risks, regulatory implications, and civil rights impacts. The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General to submit a public report to the Legislature describing the program, key developments in artificial intelligence law and policy, and recommendations for additional state oversight or safeguards.
Existing law governs various business practices in this state, including certain laws relating to the use of technology. 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, the Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act, would prohibit a person from selling, licensing, providing, or using a price-setting algorithm, as defined, with the intent or reasonable expectation that it be used by 2 or more competitors, as defined, in the same market if the person knows or should know that the algorithm processes nonpublic data, as defined, to set either: (1) a price or supply level of a good or service or (2) a rent or occupancy level of rental property. The bill would provide a user of a price-setting algorithm an affirmative defense to liability if the user exercised reasonable due diligence, as specified. The bill would authorize the Attorney General or a district attorney, city attorney, or county counsel to file a civil action for violations of these provisions, as specified, including for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, as specified. This bill would declare that a contract that violates these provisions is to that extent void and that its provisions do not limit the applicability of antitrust laws.
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.
