Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of contracts for online dating services, as defined, and requires those contracts to be in writing and to contain specified information. Existing law generally provides for the regulation of online platforms and services that facilitate interactions between users. This bill would require an online dating service provider to conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background check for each California user who registers for a profile for purposes of the online dating service. The bill would require the background check to include a search of a multistate and multijurisdiction criminal records locator and the United States Department of Justice National Sex Offender Public Website. The bill would require the online dating service provider to place a conspicuous flag on a California user's profile if the background check reveals that the user is a registered sex offender or has been convicted of specified offenses, including a violent felony, a hate crime, or an assault or battery.
Senate Resolution 98 designates the week of April 11 to April 17, 2026, as Heat Pump Week in California to raise awareness about electric heat pump technology. This resolution directly affects homeowners, businesses, and the general public by encouraging the adoption of heat pumps for space heating, cooling, and water heating. The text highlights that these systems are more energy-efficient than traditional gas equipment and can help lower utility bills while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By promoting this technology, the Senate aims to support the state's broader goals of achieving carbon neutrality and improving public health through cleaner air.
Existing law prohibits a public agency, which includes the state, a city, a county, a city and county, or any agency or political subdivision of the state, a city, a county, or a city and county, including, but not limited to, a law enforcement agency, from selling, sharing, or transferring automated license plate recognition (ALPR) information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. Existing law defines ALPR information as information or data collected through the use of an ALPR system. This bill would provide that "public agency" does not include a transportation agency, a public transit operator, or a local department of transportation or public works department, as specified. The bill would, beginning January 1, 2026, require new, updated, expansions of, or addendums of contractual agreements with ALPR vendors, manufacturers, or suppliers to mandate that no default access is provided to any national ALPR database and that an agency's collected scans are by default not accessible to any other agency, and would impose new requirements on sharing between California state law enforcement agencies. The bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to use ALPR information only for purposes of locating vehicles or persons when either are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense. The bill would prohibit a public agency from retaining ALPR information for more than 60 days after the date of collection if it does not match information on an authorized hot list, as defined, and as of January 1, 2026, would require a public agency to delete all ALPR information that has been held for more than 60 days and does not match information on an authorized hot list within 14 days. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, which include local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law defines an ALPR operator as a person that operates an ALPR system, which does not include a transportation agency. Existing law defines an ALPR end-user a person that accesses or uses an ALPR system, which does not include, among other things, a transportation agency. This bill would additionally exclude from the definitions of "ALPR operator" and "ALPR end-user" a public transit operator, a local department of transportation or public works department, or an airport or airport operator, as provided. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would require those security procedures and practices to include safeguards for managing which employees can see the data from their systems, as specified, and requiring data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. Existing law requires an ALPR operator and ALPR end-user to implement a usage and privacy policy that includes, among other things, a description of the job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. This bill would require the usage and privacy policy to identify what purpose employees and independent contractors access and use ALPR information for. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to, contingent upon an appropriation of sufficient funds, conduct annual random audits on a public agency that is an ALPR operator or ALPR end-user to determine whether they have implemented and are adhering to that usage and privacy policy. Existing law requires an ALPR operator that accesses or provides access to ALPR information to require that ALPR information only be used for the authorized purposes described in the usage and privacy policy and to maintain a record of that access that includes, among other things, the purpose for accessing the information. This bill would instead require that record of access maintained by the ALPR operator to include the case file number or task force name, as applicable, that justifies the search query, and would provide that no queries shall be allowed without a log entry with a valid and current case file number or task force name from the agency conducting the query. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 establishes the State Air Resources Board as the state agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse gases. Existing law requires the state board to establish a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program, as provided, to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of carbon capture, utilization, or storage technologies and carbon dioxide removal technologies and facilitate the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide from those technologies, where appropriate. Existing law requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, in consultation with the state board, to publish a framework for governing agreements regarding 2 or more tracts of land overlying the same geologic storage reservoir or reservoirs for purposes of managing, developing, and operating a carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration project, as provided. This bill would require the state board to establish and administer the Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase Program as a competitive grant process for eligible carbon dioxide removal projects, as specified. The bill would require the state board, on or before January 1, 2028, and annually thereafter, to conduct and publish on its internet website a survey of carbon dioxide removal projects existing or in development within the state, and, on or before December 31, 2027, and annually thereafter, until December 31, 2035, to publish on its internet website a report describing Carbon Dioxide Removal Purchase Program activities completed and carbon dioxide removal projects to date, as specified. The bill would require the state board, on or after July 1, 2026, but on or before December 31, 2035, to fund carbon dioxide removal projects in an amount totaling $50,000,000. The bill would authorize up to 10% of that amount to be used to supplement necessary administrative costs in establishing the program. The bill would prohibit carbon dioxide removal projects from exceeding $25,000,000 of grants toward qualified carbon dioxide removals in any one of specified project categories or $12,500,000 of grants towards any one individual carbon dioxide removal project sponsor, except as specified. The bill would require that eligible carbon dioxide removal projects permanently retire the contracted tons of removed carbon dioxide from any future carbon dioxide removals credit issuance. The bill would require the state board, on or before January 1, 2028, to adopt guidelines, including the definition of an eligible carbon dioxide removal project, for the program, which the bill would require to be consistent with certain provisions governing carbon dioxide capture, removal, or sequestration projects, as specified. The bill would make implementation of these provisions contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature for purposes of the program. The bill would require all funds to be available for encumbrance or expenditure until June 30, 2035, and to be available for liquidation until June 30, 2035.
(1) Existing law prohibits the false impersonation of another person in either their personal or official capacity with the intent to steal or defraud, as specified. This bill would define various terms related to artificial intelligence and digital replication, and would clarify that false impersonation includes the use of a digital replica with the intent to impersonate another for purposes of these and other criminal provisions. (2) Existing law creates a civil cause of action against any person who knowingly uses the name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness of another person, without their consent, for specified purposes. When a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in an advertisement or other publication is incidental and not essential to the purpose of the publication, existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that failure to obtain the consent of an employee was not a knowing use of an employee's photograph or likeness. This bill would clarify that, for purposes of this cause of action, a voice or likeness includes a digital replica, as defined. The bill would also remove the provisions establishing the rebuttable presumption when an employee's likeness or photograph appears in an advertisement or other publication. (3) Existing law governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings. Existing law prescribes procedures for the authentication of photographs and audio and video recordings. This bill would require the Judicial Council, by no later than January 1, 2027, to review the impact of artificial intelligence on the admissibility of proffered evidence in court proceedings and develop any necessary rules of court to assist courts in assessing claims that proffered evidence has been generated by or manipulated by artificial intelligence and determining whether such evidence is admissible. (4) Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law, establishes a statutory cause of action for unfair competition, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and establishes remedies and penalties in that regard, including civil penalties. This bill would require, by December 1, 2026, and except as provided, any person or entity that makes available to consumers any artificial intelligence technology that enables a user to create a digital replica, as defined, to provide a consumer warning that unlawful use of the technology to depict another person without prior consent may result in civil or criminal liability for the user. The bill would require the warning to be hyperlinked on any page or screen where the consumer may input a prompt to the technology and included in the terms and conditions for use of the technology. The bill would also impose a civil penalty for violations of the requirement. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3344 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 683 to be operative only if this bill and SB 683 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law requires the Department of Technology to conduct, in coordination with other interagency bodies as it deems appropriate, a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) that have been proposed for use, development, or procurement by, or are being used, developed, or procured by, any state agency. Existing law establishes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, which is composed of various departments responsible for protecting and promoting the rights and interests of workers in California, including the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, led by the Labor Commissioner, within the Department of Industrial Relations. This bill would require an employer to provide a written notice that an ADS, for the purpose of making employment-related decisions, not including hiring, is in use at the workplace to all workers that will foreseeably be directly affected by the ADS, as specified. The bill would require the employer to maintain an updated list of all ADS currently in use. The bill would require an employer to notify, as provided, a job applicant that the employer utilizes an ADS when making hiring decisions, if the employer will use the ADS in making decisions for that position. The bill would prohibit an employer from using an ADS that does certain functions and would limit the purposes and manner in which an ADS may be used to make decisions. The bill would authorize a worker to request, and require an employer to provide, a copy of the most recent 12 months of the worker's own data primarily used by an ADS to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, as specified. The bill would require an employer that primarily relied on an ADS to make a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision to provide the affected worker with a written notice, as specified. This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, demoting, suspending, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against any worker for taking certain actions asserting their rights under the bill. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bill's provisions, as specified, and would authorize a public prosecutor to bring a civil action. The bill would set forth specified types of relief that a plaintiff may seek and specified penalties that an employer that violates these provisions is subject to, including a $500 civil penalty. The bill would also provide that an employer who complies with the requirements related to notice in this bill is not required to comply with any substantially similar provisions under any other state law, except as specified. The bill would not apply to parties covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement contains specified information, including an explicit waiver of the bill's provisions. The bill would declare that its provisions do not prohibit any employer from complying with regulatory or contractual requirements in the provision of products or services to the federal government, as defined. This bill would declare that its provisions are severable.
Existing law generally regulates social media platforms, including by requiring a social media company to post terms of service for each social media platform owned or operated by the company in a manner reasonably designed to inform all users of the social media platform of the existence and contents of the terms of service, as prescribed. Existing law generally prohibits a person from using violence or intimidation to interfere with another person's enjoyment of certain rights or because of certain attributes of that person, including the person's political affiliation, race, or sexual orientation, and punishes violations of that law with certain civil penalties or as misdemeanors, as prescribed. This bill would make a social media platform, as defined, that violates the above-referenced provisions of law relating to personal rights through its algorithms that relay content to users or aids, abets, acts in concert, or conspires in violation of those laws, or is a joint tortfeasor in an action alleging a violation of those laws, liable for specified civil penalties. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable and would declare attempted waiver of its provisions to be void and unenforceable. This bill would become operative on January 1, 2027.
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. The CCPA defines various terms for these purposes. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) , 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 (agency) and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce the CCPA. Existing law requires, on or before January 1, 2026, and before each time thereafter that a generative artificial intelligence system or service, as defined, or a substantial modification to a generative artificial intelligence system or service, released on or after January 1, 2022, is made available to Californians for use, regardless of whether the terms of that use include compensation, a developer of the system or service to post on the developer's internet website documentation, as specified, regarding the data used to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service. This bill would impose a duty on a covered deployer, defined as a business that deploys a high-risk artificial intelligence system that processes personal information, to protect personal information held by the covered deployer, subject to certain requirements. In this regard, the bill would require a covered deployer whose high-risk artificial intelligence systems process personal information to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program, as specified, that contains administrative, technical, and physical safeguards that are appropriate for, among other things, the covered deployer's size, scope, and type of business. The bill would require the program described above to meet specified requirements, including, among other things, that the program incorporates safeguards that are consistent with the safeguards for the protection of personal information and information of a similar character under applicable state or federal laws and regulations. Existing law, the Unfair Competition Law, establishes a statutory cause of action for unfair competition, including any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, and establishes remedies and penalties in that regard, including injunctive relief and civil penalties. This bill would specify that a violation of the above-described provisions relating to the duty of a covered deployer to protect information, including the requirement that a covered deployer maintain the comprehensive information security program described above, constitute a deceptive trade act or practice under that law. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, governs the procedure for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. This bill would authorize the agency to adopt regulations pursuant to the act to implement these provisions, and would exempt, notwithstanding that provision, any regulations adopted by the agency to establish fees from the act. The bill would define various terms for these purposes. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act by a majority vote of both houses of the Legislature, as specified. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act governs the disclosure of medical information by an employer, a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor, as those terms are defined. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) authorizes a consumer to direct a business, as defined, that collects sensitive personal information about the consumer to limit its use of the consumer's sensitive personal information, as specified, and defines "sensitive personal information" to include personal information that reveals a consumer's neural data. The CCPA also authorizes a consumer to request that a business delete any personal information about the consumer which the business has collected from the consumer, as prescribed. 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. This bill would require, under the CCPA, a covered business to use neural data only for the purpose for which the neural data was collected and would require a covered business to delete neural data when the purpose for which the neural data was collected is accomplished. The bill would define "covered business" to mean a person who makes available a brain-computer interface to a person in this state and would define "brain-computer interface" to mean a system that allows direct communication and control between a person's brain and an external device. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
The California AI Transparency Act requires a person that creates, codes, or otherwise produces a generative artificial intelligence system that has over 1,000,000 monthly visitors or users and is publicly accessible within the geographic boundaries of the state to make available an AI detection tool at no cost to the user that, among other things, allows a user to assess whether image, video, or audio content, or content that is any combination thereof, was created or altered by the covered provider's generative artificial intelligence system. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 prohibits certain businesses from selling or sharing the personal information of consumers if the business has actual knowledge that the consumer is less than 16 years of age, unless the consumer, if the consumer is at least 13 years of age and less than 16 years of age, or the consumer's parent or guardian, if the consumer is less than 13 years of age, has affirmatively authorized the sale or sharing of the consumer's personal information. This bill, the Leading Ethical AI Development (LEAD) for Kids Act, would, among other things related to the use of certain artificial intelligence systems by children, prohibit a person, partnership, corporation, business entity, or state or local government agency that makes a companion chatbot available to users from making a companion chatbot available to a child unless the companion chatbot is not foreseeably capable of doing certain things that could harm a child, including encouraging the child to engage in self-harm, suicidal ideation, violence, consumption of drugs or alcohol, or disordered eating. The act would authorize the Attorney General to recover a certain civil penalty for a violation of the bill, as prescribed. The act would authorize a child who suffers actual harm as a result of a violation of the bill, or a parent or guardian acting on behalf of that child, to bring a civil action to recover, among other relief, actual damages. This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.
