The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to exempt from taxation, in whole or in part, property that is used exclusively for religious, hospital, or charitable purposes, and is owned or held in trust by a nonprofit entity. Pursuant to that authority, existing law provides for a welfare exemption under which property used exclusively for an exempt purpose and owned and operated by specified entities, including foundations, limited liability companies, or corporations meeting certain statutory requirements is exempt from taxation. This bill would specify that for the purposes of the welfare exemption provisions above, "property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes" shall not include property, or any portion thereof, operated as a detention facility, as defined. The bill would declare that the above provision is declarative of, and not a change in, existing law.
Existing law prohibits a person, other than a provider of electronic or wire communication service for specified purposes, from installing or using a pen register or a trap and trace device, as those terms are defined, without first obtaining a court order. Existing law authorizes a person who has been injured by a violation of that prohibition to bring an action against the person who committed the violation to enjoin and restrain the violation, as well as to bring an action for monetary damages, as specified. This bill would instead authorize only the Attorney General to bring that action for a violation of the above-described provision if the action is alleged to arise from conduct occurring on an internet website, online application, or mobile application. The bill would provide that this limitation applies retroactively to any pending claim in an action commenced within 2 years before the operative date of the bill. The bill would declare the severability of its provisions.
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 request that a business delete personal information about the consumer that the business has collected from the consumer. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA. Existing law, the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, establishes privacy standards for the collection, use, and disclosure of information gathered in connection with insurance transactions by insurance institutions, agents, and insurance-support organizations. The Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act imposes various monetary penalties for violations of the act and makes a person who knowingly and willfully obtains information about an individual from an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization under false pretenses guilty of a misdemeanor. On and after July 1, 2028, this bill would revise the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act to establish new standards for the processing and sharing of consumers' personal information by insurance licensees, surplus line insurers, reinsurers, and third-party service providers. The bill would authorize processing or sharing of a consumer's personal information for specified purposes, including sharing in connection with an insurance transaction. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider to provide a clear and conspicuous privacy notice presented as a stand-alone document that includes specified information to a consumer within a specified period of time, and would prohibit the sharing of a consumer's personal information unless it is reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve specified purposes related to an insurance transaction or another purpose that is fully disclosed to the consumer and to which the consumer has consented. The bill would also require a licensee to provide a privacy rights notice, as specified, to each consumer with whom the licensee has an ongoing business relationship. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider to obtain a consumer's consent to take specified actions, and would set forth the means by which consent is obtained. The bill would authorize a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to retain personal information, as specified, and would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to develop a written records retention policy and schedule. The bill would require a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer to provide specified information to a consumer if it makes an adverse underwriting decision, and would provide a process by which a consumer may access, correct, amend, or delete any personal information about the consumer in the possession of the licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or its third-party service providers. The bill would require a contract between a licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer and a third-party service provider to govern the processing and sharing of personal information performed on behalf of the licensee, surplus line insurer, or reinsurer. The bill would prohibit retaliation against a consumer because the consumer exercised or attempted to exercise their rights under the act. The bill would prohibit public disclosure of specified systems, processes, policies, procedures, and plans that are disclosed to the Insurance Commissioner. The bill would also make technical and conforming changes. This bill would authorize a penalty of at least $5,000, not to exceed $1,000,000 in the aggregate for multiple violations of the act. The bill would increase the fine if a cease and desist order is violated to at least $15,000 for each violation, and would increase a fine to at least $50,000 for each violation if the commissioner finds the violations to be a general business practice. Under the bill, a person who knowingly and willfully obtains information about a consumer from a licensee, surplus line insurer, reinsurer, or third-party service provider under false pretenses would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $50,000, imprisonment in a county jail for up to 6 months, or both, thus expanding the applicability of a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program. 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. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 791.07, 791.11, and 791.12 of the Insurance Code proposed by AB 1798 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1798 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 generally regulates the business of renting passenger vehicles to the public. The law prohibits a rental company from taking various actions, including requiring the purchase of a damage waiver, optional insurance, or another optional good or service, and using electronic surveillance technology to track a renter in order to impose fines or surcharges relating to the renter's use of a rental vehicle. This bill would require any privately owned vehicle rented by, or furnished to, any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency for the use of detaining, arresting, or transporting persons who have violated, or are suspected of having violated, any law, to display a temporary decal displaying the agency name and logo, as specified. The bill would authorize certain attorneys, including the Attorney General, to pursue a civil action against the entity renting the vehicle from the private owner for failure to comply with these provisions. The bill would require the rental car contract to include a term that compliance with state law is mandatory. The bill would exempt privately owned vehicles rented or otherwise furnished or loaned to a law enforcement agency for specified purposes and rental car contracts entered into prior to January 1, 2027, from these provisions. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
Existing law, 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. 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 and establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce those provisions. Existing law requires a retail grocery store or grocery department within a general retail merchandise store that uses a point-of-sale system to have a clearly readable price indicated on 85% of the total number of packaged consumer commodities offered for sale, subject to specified exemptions. This bill would, subject to certain exceptions, prohibit a retailer from engaging in surveillance pricing. The bill would define "surveillance pricing" to mean offering or setting a customized price for a good for a specific consumer or group of consumers, based, in whole or in part, on personally identifiable information, as specified, and determined in whole or in part through the use of any technology, software, program, machine-based system, or computational process that uses statistical modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence, or other data processing techniques. The bill would also define "surveillance pricing" to mean random variations in prices to different consumers using a website, mobile application, or comparable online technology. The bill would provide that its provisions do not limit or impair any consumer right or remedy available under any other state or federal law. The bill would declare that any waiver of these provisions is against public policy and is void and unenforceable. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing law authorizes designated health care services providers, employees, volunteers, and patients, and individuals who face threats of violence or violence or harassment from the public because of their affiliation with a designated health care services facility, to complete an application to be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of enabling state and local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing a program participant's residence address contained in any public record and otherwise provide for confidentiality of identity for that person, subject to specified conditions. Existing law defines "designated health care services" to mean gender-affirming health care services or reproductive health care services. Under existing law, any person who makes a false statement in an application is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law prohibits a person, business, or association from knowingly publicly posting or publicly displaying, disclosing, or distributing on internet websites or on social media, the personal information or image of any designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address, with the intent to incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, as specified, or to threaten the person identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, as specified. Existing law additionally prohibits a person, business, or association from soliciting, selling, or trading on the internet or social media the personal information or image of a designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant with the intent described above. Existing law establishes a cause of action for injunctive or declarative relief for a violation of these prohibitions. Existing law prohibits a person from posting on the internet or social media, with the intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence against a designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address, the personal information or image of a reproductive health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address. This bill would, commencing October 1, 2027, similarly establish an address confidentiality program for a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, as defined, who faces threats of violence or harassment from the public because of their affiliation with a designated immigration support services facility. This bill would additionally prohibit a person, business, or association from soliciting, selling, or trading on the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer with the intent described above. The bill would also, among other things, prohibit a person from posting on the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, or other individuals residing at the same home address, with the specific intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence that is likely to occur against such an individual. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. By imposing new duties on local agencies and creating new crimes, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. 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 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
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.
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, no later than July 1, 2026, develop and adopt, and update every 5 years, 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 local educational agency. Under existing law, a pupil shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil's individualized education program. This bill, commencing July 1, 2028, would require the above-described policy to continue to apply only to pupils in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive. The bill would require the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school that serves pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, or grades 1 to 8, inclusive, to, no later than July 1, 2028, develop and adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones by those pupils while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency, as provided. The bill, commencing July 1, 2028, would prohibit instruction provided to pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, from requiring the use of a smartphone by a pupil. The bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require (1) a pupil in any grade to also be allowed to possess or use a smartphone when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil's plan developed pursuant to the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and (2) a policy adopted or updated pursuant to these provisions be included in a pupil handbook, if one is provided. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the State Department of Education, on or before January 1, 2029, to submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and post on their internet website, a report that contains (1) a description of the pupil smartphone policies of at least 30 selected local educational agencies that have provided consent to participate and that are representative of the demographic and geographic diversity of the state, including a copy of each policy, as provided, (2) the results of a survey of those local educational agencies, which the bill would require the department to conduct, and (3) recommended best practices for future local educational agency pupil smartphone use policies. The bill would authorize the department to collaborate with specified organizations with relevant expertise in preparing the report. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2033. 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.
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.
This House Resolution from the California Legislature calls for a federal review of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The bill argues that the current law, which protects online platforms from liability for third-party content, has become outdated and allows major technology companies to avoid responsibility for harmful user-generated material. It highlights that courts have used this provision to shield platforms from legal action in cases involving harassment, illegal sales, and other serious harms. The resolution contends that the law should be reformed to hold companies accountable for their design choices and content moderation practices while still encouraging them to remove objectionable material.
