Rep. Cecilia Aguiar-Curry

Existing law, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, requires a business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children to comply with certain requirements, including, among other things, prohibiting the business from collecting, selling, sharing, or retaining any personal information that is not necessary to provide the online service, product, or feature, except as specified. Existing law imposes specified civil penalties upon a business that violates these provisions. This bill would repeal the above-described act and would instead impose similar provisions without the above-referenced exceptions and would impose civil penalties for a violation of these provisions. The bill would require a business that provides an online product or service likely to be accessed by children to take reasonable steps to prevent specified risks of harm to children. The bill would authorize a child to void any provision of a contract that was entered into by the child or their parent or guardian as a result of a design feature of the online product or service. The bill would authorize the Attorney General or a public prosecutor to bring a civil action for a violation of these provisions, as specified.

This measure would call on Congress to enact legislation that restores and strengthens the full protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and it would call on the President to sign the legislation.

Existing law requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, when amending or adopting regulations that may impact the visitation of inmates, to recognize and consider the value of visiting as a means to improve prison safety, the important role of inmate visitation in maintaining connection with family and community, and the role of inmate visitation in preparing for successful release. This bill would require each facility, as defined, to establish at least 3 days of visitation per week. The bill would require a facility, if it will not be open for visitation, to provide notice to the impacted population as soon as possible. The bill would authorize a facility to deny contact visits only for specified reasons, including, among others, possession of contraband or pending or sustained rules violations that result in a restricted housing unit term. The bill would require facility staff to take specified actions with regard to correctable issues with a visitation, including, among other things, allowing the visitor a reasonable opportunity to correct the issue and return to visiting up to one hour before the end of the visiting period. The bill would prohibit denial of visitation if a visitor has traveled more than 170 miles to attend a visit and has not visited within 30 days, unless there has been a finding of a credible and documented security threat. The bill would prohibit a facility from searching visitors without their voluntary, informed, and written consent. The bill would authorize a facility to respond to refusal of that search only with denial of contact visiting for that day, and would require the facility to offer a noncontact visit on the same day, if space is available. The bill would authorize other restrictions and procedures for searches of visitors, as specified.

Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requires, on and after January 1, 2023, a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus to offer abortion by medication techniques, as specified. Existing law establishes the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund to be administered by the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and continuously appropriates the moneys in that fund to the commission for specified activities related to providing abortion by medication techniques at student health centers. This bill would require a student health center on a California State University or University of California campus, on or before January 1, 2028, to promote awareness of the services for abortion by medication techniques that the student health center offers, provide information on those services to students, and post the availability of those services on its internet website. This bill would require a community college that has a student health center, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to, on and after January 1, 2029, offer access to abortion by medication techniques, promote awareness of those services, provide information on those services to students, and post the availability of those services on its internet website. The bill would require the commission to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before January 1, 2030, that includes, but is not limited to, specified information relating to abortion by medication techniques at or through community college student health centers. The bill would require the commission, in consultation with the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to develop a standardized reporting framework that minimizes administrative burden and protects student privacy. The bill would authorize funds appropriated for these provisions to be used for implementation readiness activities and ongoing operational costs, as specified.

Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development, through its Office of Migrant Services, to assist in the development, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or operation of migrant farm labor centers and authorizes the Director of Housing and Community Development to contract with school districts, housing authorities, health agencies, and other appropriate local public and private nonprofit agencies for the procurement or construction of housing or shelter and to obtain services for migratory agricultural workers. Existing law establishes the Napa County Farmworker Centers Account to be administered by the department, as specified, to assist in the financing, maintenance, and operation of the Napa County Housing Authority's Farmworker Centers for year-round use by migrant and nonmigrant farm labor employees. Existing law requires the department to award, annually, up to $250,000 in matching funds to the Napa County Housing Authority upon demonstration that the Napa County Housing Authority is capable of continuing to effectively serve the housing needs of migrant or other farmworkers in the County of Napa and requires the Napa County Housing Authority, to be eligible for funding, to provide equal or greater funds from local sources. Existing law requires the department to use funds allocated from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, as provided. This bill would instead require the department to award, annually, up to $500,000 in matching funds to the Napa County Housing Authority upon demonstration that the Napa County Housing Authority is capable of continuing to effectively serve the housing needs of migrant or other farmworkers in the County of Napa. The bill would require all funds awarded under its provisions to comply with specified prohibitions against state funding, loans, grants, or other state subsidies for an employer that employs certain workers, as provided, and would require that employer to reimburse the state or state agency that provided the funding, as provided. The bill would, instead of requiring the department to use specified funds allocated from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund, provide that this bill is not operative until funding is appropriated by the Legislature in the Budget Act or any other measure for the purposes of the bill. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Napa.

Existing law requires each law enforcement agency, on or before January 1, 2021, to maintain a policy that provides a minimum standard on the use of force. Existing law requires that the policy include, among other things, training standards and requirements relating to demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the law enforcement agency's use of force policy by officers, investigators, and supervisors. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement agency from authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or choke hold by any peace officer employed by that agency. This bill would, until January 1, 2030, prohibit a law enforcement agency, including a federal law enforcement agency, from using a wearable electroshock device within the State of California. The bill would also prohibit a law enforcement agency from using state funds to purchase a wearable electroshock device. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to update their use of force policies to prohibit the use of a wearable electroshock device. By increasing the duties on local law enforcement, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Division of Law Enforcement within the Department of Justice to conduct a study on the safety and community impacts of wearable electroshock devices and provide recommendations for appropriate standards and safeguards for their use, and would require the department to report to the Legislature on the findings and recommendations of the study on or before January 1, 2029. 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 provides for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, including general acute care hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, by the State Department of Public Health. A violation of these provisions is generally a crime. Under existing law, if a person dies in a hospital, convalescent hospital, or board and care facility without known next of kin, the person in charge of the hospital or facility is required to give immediate notice of that fact to the public administrator of the county in which the hospital or facility is located, and if the person in charge fails to do so, the hospital or facility is liable for the cost of internment, as specified, and specified losses incurred by the estate or beneficiaries as a result of the failure to notify. This bill would instead require the licensee in charge of a general acute care hospital or a skilled nursing facility to make a reasonable attempt to notify any known next of kin, as specified. The bill would state that this requirement is met if a skilled nursing facility notifies the person's resident representative or has the body transferred to a hospital after death, or if the person notified the hospital or facility, prior to death and in writing, that they do not want their known next of kin to be notified of their presence or death. The bill would require, if a reasonable attempt is made or the person expressed a desire that next of kin not be notified, as specified, that the hospital or facility give notice to the public administrator as described above. The bill would make a hospital or facility that fails to notify any known next of kin liable for a continuing civil penalty of $200 per day, up to a maximum of $50,000, measured from the time it would take to make a reasonable attempt to notify the next of kin until the actual knowledge by the next of kin of the decedent's death. The bill would also make a hospital or facility that fails to notify the county public administrator, as specified, liable for a continuing civil penalty of up to $200 per day, up to a maximum of $50,000, measured from the 5th business day following a person's death until the county public administrator is notified. The bill would authorize a licensee that disputes the assessment of a civil penalty to, within 10 working days of the notification of the penalty, request a hearing pursuant to specified law.

Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services, in collaboration with the State Department of Education, to implement a reimbursement system plan that establishes reasonable standards and assigned reimbursement rates for subsidized childcare and development services, and to develop and conduct an alternative methodology for ratesetting, as specified. Existing law requires the Governor and the Legislature to, by no later than July 1, 2025, establish reimbursement rates based on the alternative methodology, as specified. Existing law requires the department to provide quarterly updates from October 1, 2024, to July 1, 2027, inclusive, on the implementation of the new reimbursement rates set under the alternative methodology. If the new reimbursement rates do not take effect on July 1, 2025, existing law also requires the department to provide the Legislature with a timeline for transitioning from the rates that are in effect on July 1, 2025, to the new established rates. This bill would instead, under those circumstances, require the department to provide the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee with the department's anticipated timeline for the above-described rate transition. The bill would also require the quarterly reports described above to continue until July 1, 2028. Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that the reimbursement rates established under the alternative methodology satisfy certain parameters, including, among others, that the rates vary based on geography, type of care setting, regulatory requirements applicable to each type of care setting, time categories, and child age. This bill would impose various requirements on the department, in consultation with the State Department of Education, when establishing new reimbursement rates using a single-rate structure informed by the alternative methodology, to the extent those requirements are consistent with the approved Child Care and Development Fund state plan. Among other things, the bill would require the department to vary rates based on geographic regions and specific age groupings and to include in the rates an enhanced rate for nonstandard hours of care and enhanced inclusion rates for children with special needs. The bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions by means of all-county letters, childcare bulletins, or similar written instructions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 10227.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 190 or SB 190 to be operative only if this bill and AB 190 or SB 190 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, commonly known as the Cartwright Act, identifies certain acts as unlawful restraints of trade and unlawful trusts and prescribes provisions for its enforcement. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 provides that in a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act, it is sufficient to contain factual allegations demonstrating that the existence of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce is plausible. Chapter 338 of the Statutes of 2025 also provides that a complaint for any violation of the Cartwright Act is not required to allege facts tending to exclude the possibility of independent action. Existing case law, In re Cipro Cases I & II (2015) 61 Cal.4th 116, establishes a rule of reason analysis for certain claims under the Cartwright Act, which, among other things, determines whether an act was made for the purpose of avoiding competition and whether the anticompetitive effects of the agreement outweigh any procompetitive justifications. This bill would prohibit any person from monopolizing or monopsonizing any part of trade or commerce, as provided. The bill would require courts to use the analytical framework and guidance provided in In re Cipro Cases I & II. The bill would require a plaintiff bringing an action under its provisions to allege, and prove at trial, substantial market power through either direct or indirect evidence. The bill would exempt a small business, as defined, from these provisions. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prevent, limit, or prohibit certain conduct and legal instruments, including exclusive franchises granted and supervised by a local, state, or federal governmental agency. This bill would require any action brought pursuant to these provisions to be initiated only by the Attorney General or a district attorney, and would, with certain exceptions, preclude an alleged violation under its provisions from serving as a predicate violation under the Unfair Competition Law. The bill would require an action brought pursuant to these provisions to be filed as a "complex case" pursuant to provisions of law requiring the assessment of additional court fees, as specified. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The bill would require courts to liberally interpret California's antitrust laws to best promote free and fair competition, as provided. Because the bill would expand the scope of activities prohibited by the Cartwright Act, the violation of which is punishable as 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 federal law, the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, designates the 3-digit telephone number "988" as the universal number within the United States for the purpose of the national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline system operating through the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Existing law, the Miles Hall Lifeline and Suicide Prevention Act, requires, among other things, the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to verify that technology that allows for transfers between 988 centers, as well as between 988 centers and 911 public safety answering points, is available to 988 centers and 911 public safety answering points throughout the state, to appoint a 988 system director, and to verify interoperability between and across 911 and 988. Existing law establishes the 988 State Suicide and Behavioral Health Crisis Services Fund and provides that 988 surcharge revenue in the fund is available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of the act. This bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency (agency) to annually determine whether an adequate specialized LGBTQ+ suicide prevention hotline is activated by the federal government under 988. When making this determination, the bill would require the agency to consider specified factors, including, among other things, any factor the agency considers relevant to evaluating the adequacy of press 3 operations. The bill would authorize the agency to, no later than 6 months after its determination, request the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to allow the state to implement the press 3 function at the state level for calls originating in the State of California, which would allow callers to dial "988" and press "3" to be automatically routed to a specialized 988 center. The bill would require OES and the agency to, no later than 12 months following the approval by SAMHSA, ensure that press 3 function technologies are available. This bill would require, no later than 12 months following approval by SAMHSA, the agency to identify and contract with a qualified entity or entities that specialize in LGBTQ+ suicide prevention services. The bill would require the agency to determine the eligibility criteria, establish an application process, and administer funds to the qualified entity, as specified. The bill would require a qualified entity to comply with various requirements, including having a primary objective of reducing suicide rates or addressing mental health crises. The bill would make its implementation subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, as specified. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.