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.
Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. The act requires an attorney to strictly maintain client confidences and to preserve client secrets at their own peril. This bill would prohibit an attorney from delegating the practice of law to generative artificial intelligence. The bill would require an attorney who uses generative artificial intelligence to assist in the practice of law to, among other things, not enter confidential, personal identifying, and other nonpublic information into a generative artificial intelligence system, as specified. The bill would also require an attorney to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of generative artificial intelligence outputs and to correct any erroneous or hallucinated output in any material used by the attorney. Existing law requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper to be signed by the attorney of record, or if a party is unrepresented, by the party, thereby certifying to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief that it is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose and that the claims, defenses, and legal and factual contentions are warranted, as specified. This bill would prohibit a brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court from containing any citations that an attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally verified, including any citation provided by generative artificial intelligence. Existing law, the California Arbitration Act, provides a statutory framework for the enforcement of contractual arbitration under California law. The act establishes that a written agreement to submit a present or future controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except as specified. The act defines a neutral arbitrator as one who is selected jointly by the parties or by the parties' arbitrators, or is appointed by the court if the parties or their arbitrators cannot jointly select an arbitrator. The act requires a person selected to serve as a neutral arbitrator to disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt as to the proposed neutral arbitrator's impartiality. This bill would prohibit an arbitrator from delegating any part of their decisionmaking process to any generative artificial intelligence tool, and would prohibit an arbitrator from relying on information generated by generative artificial intelligence outside the record without making appropriate disclosures to the parties beforehand, as specified. The California Constitution establishes the Judicial Council, and requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules for court administration, practice, and procedure, and to undertake certain responsibilities with regard to court facilities. This bill would require the Judicial Council to publicly revisit a specified standard of judicial administration to incorporate any necessary changes reflecting the further development of generative artificial intelligence. Existing law requires the State Bar to create a program to certify alternative resolution firms, providers, or practitioners. Existing law requires the program to include procedures to verify, among other things, that a firm, provider, or practitioner has procedures in place for persons to make complaints regarding the failure of an arbitrator or mediator of the firm, provider, or practitioner to comply with ethical standards, as applicable, and procedures to remedy failures of arbitrators or mediators to comply with those standards. This bill would instead require the State Bar to adopt procedures for the State Bar or a professional organization to receive, investigate, and resolve any complaints that a certified firm, provider, or practitioner failed to comply with the applicable ethical standards of conduct, as specified. The bill would require complaint proceedings to occur in private and be confidential. After a decision on a complaint, the bill would authorize the State Bar to publicly disclose information or records concerning complaint proceedings that do not reveal confidential or privileged communications. The bill would exempt information, records, or communications provided under these provisions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. 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.
Existing law requires, beginning on January 1, 2028, a vehicle with connected vehicle service to clearly indicate to a person who is inside the vehicle when a person who is outside the vehicle has accessed, among other things, connected vehicle location access. For these purposes, existing law defines "connected vehicle service" to mean any capability, including through a software application that is designed to be operated on a mobile device, to remotely obtain data from, or send commands to, a vehicle, and "connected vehicle location access" to mean a type of connected vehicle service that allows a person, who is outside of a vehicle, to view or track the location of the vehicle, as specified. If a vehicle includes connected vehicle location access, existing law requires a covered provider, as defined, to provide a mechanism that can be used by a driver who is inside a vehicle to immediately disable connected vehicle location access. Existing law delays the operation of this requirement depending on whether the vehicle was manufactured prior to, or on or after, January 1, 2028. Unless otherwise provided, a violation of the Vehicle Code constitutes an infraction. This bill would, instead, limit the provisions above to specified vehicles with connected vehicle access. The bill would apply the requirement for a vehicle with connected vehicle service to indicate to a person inside the vehicle if connected vehicle location access is enabled to all vehicles beginning with the 2031 model year. The bill would make this requirement operative beginning with the 2031 model year, for 2028, 2029, and 2030 model year vehicles, as soon as practicable after the vehicle is sold unless technologically infeasible, and on or before July 1, 2027, for 2027 model year or older vehicles unless technologically infeasible. By establishing a new duty on vehicle manufacturers, this bill would expand the general crime applicable to provisions under the Vehicle Code, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits a person from using a bot, as defined, to mislead another person about the bot's artificial identity to incentivize the purchase or sale of goods or services, among other things. Existing law requires an operator of a companion chatbot, as defined, to provide a disclosure regarding the companion chatbot's artificial identity if a reasonable person interacting with the companion chatbot would be misled to believe that the person is interacting with a human. This bill would prohibit a large private business, as defined, from representing that a customer service chatbot is a human. The bill would also require the large private business to provide certain disclosures if a reasonable person interacting with the chatbot would be misled to believe they are interacting with a human. This bill would require a large private business to provide a customer service feature allowing customers to contact a customer service agent during its regular business hours, as defined. This bill would require, except as specified, large private businesses to make a good faith effort to connect a customer to an agent within 15 minutes after a request for human customer service is made, or schedule an appointment with the customer, as specified. For online chatbot customer service platforms and telephonic customer service platforms, the bill would require a large private business to make a good faith effort to limit initial and cumulative telephonic hold times, and would require certain large private businesses to post prescribed contact information on their internet website. The bill would authorize a public prosecutor to enforce these provisions, and would make a large private business that violates these provisions liable for a penalty of up to $5,000 for an initial violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation. The bill would waive its requirements due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the reasonable control of a large private business or extraordinary or emergency situations, and would exempt a large private business that provides services subject to, and is in compliance with, specified public utilities law. The bill would further exempt exclusive business lines and communications by a hospital, as specified, and a consumer reporting agency, as prescribed. The bill would define terms for these purposes.
Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requires the trustees to provide by rule for the government of their appointees and employees, including, among other things, rules related to appointment, classification, and duties. Existing law requires certain community college employees to be a person who meets specified minimum qualifications, as provided. This bill would explicitly require the instructor of record for a course of instruction to be a person who meets the rule provided by the trustees to serve as a faculty employee, as described, teaching credit instruction or noncredit instruction. The bill would also explicitly require a California State University faculty employee to be a person who meets the rule provided by the trustees to serve in that position.
Existing law establishes various healing arts boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs that license and regulate various healing arts licensees. Existing laws, including the Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Act, the Educational Psychologist Practice Act, the Clinical Social Worker Practice Act, and the Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor Act, make a violation of those acts a crime. Existing law regulates the use of artificial intelligence, as defined. Existing law requires a health facility, clinic, physician's office, or office of a group practice that uses generative artificial intelligence to generate written or verbal patient communications pertaining to patient clinical information to ensure those communications include a disclaimer that indicates to the patient that a communication was generated by artificial intelligence and instructions describing how a patient may contact a human health care provider, employee, or other appropriate person. This bill would regulate the use of artificial intelligence in connection with providing or facilitating psychotherapy services, as defined. The bill, among other things, would authorize an individual, corporation, or entity that provides or facilitates psychotherapy services to use artificial intelligence tools or systems only to assist in providing administrative or supplementary support in psychotherapy services, as specified. The bill would prohibit an individual, corporation, or entity from using artificial intelligence to record or transcribe psychotherapeutic communications or sessions or to triage or screen a person for the need for psychotherapy services unless the patient or client or their authorized representative is informed that artificial intelligence will be used and the purpose of the artificial intelligence tool or system, and the patient or client or their authorized representative provides consent, as specified. The bill would prohibit an individual, corporation, or entity from advertising or otherwise purporting to offer psychotherapy services when the services are provided through the use of companion chatbots. The bill would prohibit an individual, corporation, or entity from allowing artificial intelligence to perform certain acts, including making therapeutic decisions or detecting emotions or mental states, as specified, without review and approval by a licensed professional. The bill would make a violation of the bill's provisions subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate health care professional licensing board or enforcement agency, as specified, and would authorize those boards and enforcement entities to pursue any remedies authorized by law. Existing law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, generally restricts the persons and entities to whom, and the purposes for which, a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor may release a patient's medical information. The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act additionally imposes certain disclosure requirements for the release of medical information that specifically relates to the patient's participation in outpatient treatment with a psychotherapist. In this regard, the act prohibits a health care provider, health care service plan, or contractor from releasing that information to persons or entities who have requested that information and who are otherwise authorized by specified laws to receive that information, unless the requester makes certain written disclosures to the patient and to the provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor, as specified. Those disclosures include, among other things, the specific intended uses of the information, and the length of time during which the information will be kept before being destroyed or disposed of, as specified. Existing law makes a violation of those provisions that result in economic loss or personal injury to a patient punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would require the use of artificial intelligence in patient or client records for psychotherapy services to comply with the confidentiality requirements of the above-described provision of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and would prohibit a company or entity from sharing, selling, storing, or training their models on any data obtained from psychotherapy in a manner inconsistent with any applicable law. By expanding the scope of existing crimes, 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, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) , imposes various obligations on businesses with respect to personal information, as defined. 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. The CCPA requires a business to inform consumers of the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the categories of personal information are collected or used and whether that information is sold or shared. Existing law, the Student Online Personal Information Protection Act, prohibits an operator, as defined, from, among other things, disclosing a K–12 student's personal information, except as specified. Existing law, the Student Test Taker Privacy Protection Act, prohibits a business providing proctoring services in an educational setting from collecting, retaining, using, or disclosing personal information except to the extent necessary to provide those proctoring services and in other specified circumstances. This bill, beginning July 1, 2027, would require a business providing those proctoring services to a school district, county office of education, or charter school for classroom- or course-based exams to use end-to-end encryption, as defined, for those purposes. The bill would define "end-to-end encryption" for these purposes to mean a security method where data is encrypted on the sender's device and remains encrypted until it reaches the intended recipient's device and is unreadable by any other party, including the business providing proctoring services. 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.
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.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information, as defined, that is collected or sold by a business, as defined, including the right to direct a business that collects sensitive personal information, as defined, about the consumer to limit its use, 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. This bill would, under the CCPA, prohibit a business, service provider, or contractor from selling or sharing sensitive personal information to a third party, except as specified. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing law, 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. Among those rights, the CCPA includes the right to request that a business delete personal information that the business has collected from the consumer. This bill would expand that right to include requesting the deletion of any personal information that the business has collected about the consumer. If the business did not obtain the personal information from the consumer, the bill would allow the business to retain a record of the deletion request and the minimum data necessary to ensure the consumer's personal information remains deleted from its records and is not being used for any other purpose. The bill would make findings and declarations relating to these provisions. Existing law generally requires businesses to make certain methods of communication available for consumers to submit personal information requests, including requests for deletion and correction. If a business operates exclusively online and has a direct relationship with the consumer from whom it collects personal information, existing law requires the business to provide consumers an email address for submitting personal information requests. This bill would also require that business to make an online method, such as a web form or online portal, available to consumers for submitting personal information requests. Existing law, 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. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
