(1) The California Financing Law (CFL) provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders and brokers by the Commissioner of Business Oversight. The CFL prohibits anyone from engaging in the business of a finance lender or broker without obtaining a license. A willful violation of the CFL is a crime, except as specified. Under existing law, a licensee who lends any sum of money is authorized to contract for and receive charges at a maximum rate that does not exceed specified sums on the unpaid principal balance per month, ranging from 2 12 % to 1%, based on the consumer loan amount, as specified. This provision, however, does not apply to any loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more, as determined in accordance with a provision governing regulatory ceilings and evasion of the CFL. The CFL also authorizes a licensee, as an alternative to the above-described rate charges for consumer loan amounts, to instead contract for and receive charges at the greater of a rate not exceeding 1.6% per month on the unpaid principal balance or a rate not exceeding 5 56 of 1% per month, plus a specified percentage per month, as established by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, on advances to member banks under federal law, or if there is no single determinable rate, the closest counterpart of this rate. Under existing law, these provisions do not apply to a loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more, as specified. The CFL further authorizes a licensee to contract for and receive an administrative fee of a specified amount that varies with the bona fide principal amount of the loan. This bill, entitled the Fair Access to Credit Act, would authorize a finance lender, with respect to a loan of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, to contract for or receive charges at a rate not exceeding an annual simple interest rate of 36% plus the Federal Funds Rate. The bill would require finance lenders making loans subject to these provisions to, among other requirements, report each borrower's payment performance to at least one consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis and to also offer, at no cost to the borrower, a credit education program or seminar that has been previously reviewed and approved by the commissioner, in accordance with specific requirements. The bill would further specify that a licensee may contract for and receive an administrative fee, as described above, in addition to these charges. (2) Under the CFL, certain principles apply in determining whether a loan is a loan of a bona fide principal amount under specified provisions and whether the regulatory ceiling provision is used for purposes of evading the CFL. This bill would apply these principles to loans of a bona fide principal amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000. The bill would also apply these principles to any fees paid to a licensee for the privilege of participating in an open-end credit program. (3) Existing law prohibits licensees subject to the CFL from entering into a contract for a consumer loan that provides for a scheduled repayment of principal over more than the maximum terms set forth in relation to the respective size of the loan. Among other things, this provision prohibits a loan of at least $3,000 but less than $5,000 from exceeding a maximum term of 60 months and 15 days. This bill would increase the maximum principal loan amount under the above schedule to $10,000. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from entering into a contract for a consumer loan that is at least $2,500 but less than $10,000 that provides for a scheduled repayment of principal that is less than 12 months. The bill would also specify that the maximum loan term of 60 months and 15 days does not apply to a loan secured by real property of a bona fide principal amount of at least $5,000. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from charging, imposing, or receiving any penalty for the prepayment of a loan under the CFL, except as specified. (4) The CFL regulates a specific type of consumer loan known as an open-ended loan. The CFL prescribes the amount upon which charges authorized by the CFL may be based, the amount of a minimum monthly payment, the amount of fees, costs, and expenses a licensee may receive, and the amount to be delivered by the licensee at the time the open-ended loan is made. The CFL applies these provisions only to a loan of a bona fide principal amount not exceeding $5,000, as specified. This bill would apply those provisions to an open-ended loan in a bona fide principal amount not exceeding $10,000, as specified. The bill would make conforming and nonsubstantive changes. By expanding the application of the CFL to cover more loans, the bill would expand the scope of an existing crime, 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.
Sponsored bills
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency, by ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in single-family and multifamily residential zones in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law requires any ordinance adopted by a local agency to comply with certain criteria, including that it require accessory dwelling units to be either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling or detached if located within the same lot, and that it does not exceed a specified amount of total area of floor space. This bill would, instead, authorize the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use. The bill would also revise the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit by providing that the accessory dwelling unit may be attached to, or located within, an attached garage, storage area, or other structure, and that it does not exceed a specified amount of total floor area. (2) Existing law generally authorizes a local agency to include in the ordinance parking standards for accessory dwelling units, including authorizing a local agency to require the replacement of parking spaces if a garage, carport, or covered parking is demolished to construct an accessory dwelling unit. Existing law also prohibits a local agency from imposing parking standards on an accessory dwelling unit if it is located within one-half mile of public transit. This bill would, instead, prohibit a local agency from requiring the replacement of parking spaces if a garage, carport, or covered parking is demolished to construct an accessory dwelling unit. The bill would also prohibit a local agency from imposing parking standards on an accessory dwelling unit that is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, and would define the term "public transit" for those purposes. (3) Existing law authorizes a local agency to establish minimum and maximum unit size limitations on accessory dwelling units, provided that the ordinance permits an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. This bill would prohibit a local agency from establishing a minimum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that prohibits an efficiency unit, as defined. The bill would also prohibit a local agency from establishing a maximum square footage requirement for either an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit that is less than 850 square feet, and 1,000 square feet if the accessory dwelling unit contains more than one bedroom. The bill would also instead prohibit a local agency from establishing any other minimum or maximum size for an accessory dwelling unit, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, and minimum lot size for either attached or detached dwelling units that prohibit at least an 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit that is at least 16 feet in height and with a 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks. (4) Existing law prohibits a local agency from utilizing standards to evaluate a proposed accessory dwelling unit on a lot that is zoned for residential use that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling other than the criteria described above, except that, among one other exception, a local agency may require an applicant for a permit to be an owner-occupant of either the primary or accessory dwelling unit as a condition of issuing a permit. This bill, until January 1, 2025, would instead prohibit a local agency from imposing an owner-occupant requirement as described above. (5) Existing law requires a local agency that has not adopted an ordinance governing accessory dwelling units to approve or disapprove the application ministerially and without discretionary review within 120 days after receiving the application. The bill would require a local agency, whether or not it has adopted an ordinance, to consider and approve an application, ministerially and without discretionary review, within 60 days after receiving a completed application. The bill would also provide that, if a local agency does not act on the application within that time period, the application shall be deemed approved. (6) Existing law requires fees for an accessory dwelling unit to be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act. Existing law also requires the connection fee or capacity charge for an accessory dwelling unit requiring a new or separate utility connection to be based on either the accessory dwelling unit's size or the number of its plumbing fixtures. This bill would prohibit a local agency, special district, or water corporation from imposing any impact fee, as specified, upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet, and would require any impact fees to be charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more to be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. The bill would revise the basis for calculating the connection fee or capacity charge specified above to either the accessory dwelling unit's square feet or the number of its drainage fixture unit values, as specified. (7) Existing law, for purposes of these provisions, defines "living area" as the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics, but not a garage or accessory structure. This bill would define "accessory structure" to mean a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot. (8) Existing law requires a local agency to submit a copy of the adopted ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development and authorizes the department to review and comment on the ordinance. This bill would instead authorize the department to submit written findings to the local agency as to whether the ordinance complies with the statute authorizing the creation of an accessory dwelling unit, and, if the department finds that the local agency's ordinance does not comply with those provisions, would require the department to notify the local agency within a reasonable time. The bill would require the local agency to consider the department's findings and either amend its ordinance to comply with those provisions or adopt it without changes and include specified findings. If the local agency does not amend it ordinance or does not adopt those findings, the bill would require the department to notify the local agency and authorize it to notify the Attorney General that the local agency is in violation of state law, as provided. The bill would authorize the department to adopt guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria to supplement or clarify the provisions authorizing accessory dwelling units. (9) Existing law requires the planning agency of each city and county to adopt a general plan that includes a housing element that identifies adequate sites for housing. Existing law authorizes the department to allow a city or county to do so by a variety of methods and also authorizes the department to allow a city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units, as specified. This bill would state that a local agency may count an accessory dwelling unit for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing in accordance with those provisions. (10) Existing law, the State Housing Law, a violation of which is a crime, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires, for those purposes, that any building, including any dwelling unit, be deemed to be a substandard building when a health officer determines that any one of specified listed conditions exists to the extent that it endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or its occupants. This bill would authorize the owner of an accessory dwelling unit built before January 1, 2020, or built on or after January 1, 2020, under specified circumstances, that receives a notice to correct violations or abate nuisances to request that the enforcement of the violation be delayed for 5 years if correcting the violation is not necessary to protect health and safety, as determined by the enforcement agency, subject to specified requirements. The bill would make conforming and other changes relating to the creation of accessory dwelling units. By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, and because the bill would expand the scope of a crime under the State Housing Law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (11) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65852.2 of the Government Code proposed by AB 68 and AB 881 to be operative only if this bill and either or both AB 68 and AB 881 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (12) 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.
The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, the California Constitution defines "full cash value" as the assessor's fair market value valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. Existing property tax law generally defines this "full cash value" of property as the property's "fair market value" and defines these terms to mean the amount of cash or its equivalent that property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other, and both the buyer and the seller have knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used, and of the enforceable restrictions upon those uses and purposes. Existing property tax law requires the assessor to consider the effect of certain enforceable restrictions, including, among others, a contract that is a 99-year ground lease between a community land trust, as defined, and the qualified owner, as defined, of an owner-occupied single-family dwelling or an owner-occupied unit in a multifamily dwelling, that subjects a single-family dwelling or unit in a multifamily dwelling and the leased land on which the dwelling or unit is situated to affordability restrictions, as defined. This bill would require, when valuing property subject to the enforceable restriction described above, that the sale or resale price of the dwelling or unit be rebuttably presumed to include both the dwelling or unit and the leased land on which the dwelling or unit is situated, and would authorize this presumption to be overcome if the assessor establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that all or a portion of the value of the leased land is not reflected in the sale or resale price of the dwelling or unit. The bill would require corrections of base year values and declines in value owing to the restrictions on properties assessed pursuant to these provisions to apply to all lien dates occurring after September 27, 2016. The bill would also make findings and declarations regarding the public purpose served by the bill. Existing property tax law, in accordance with the California Constitution, provides for a "welfare exemption" for property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes and that is owned or operated by certain types of nonprofit entities, if certain qualifying criteria are met. This bill would provide that property is within the welfare exemption if that property is owned by a community land trust, as defined, otherwise qualifying for the welfare exemption, and specified conditions are met, including that the property is being or will be developed or rehabilitated as housing, as specified. The bill would require this exemption to apply for 5 lien dates, as provided. The bill would prohibit this exemption from being denied on the basis that the subject property does not currently contain specified property that is in the course of construction. The bill would require the community land trust to be liable for property tax for the years for which the property was exempt under these provisions if the property was not developed or rehabilitated, or if the development or rehabilitation is not in the course of construction, by January 1, 2025, in the case of property acquired by the community land trust before January 1, 2020, or within 5 years of the lien date following the acquisition of the property in the case of property acquired by the community land trust on and after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2025, and would require the community land trust to notify the assessor if property owned by the community land trust is not in the course of construction by these dates. The bill, in the case where property that is owned by a community land trust becomes subject to taxation as so described, would require any assessment made, as provided, to be made within 5 years of the lien date following the date on which the property becomes subject to taxation. By imposing new duties upon local government officials with respect to the exemption provided by this bill, 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 requires the state to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding those provisions, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill.
Existing law, beginning October 1, 2019, and stayed pending voter approval under the powers of referendum pursuant to the California Constitution, requires Pretrial Assessment Services, as defined, to assess a person arrested or detained, as specified, according to a risk assessment instrument, as defined. Existing law requires Pretrial Assessment Services to release from confinement specified individuals based on that risk assessment, and, if the person is not released, to submit that assessment to the court for use in its pretrial release or detention decision. This bill would require each pretrial services agency that uses a pretrial risk assessment tool to validate the tool by January 1, 2021, and on a regular basis thereafter, but no less frequently than once every 3 years, and to make specified information regarding the tool, including validation studies, publicly available. The bill would require the Judicial Council to maintain a list of pretrial services agencies that have satisfied those validation requirements and complied with those transparency requirements. The bill would require the Judicial Council, beginning on December 31, 2020, and on or before December 31 of each year thereafter, to publish a report on its internet website with data related to outcomes and potential biases in pretrial release. The bill would require specified pretrial services agencies, the Department of Justice, courts, and local governments that elect to use risk assessment tools to work with the Judicial Council to provide the data necessary for this report. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2022, to provide a report to the courts and the Legislature containing recommendations to mitigate bias and disparate effect in pretrial decisionmaking.
Existing law, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, regulates the collection of consumer debts by debt collectors, as defined. The act defines "consumer debt" to mean money, property, or their equivalent, due or owing or alleged to be due or owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction. The act further defines "consumer credit transaction" to mean a transaction between a natural person and another person in which property, services, or money is acquired on credit by that natural person from the other person primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. The act also defines "debt collector" to exclude an attorney or counselor at law. This bill would provide that consumer debt for purposes of the act includes mortgage debt. The bill would also remove the exception for an attorney or counselor at law from the definition of debt collector. The bill would also make nonsubstantive changes.
(1) Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor to levy upon the property of a judgment debtor to satisfy a judgment, and authorizes the judgment debtor to claim that certain property is exempt from the levy by following a specified procedure. Existing law authorizes a claimant to assert an exemption by filing a claim of exemption with the levying officer within 10 days after the date the notice of levy on the property claimed to be exempt is served on the judgment debtor. Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor who opposes a claim of exemption to file a notice of opposition to the claim and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim within 10 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption. This bill would authorize a claimant to file a claim of exemption with the levying officer either in person or by mail and would specify that the period for filing the claim is 15 days if the judgment debtor is personally served with a notice of levy on the property claimed to be exempt, and 20 days if the claimant is served with notice by mail. The bill would deem the filing by mail complete on the date the claim is postmarked if the mailing is assigned a tracking number. If the mailing is not assigned a tracking number, the bill would deem the filing by mail complete on the date the claim is received by the levying officer. The bill would extend the period of time in which a judgment creditor may give notice of opposition to a claim of exemption to 15 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption. These provisions of the bill would become operative on September 1, 2020. (2) Existing law authorizes a judgment creditor to levy upon the earnings of a judgment debtor through specified wage garnishment procedures, and specifies the maximum amount of a judgment debtor's disposable earnings, as defined, that are subject to that garnishment. Existing law specifies certain property of a judgment debtor as exempt, including 75% of paid earnings of an employee that can be traced into deposit accounts or in the form of cash or its equivalent if prior to payment to the employee those earnings were not subject to an earnings withholding order or an earnings assignment order for support. This bill would instead, in the case of paid earnings that were not subject to an earnings withholding order or an earnings assignment order for support prior to payment to the employee, specify that disposable earnings that would otherwise not be subject to levy under the wage garnishment procedures described above are exempt. The bill would exempt from levy money provided to the judgment debtor by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. With certain enumerated exceptions, the bill would exempt from a levy money in a judgment debtor's deposit account in an amount equal to or less than the minimum basic standard of adequate care for a family of four, as specified. The bill would require a levy against a judgment debtor's deposit account to include a description of these requirements. The bill would also exempt from a levy money in a judgment debtor's deposit account that is not otherwise exempt under these provisions to the extent that money is necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor. This bill would require the Judicial Council to amend or adopt necessary forms. These provisions of the bill would become operative on September 1, 2020.
Existing law, the Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012, provides that the purpose of the act is to increase California community college student access and success by providing effective core matriculation services of orientation, assessment and placement, counseling, other education planning services, and academic interventions. Existing law establishes the Student Equity and Achievement Program and requires a district, as a condition of the receipt of funds under the program, to comply with specified requirements, including the maintenance of a student equity plan to ensure equal educational opportunities and promote student success for all students, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, or economic circumstances. This bill would authorize the use of funding for the Student Equity and Achievement Program for the provision of emergency student financial assistance to eligible students to overcome unforeseen financial challenges that would directly impact a student's ability to persist in the student's course of study, as specified, if emergency student financial assistance is included in an institution's plan for interventions to students.
Existing law requires a California driver's license held by a person who enters or is in the United States Armed Forces to continue in full force and effect, so long as, among other things, the service continues and the person remains absent from this state, and for a period not to exceed 30 days following the date the holder of the license is honorably separated from service or returns to this state. Existing law extends this benefit to a spouse of that person, as specified. This bill would also extend that benefit to a person who enters or is in the United States Foreign Service, or the spouse of a person who enters or is in the United States Foreign Service, subject to similar conditions, for a period not to exceed 30 days following the date the holder of the license returns to this state.
Existing law, the Financial Institutions Law, regulates the activities of various financial entities, including commercial banks, industrial banks, trust companies, credit unions, and savings associations. The Banking Law defines and regulates state banks and commits the enforcement of banking laws to the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Existing law prohibits a county from giving or loaning its credit to, or in aid of, any person or corporation. Existing law requires a local agency, as defined, to deposit all money belonging to, or in the custody of, that local agency into specified state or national banks, as defined. Existing law regulates the investment of public funds by local agencies. Existing law, the Nonprofit Corporation Law, regulates the formation and conduct of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation and a nonprofit public benefit corporation. This bill would define the term "bank" for purposes of the Financial Institutions Law and the Banking Law to include a public bank. The bill would define the term "public bank" to mean a corporation, organized as either a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation or a nonprofit public benefit corporation for the purpose of engaging in the commercial banking business or industrial banking business, that is wholly owned by a local agency, as specified, local agencies, or a joint powers authority. The bill would require a public bank to obtain a certificate of authorization to transact business as a bank from the commissioner and to obtain and maintain insurance, subject to specified requirements. The bill would prohibit the commissioner from issuing more than 2 public bank licenses, as defined, in a calendar year and would prohibit the commissioner from authorizing more than 10 public banks at one time. The bill would require a public bank to include a specified purpose statement in its articles of incorporation and make conforming changes. The bill would require a local agency to conduct and approve, as specified, a study of the viability of a public bank containing specified elements before submitting an application to the commissioner to organize and establish a public bank and would require the local agency to include a copy of that study in the application submitted to the commissioner. The bill would require a local agency that is not a charter city to obtain voter approval of a motion to submit an application to the commissioner, as specified. The bill would authorize a county to lend its available funds to a public bank. The bill also would authorize a local agency to deposit funds in a public bank, and to invest in a public bank, subject to certain requirements. The bill would authorize a public bank to make distributions to its members. The bill would require, as specified, a public bank to conduct retail activities in partnership with local financial institutions and would prohibit a public bank from competing with local financial institutions. The Corporation Tax Law imposes a franchise tax on financial corporations, but provides that the tax is in lieu of all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. That law also exempts specified classes of entities from the franchise and income taxes imposed by that law, including state-chartered credit unions. This bill would additionally exempt from those franchise and income taxes any public bank. This bill would also exempt a public bank from all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires that all meetings of the legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. This bill would authorize the governing board of a public bank or a committee of that governing board to meet in a closed session to consider and take action on matters pertaining to a loan or investment decision, a decision of the internal audit committee, the compliance committee, or the governance committee, and a meeting with a state or federal regulator. The bill would authorize a public bank to make all information received by a shareholder, member, or owner of a public bank confidential, as specified. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would exempt specified information and records of a public bank, and related decisions of the directors, officers, and managers of the public bank, from the disclosure requirements of the act, including, among others, records related to alternative investments of the bank, as specified, meeting materials of any closed session, a record containing information regarding a portfolio position in which the public bank invests, information related to a specific account in the bank, and specified correspondence related to meetings with, or a memorandum or letter received from, state and federal banking regulators. 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 Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Existing law, known as the Student Athlete Bill of Rights, requires intercollegiate athletic programs at 4-year private universities or campuses of the University of California or the California State University that receive, as an average, $10,000,000 or more in annual revenue derived from media rights for intercollegiate athletics to comply with prescribed requirements relating to student athlete rights. This bill would prohibit California postsecondary educational institutions except community colleges, and every athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, from providing a prospective intercollegiate student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete's name, image, or likeness, or preventing a student participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student's name, image, or likeness or obtaining professional representation relating to the student's participation in intercollegiate athletics. The bill also would prohibit an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution other than a community college from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student's name, image, or likeness. The bill would require professional representation obtained by student athletes to be from persons licensed by the state. The bill would specify that athlete agents shall comply with federal law in their relationships with student athletes. The bill would prohibit the revocation of a student's scholarship as a result of earning compensation or obtaining legal representation as authorized under these provisions. The bill would prohibit a student athlete from entering into a contract providing compensation to the athlete for use of the athlete's name, image, or likeness if a provision of the contract is in conflict with a provision of the athlete's team contract. The bill would prohibit a team contract from preventing a student athlete from using the athlete's name, image, or likeness for a commercial purpose when the athlete is not engaged in official team activities, as specified. These provisions would become operative on January 1, 2023. This bill would require the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to convene a community college athlete name, image, and likeness working group composed of individuals appointed on or before July 1, 2020, as specified. The bill would require the working group to review various athletic association bylaws and state and federal laws regarding a college athlete's use of the athlete's name, image, and likeness for compensation and, on or before July 1, 2021, submit to the Legislature and the California Community College Athletic Association a report containing its findings and policy recommendations in connection with this review.