Existing law, the K–12 Pupil Online Personal Information Protection Act (KOPIPA) , generally protects the personal information of a student enrolled in a K–12 course of instruction, defined as a "pupil," by prescribing requirements and prohibitions applicable to an operator of an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application with actual knowledge that the site, service, or application is used primarily for K–12 school purposes and was designed and marketed for K–12 school purposes. Existing law, the Early Learning Personal Information Protection Act (ELPIPA) , generally protects the personal information of a child enrolled in a preschool or prekindergarten course of instruction, defined as a "pupil," by prescribing requirements and prohibitions applicable to an operator of an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application with actual knowledge that the site, service, or application is used primarily for preschool or prekindergarten purposes and was designed and marketed for preschool and prekindergarten purposes. This bill would instead apply the provisions of KOPIPA and ELPIPA to an operator, or an entity working on behalf of the operator, of an internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application with actual knowledge that the site, service, or application is used for the applicable school purposes and was designed or marketed for those purposes, as specified. The bill would, among other changes to KOPIPA and ELPIPA related to protecting the personal information of students, prohibit an operator from using covered information, as defined, including persistent unique identifiers, created or gathered by the operator's site, service, or application to train a generative artificial intelligence system or service or develop an artificial intelligence system. This bill would also enact the Higher Education Student Information Protection Act (HESIPA) , which would generally protect the personal information of a student enrolled in a higher education institution, as defined, in a similar manner as KOPIPA and ELPIPA. The bill would make HESIPA operative on July 1, 2027. This bill would authorize a pupil or student actually harmed by noncompliance with KOPIPA, ELPIPA, or HESIPA to bring a civil action against the noncompliant operator, as prescribed, and would require a person bringing that action to furnish a copy of the complaint to the Attorney General within 10 days after filing the action.
Under the Political Reform Act of 1974, various individuals and entities, including candidates, committees that support candidates and ballot measures, lobbyists, slate mailer organizations, and public officials, are required to periodically file certain statements and reports that disclose their financial activities. When an original statement or report is filed after the deadline for its filing under the act, the person responsible for making the filing is subject to a late filing penalty of $10 per day, as specified, in addition to any other penalties or remedies under the act. This bill would authorize the Fair Political Practices Commission to extend any filing deadline established by the act, by no more than 60 days, for individuals that live in an area impacted by an emergency situation if the emergency situation is reasonably likely to affect the individual's ability to timely file. The bill would prohibit the commission from extending a deadline under these provisions during the 90 days before an election. The bill would define emergency situation to mean an emergency proclaimed by the Governor or a local governing body pursuant to a specified law. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
Existing law requires that if a reasonable person interacting with a companion chatbot, as defined, would be misled to believe that the person is interacting with a human, an operator of a companion chatbot platform must issue a clear and conspicuous notification indicating that the companion chatbot is artificially generated and not human. Existing law requires a chatbot operator to maintain a protocol for preventing the production of suicidal ideation, suicide, or self-harm content to the user, as specified, and would require an operator to publish details on that protocol on the operator's internet website. Existing law requires an operator to take certain actions with respect to a user the operator knows is a minor, including instituting reasonable measures to prevent the companion chatbot from producing sexually explicit visual material or proposing sexually explicit conduct. This bill would instead require a companion chatbot operator to take the above actions when it has constructive knowledge that a user is a minor. This bill would instead require an operator to prevent its companion chatbot from producing or facilitating the exchange of any sexually explicit material or proposing sexually explicit conduct.
SB 195 is a procedural bill that merely expresses the Legislature's intent to later enact statutory changes related to the upcoming Budget Act of 2025. It does not make any concrete budget changes or affect specific groups or programs. The bill serves as a formal step to signal future legislative action on budget processes, without detailing any specific provisions or funding allocations. This is a standard procedural measure to guide future budget discussions, not a substantive policy change.
This procedural bill states the Legislature's intent to make future statutory changes to the Budget Act of 2025. It does not enact new budget policies, alter current spending, or directly affect any specific groups or programs. The bill serves only as a formal statement of legislative intent for upcoming budget-related legislation. It has no fiscal impact and does not change existing laws.
SB 133, titled "Budget Act of 2025," is a procedural bill that merely expresses the Legislature's intent to enact future statutory changes related to the state's budget process. It does not create new policies, allocate funds, or directly affect any specific groups or programs. The bill serves as a formal statement of legislative direction for upcoming budget-related legislation, with no immediate fiscal impact. This is not a substantive budget measure but a step to guide future budget law revisions.
SB 193 is a procedural bill that states the California Legislature's intent to later enact statutory changes related to the Budget Act of 2025. It does not make any specific budget changes or affect any individuals or programs directly. The bill merely expresses legislative intent for future budget-related statutory updates and has no fiscal impact or funding provisions. This is a standard procedural step to signal future legislative action on budget matters.
SB 167 is a procedural bill that expresses the California Legislature's intent to enact future statutory changes related to the Budget Act of 2025. It does not make any immediate policy changes or affect specific groups; instead, it formally states the Legislature's plan to revise budget-related laws later. The bill passed the Senate unanimously (28-10) and is now pending in the Assembly. As a statement of intent, it has no fiscal impact or direct effect on state programs or residents.
SB 173, the "Budget Act of 2025," is a procedural bill that formally expresses the Legislature's intent to enact future statutory changes related to the state's budget process. It does not make specific policy changes or allocate funds itself - it simply states the Legislature’s future goal to revise the Budget Act of 2025. The bill was passed by the Senate on March 20, 2025, and referred to the Assembly for further consideration. This type of bill typically precedes more detailed budget legislation but has no immediate effect on state budgets or programs.
SB 191 is a procedural resolution expressing the California Legislature's intent to enact future statutory changes to the Budget Act of 2025. It does not create new policies or affect specific groups but serves as a preparatory step for upcoming budget-related legislation. The bill formally states the Legislature’s plan to modify the existing Budget Act framework through future statutory amendments. It passed the Senate unanimously (28-10) and is now pending in the Assembly Budget Committee. This resolution itself has no fiscal impact or direct effect on state operations.
SB 113 is a procedural bill that expresses the Legislature's intent to enact future statutory changes to California's Budget Act of 2025. It does not specify any policy changes, allocate funds, or create new obligations - it simply sets the stage for upcoming budget-related legislation. The bill passed the Senate with a 28-10 vote in March 2025 and is now pending in the Assembly for further consideration. This is a preparatory step, not a substantive policy change.
SB 114 is a procedural bill that states the Legislature's intent to later enact statutory changes related to the Budget Act of 2025. It does not make any specific budget changes or affect any individuals or entities directly. The bill serves only as a formal expression of future legislative intent, with no fiscal impact or concrete policy provisions included. It was passed by the Senate but has not yet moved forward in the Assembly. This is a preliminary step, not a substantive budget measure.
