Issue · Technology

Technology

Every technology bill, vote, and legislator stance in California, automatically classified by Maddy, our AI policy reader.

Total bills
12
2025-2026 Regular Session
Top supporter
Josh Becker
100% support rate
Top opponent
Brian Jones
2% support rate
Ranked legislators
10
5 support · 5 oppose
Key legislators

Who's moving technology in California

Legislators moving technology in California
Legislator Party Stance Support rate Decisive votes
Josh Becker
Josh Becker Senate · District 13
D
Strong +
100% 52
Bob Archuleta
Bob Archuleta Senate · District 30
D
Strong +
98% 60
Caroline Menjivar
Caroline Menjivar Senate · District 20
D
Strong +
98% 54
Catherine Blakespear
Catherine Blakespear Senate · District 38
D
Strong +
98% 53
Susan Rubio
Susan Rubio Senate · District 22
D
Strong +
98% 53
Brian Jones
Brian Jones Senate · District 40
R
Strong −
2% 60
Marie Alvarado-Gil
Marie Alvarado-Gil Senate · District 4
R
Strong −
4% 46
Steve Choi
Steve Choi Senate · District 37
R
Strong −
6% 50
Tony Strickland
Tony Strickland Senate · District 36
R
Strong −
6% 65
Kelly Seyarto
Kelly Seyarto Senate · District 32
R
Strong −
7% 104
Showing 11–12 of 12 bills

All technology bills

failed · California · Senate Sep 13, 2025

SB 295: California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025.

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.
passed · California · Assembly Aug 29, 2025

AB 705: Public Utilities Commission: Independent Office of Audits and Investigations.

Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to appoint a chief internal auditor to hold office at the pleasure of the commission. Existing law requires the chief internal auditor to be responsible for the oversight of the internal audit unit and to plan, initiate, and perform audits of key financial, management, operational, and information technology functions within the commission to improve accountability and transparency to executive and state management. This bill would delete the provision providing for the appointment of the chief internal auditor and instead provide that, effective January 1, 2026, the internal audit unit of the commission and its staff are transferred to the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations, which the bill would establish within the commission, as specified. The bill would provide for the appointment and removal of the director of the office, who would have the title of Inspector General. The bill would require that the office have access and authority to examine all records, files, documents, accounts, reports, correspondence, or other property of the commission, public utilities, and other entities regulated by the commission, as specified. The bill would require the Inspector General to report to the Governor and the Legislature, as provided. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and because a violation of a commission action implementing the bill's requirements would be 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.
Showing 11 to 12 of 12 bills