Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril. This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney. Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified. This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence. Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties' arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrator's impartiality. This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified. The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities. This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence. Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards. This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. 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 prohibits the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District from issuing general obligation or revenue bonds, or any other form of long-term indebtedness, except to finance an interim system of buses and ferries or to finance capital improvements or modifications relating to seismic safety of the Golden Gate Bridge. This bill would authorize the district to accept contributions and loans from this state and the United States for the purpose of financing capital improvements or modifications related to seismic safety on the Golden Gate Bridge, as specified.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person or a firm, corporation, or association, or any employee thereof, to engage in false or misleading advertising practices. Existing law makes various unfair competition practices unlawful, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. This bill would make it an unlawful advertising practice for a person to create and cause to be published in an advertising medium an advertisement that prominently includes a synthetic performer without a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the advertisement includes a synthetic performer. The bill would prohibit an advertising medium from transmitting, distributing, displaying, airing, or otherwise making available an advertisement containing a synthetic performer if a court of competent jurisdiction has issued an order finding that the advertisement violates the bill's provisions or enjoining the creator from publishing the advertisement, and the advertising medium is served with the order, as specified. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. By expanding the scope of 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.
(1) The Unclaimed Property Law (UPL) prescribes the circumstances under which intangible property, including digital financial assets, escheats to the state, including how and when apparent owners must be notified that their property is at risk of escheating and the manner in which escheated property must be delivered to the State Controller. Existing law also requires that business associations holding a financial asset that is potentially subject to escheatment provide notice to the owners of that asset as specified. This bill would establish mechanisms for the management of digital financial assets, as defined, that escheat to the state. The bill would create the Digital Asset Claims Reserve Account and the Digital Asset Reserve Fund for these purposes. The bill would require the Controller to hold an escheated digital financial asset in its native form no earlier than 18 months and no later than 20 months after it is reported to the Controller by the holder of the asset, and, if it is not claimed by the owner within that time, to liquidate the asset and deposit the net proceeds in the Digital Asset Claims Reserve Account. The bill would require the Treasurer to invest moneys in the Digital Asset Claims Reserve Account pursuant to the Treasurer's existing authority to invest surplus money. The bill would require the Controller to transfer all interest, earnings, and investment income credited to the Digital Asset Claims Reserve Account to the Digital Asset Reserve Fund on a quarterly basis. The bill would create the Digital Asset Reserve Board, which would be assigned specified tasks relating to administration of the Digital Asset Reserve Fund, including establishing investment policies to be followed by the Controller when investing moneys in the fund by converting them into high-quality digital assets. The bill would authorize the Controller to take specified actions related to digital financial assets and would require the Controller to publish a quarterly report, as specified. Under the bill, a person who makes a valid claim before the disposition of the digital financial assets is entitled to receive the digital financial assets in their native form or in fiat currency, as specified, or in cash if the digital financial assets were liquidated. The bill would authorize the Controller to use assets within the Digital Asset Reserve Fund to pay for the administration and management of the fund, thereby making an appropriation. (2) Under existing law, a person holding funds or other property escheated to the state must file a report with the Controller and pay or deliver the escheated property to the Controller within a specified time, unless another person establishes their right to the property. Existing law requires any payment to the Controller of at least $2,000 in unclaimed cash to be made by electronic funds transfer. The bill would permit the Controller to direct the holder of a digital financial asset to sell or to otherwise liquidate the digital financial asset and deliver the net proceeds in lieu of the native digital financial asset, as specified. The bill would require a holder of funds or other property escheated to the state that is directed to sell or liquidate the digital financial asset to do so for no less than the prevailing market price of the digital financial asset at the time of sale.
Existing unfair competition laws make various unfair competition practices unlawful, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. Existing law makes it unlawful for any person doing business in California and advertising to consumers in California to make any false or misleading advertising claim. Existing law makes a person who violates specified false advertising provisions liable for a civil penalty, as specified, and provides that a person who violates those false advertising provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law makes it unlawful for healing arts licensees, as specified, to disseminate or cause to be disseminated any form of public communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive statement, claim, or image in order to induce the provision of services or products in connection with their licensed professional practice or business. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor and, in the case of a licensed person, provides that a violation constitutes unprofessional conduct and grounds for suspension or revocation of a license by the relevant board. This bill would require a person who creates or causes to be created an advertisement that includes a digital replica or synthetic performer depicted as a health care provider to promote the sale of a health-related consumer product or service to include a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the health care provider depicted in the advertisement was generated or substantially altered by artificial intelligence or that no human health care provider is depicted. The bill would also define terms for its purposes. This bill would provide that a violation of its provisions constitutes a violation of specified unfair competition and false advertising laws. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also authorize a natural person whose digital replica is used in an advertisement to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions. The bill would specify that a violation of the bill does not constitute a misdemeanor under provisions regulating healing arts licensees. 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 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. Existing law requires that risk analysis to be provided to the Governor, and, if appropriate, include recommendations reflecting changes to artificial intelligence technology, its applications, and risk management, including further private actions, administrative actions, and collaboration with the Legislature to guard against potential threats and vulnerabilities. This bill would require that recommendations in the risk analysis reflecting changes to artificial intelligence technology include agentic artificial intelligence, as defined. Existing law requires the Department of Technology to annually submit to certain legislative committees a report regarding a specified required comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems that have been, or are being, used, developed, or procured by a state agency. Existing law defines "high-risk automated decision system" to mean an automated decision system that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decisions that have a legal or similarly significant effect, including decisions that materially impact access to, or approval for, housing or accommodations, education, employment, credit, health care, and criminal justice. This bill would further require the comprehensive inventory in the report to include agentic artificial intelligence that has been, or is being, used, developed, or procured by a state agency.
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.
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 delete personal information. 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. The CCPA excludes from the definition of "personal information" publicly available information. Existing law defines "publicly available" for these purposes to include 3 types of information. One type is information that a business has a reasonable basis to believe is lawfully made available to the general public by the consumer or from widely distributed media. This bill would revise that part of the definition of "publicly available" by removing the condition that the business have a reasonable basis to believe the information is lawfully made available. The CCPA also includes in that definition of "publicly available" information made available by a person to whom the consumer has disclosed the information if the consumer has not restricted the information to a specific audience. This bill would delete that part of the definition of "publicly available." This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, establishes the California Cybersecurity Integration Center within the Office of Emergency Services to serve as the central organizing hub of state government's cybersecurity activities and to coordinate information sharing with various entities. Existing law also requires the Technology Recovery Plan element of the State Administrative Manual to ensure the inclusion of cybersecurity strategy incident response standards for each state agency to secure its critical infrastructure controls and information, as prescribed. This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2026, an operator, defined as a state agency responsible for operating, managing, overseeing, or controlling access to critical infrastructure, that deploys a covered artificial intelligence (AI) system, as defined, to establish a human oversight mechanism that ensures a human monitors the system's operations in real time and reviews and approves any plan or action proposed by the covered AI system before execution, except as provided. The bill would require the Department of Technology to develop specialized training in AI safety protocols and risk management techniques to oversight personnel. The bill would require oversight personnel for an operator to conduct an annual assessment of its covered AI systems, as specified, and to submit a summary of the findings to the department. The bill would make findings and declarations related to its provisions. The bill would preclude disclosure of specified information by the office. 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.
