A GOOD AFTERNOON I LIKE TO CALL
TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE.
PRIVACY COMMITTEE OF LAW MAY
FIRST TWENTY EIGHTEEN SINCE WE
DO NOT HAVE A QUORUM YEAH WE
LIKE TO START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND OUR FIRST ONE UP BY. NOW WE
HAVE MR COURT YEAH. HE HAS AB
SEVENTEEN FORTY TWO.
WELCOME.
ANYTIME YOU'RE READY YOU MAY
PROCEED.
THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIR AND MISTER VICE
CHAIR.
VERY NICE TO START A HEARING ON
TIME I LOVE IT.
.
FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO THANK OF
THE COMMITTEE STAFF AND MARK I
STAFF WHO ARE CLOSE TOGETHER ON
THE BILL WE CERTAINLY ARE. CHEAP
DO WE HAVE SPECIFIC COMMITTEE
OF.
NOW.
OKAY WE TOOK CARE A YOUR
COMMITTEE SUGGESTED AS AUTHOR.
LA AMENDMENTS ALREADY SO WE HAVE
MADE THE CHANGES THAT TO YOUR
STAFF CORRECTLY I SUGGESTED
THANK YOU.
ARE AB SEVENTEEN FORTY TWO MAKE
IT EASIER FOR CALIFORNIANS TO
FREEZE THEIR CREDIT HISTORY.
PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THEFT
AND FRAUD.
EVERY YOUR PERSONAL DATA IS
STOLEN FROM MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS TO DATA BREACHES.
LAST YEAR EQUIFAX ATTACKED ONE
OF THE THREE. CONSUMER CRIME.
WHICH IS ONE OF THE THREE.
CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING
AGENCIES.
AND.
.
IT.
OVER A HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE
MILLION AMERICANS LOST.
.
THAT LOST THEIR PRIVACY FURTHER
I CAN TELL YOU THAT RIGHT AFTER
THAT ONE OF MY.
.
CREDIT CARD STARTED TO BE USED
IN OHIO A PLACE THAT I WAS NOT
YET.
SO IT'S IT'S SERIOUS WHEN THIS
HAPPENS CALIFORNIA TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES WITH CREDIT FREEZES
WHICH CAN PREVENT A CRIMINAL
FROM OPENING UP FRAUDULENT
CREDIT LINES AND THAT'S ALSO
HAPPENED TO ME.
THE FREEZE PROCESS HOWEVER IS
COMPLICATED AND ARCANE AB
SEVENTEEN FORTY TWO WOULD
PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S BY ALLOWING
THEM TO PLACE ONE CALL. OR MAKE
ONE ELECTRONIC REQUEST TO FREEZE
THEIR CREDIT AT ALL CREDIT
REPORTING AGENCIES.
THE SAME SIMPLE PROCESS WOULD
APPLY THE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
ON FREEZES. WITH ME TODAY US
MARINES MARINE MAHONEY ON BEHALF
CONSUMERS UNION.
MARINE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH EFFORTS WHEN
THIS PLACE GO AHEAD.
MY NAME IS.
MAUREEN MAHONEY AND THEY WORK
FOR CONSUMERS UNION WHICH IS THE
ADVOCACY DIVISION OF CONSUMER
REPORTS MAGAZINE.
WITH DATA BREACHES UNFORESEEN
BECOMING AN ALL TOO COMMON NEED
TO SPEAK MORE DIRECTLY.
FOUND.
WITH DATA BREACHES BECOMING
UNFORTUNATELY AND ALL TOO COMMON
PHENOMENON. CONSUMERS ARE MORE
VULNERABLE TO IDENTITY THEFT
THAN EVER.
BUT IT CAN BE A HASSLE FOR
CONSUMERS TO SET UP SECURITY
FREEZES WHICH PREVENTS THE USE
FROM OPENING UP NEW CREDIT
ACCOUNTS IN THEIR NAME. AND
STICKING THEM WITH THE BILL.
PROTECT THEMSELVES CONSUMERS
NEED TO BE ABLE THE SET UP
FREEZES WITH EACH OF THE THREE
MAJOR BUREAUS QUICKLY AND
EASILY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUPPORTING
THIS SPELL IT REQUIRES A THREE
MAJOR BUREAUS TO FORWARD.
THE REQUEST FOR SECURITY FREEZES
TO EACH OF THE OTHER MAJOR
BUREAUS ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS
ARE FULLY PROTECTED FROM NEW
ACCOUNT FRAUD.
CREDIT YEARS ALREADY HAVE THE
ABILITY TO COORDINATE SIMILAR
REQUESTS
FOR EXAMPLE UNDER FEDERAL LAW
THEY'RE REQUIRED TO FORWARD
REQUEST FOR FRAUD ALERTS TO THE
OTHER MAJOR BUREAUS.
AND THE PATRONS UNION LOCK
PRODUCTS.
ALSO ALLOWS CONSUMERS TO SET UP
A LOCKED
WHICH IS A SIMILAR SERVICE TO A
FREEZE WITH BUT THE TRANSUNION
AND EQUIFAX CREDIT REPORTS.
THIS BILL ALSO SPEED UP THE
PROCESS FOR MANAGING CREDIT
FREEZES.
THIS ENSURES THAT CONSUMERS ARE
IMMEDIATELY PROTECTED FROM
IDENTITY THEFT AND IT MAKES THEM
MORE LIKELY TO USE.
CREDIT FREEZES SINCE THEY KNOW
THEY WILL RECEIVE IMMEDIATE
PROTECTION.
CREDIT BUREAUS ARE ALREADY
IMMEDIATELY ABLE TO SET UP
CREDIT LOCKS AND THEY SHOULD BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT SAME LEVEL
OF SERVICE.
FOR SECURITY FREEZES.
CALIFORNIA HAS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SET THE STANDARD FOR THE
NATION TO GUARANTEE CONSUMERS
STRONG PROTECTIONS FROM A DONE
THE THEFT.
THANK YOU AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OUR NEXT
WITNESS PLEASE.
TIFFANY MATTHEWS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
CNN OPPOSITION.
IS COMING UP.
MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE RAINY POLLOCK AND WE
HAVE TO CONSUMER DATA INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION. HOW WE ARE HEARING
CONTINUE OPPOSITION BUT WE'D
LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIR AND ALSO
SOME WOMEN QUIRK IN A STAFF AND
COMMITTEE STAFF? PERSISTING US
IN TRYING TO WORK OUT SOME OF
OUR DIFFERENCES WE BELIEVE A LOT
OF THE DIFFERENCES HAVE BEEN
RESOLVED. THE ONE REMAINING
ISSUE I JUST WANNA RAISE HIS OF
COURSE IS THE SHARING OF
INFORMATION AMONG THE DIFFERENT
HEROES. OTHERS TO ISSUES THAT WE
SEE THERE ONE IT'S A TECHNOLOGY
ABOUT TRYING TO SET UP A SYSTEM
WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE FRAUD
ALERT SYSTEM DOES BEEN SET UP.
HOWEVER THAT WAS SET UP THROUGH
A CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IT TOOK.
NO SOMETIME TO GET A SYSTEM SET
UP TO TRY TO SHARE THAT
INFORMATION.
BUT THE BIGGEST PART ABOUT
SHARING INFORMATION IS THAT EACH
OF THE BUREAU'S WANT TO
AUTHENTICATE THEIR OWN
INFORMATION.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DATA SET.
SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR THEM
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE
RIGHT PERSON. I AND I THINK
ABOUT YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT SORT OF
AN EXAMPLE LIKE THIS AND AND I
THINK IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN
ASSEMBLY HEARING WHERE WE HAVE A
HEARING LIKE THIS TODAY. NO WHY
SHOULD THE SENATE BRING IN
WITNESSES WHY DON'T WE JUST SEND
OVER THE TRANSCRIPT AND LET THEM
DECIDE BASED UPON THE
TRANSCRIPT.
IT'S VERY SIMILAR HERE BECAUSE
WHAT HAPPENS IS THE SENATE WANTS
TO ASSN ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET THE
ANSWERS THAT THEY NEED. WE WANT
THE SAME THING TO OCCUR IN THIS
PROCESS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HAD THE IDENTIFIED
INDIVIDUAL THAT HE WHO SAYS WHO
HE IS. TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S
NO LIABILITY AND ARE PART.
ADDITIONALLY UNDER THE LAW WE
ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
EACH CONSUMER WITH INFORMATION
ABOUT HOW A FREEZE WORKS AND
ALSO A PASSWORD AND A PEN. SO
THE QUESTION HERE IS WHAT WHAT
DO WE DO IN THAT CASE SO FOR
EXAMPLE THE EXPERIENCE SENDS US
OVER INFORMATION TO TRAINED
UNION ST WEEK AND HAVE TO PUT IN
A FREEZE. WE STILL HAVE TO
NOTIFY THE CONSUMER ABOUT GIVING
THEM A PASSWORD. AND OR ATTEND
AND PROVIDE THEM HOW THE FREEZE
WORKS AS WELL BECAUSE THAT'S
WAIT STATED IN THE LAW. SO THESE
ARE SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES THAT
WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON A
WE ARE GOING TO SEVEN MEETING
WITH SOMEONE IN QUIRK I IN THE
NEXT COUPLE WEEKS TO HAVE OUR
EXPERTS TALK TO MOVE A BIT
FURTHER ABOUT THIS ISSUE. OR
HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE BE ABLE
TO RESOLVE THESE CONCERNS THANK
YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF
BEFORE WE GO TO OUR NEXT WITNESS
SO LET'S ESTABLISH A QUORUM
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE KALRA.
CHILD HERE.
KILEY NEAR. BAKER I
HERE.
BERMAN.
CALDERON.
IRWIN.
YEAH MULLIN.
OBERNOLTE HERE.
REYES HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH A ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES SO IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL PLEASE.
COME FORWARD.
SEEING NONE LETTERS SOBRE BRING
BACK TO OUR COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
COMMENTS.
UNLESS BAKER GO AHEAD THINK YOU
JUST VERY GRATEFUL.
MISTER QUICK THAT YOU'RE
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION I
THINK THEY'VE OF.
FIRST WHEN I SAW THE RISEN AT
REQUIREMENT THAT A COMPANY SHARE
WITH OTHER COMPANIES INFORMATION
WE DON'T SEE THAT REQUIREMENT IN
LAW VERY OFTEN COURSE THE
NOTIFICATION OF CREDIT HISTORY
IN THE ALERTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT
FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS I. THINK
THERE'S A CASE TO BE MADE THERE
IT'S IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AYE
AYE. STRONGLY ENCOURAGED THAT TO
BE WORKED OUT NINE GRATEFUL
YOU'RE DOING THAT PLEASE JUST
YOUR BILL BASED ON THAT SIR
THANK YOU.
ANSWER MISTER OPEN I THINK
AHEAD.
WHAT ECHO THOSE COMMENTS I THINK
NORMALLY UP I'M NOT A BIG
PROPONENT OF THE LEGISLATURE
REGULATING INDUSTRY IN UNLESS
IT'S REALLY REQUIRED BUT? I
CREDIT REPORTING IS SO CENTRAL
TO PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO MODERN DAY
COMMERCE THAT I THINK THAT WE
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE
SOME CONTROL OVER THAT AND SO. A
LOT LIKE TO TAKE YOU FROM IT
BRING THE BILL FOR NAUGHT MAP IS
SUPPORTED.
THANK YOU.
EVERY SAY DITTO TO THAT AND I
WILL ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION IN.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT AREA IN
FACT I HAVE ANOTHER BILL ALSO.
ON A TO TACKLE THIS SEEMED SAME
PROBLEM IN AND I'M GLAD THAT
THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION AND. OF THIS IS A
VERY GOOD THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION BILL SO.
WITHOUT AYE YOU FEEL FREE UFIDA
CLOSE OR IT'S JUST NOT AS YET.
I PROBABLY PUBLISHED QUIT WHILE
I'M AHEAD BUT I. I WILL SAY THAT
IT'S BEEN A REAL PLEASURE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION. ARM.
SO THE FIRST THING THEY BROUGHT
UP WITH THE TIMING I THINK WE'VE
GOT THAT RESOLVED.
AND SO THIS QUESTION OF
AUTHENTIC AUTHENTICATION ET
CETERA OUT WE DEFINITELY WE WILL
BE WORKING ON THAT WE HAVE
ARRANGED A TELECONFERENCE WITH
SOME OF THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE.
ARE AND I WILL TRY AND HAVE.
EXPERTS FROM CONSUMER UNION I
HOPE THAT YES YOUR YEAR THERE
THAT TOO GOOD. SO ARM WHY I'VE
DONE THIS IN OTHER CASES AND.
.
DEALING WITH ENGINEERS IS
ALWAYS SOMETHING I'M VERY
PLEASED TO DO SO THANK YOU AND
ASK YOUR AYE VOTE.
THEY GET THERE MADAM SECRETARY.
I NEED A MOTION ALSO.
THE BILL IS MINUTES TO HAVE A
SECOND.
AND SECOND IT OUT PLEASE
CORRUPT.
SHALL I AYE HIGHLY AYE BAKER.
AYE BERMAN.
CALDERON.
IRWIN.
I. MULLIN.
OBERNOLTE. AYE REYES AYE AYE T..
HE OF SIX VOTES AND YOUR BILL
WITHOUT CONGRATULATIONS THANK
YOU ARE ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU MUCH.
I THOUGHT I SAW MISTER LEVINE
BUT I THINK HE MIGHT A STEPPED.
OUT.
.
LET'S SEE HOW.
IS THAT HIM.
OKAY. PERSON SO MISTER LEVINE
JUST
STEPPED OUT LET'S UP PERHAPS GO
WITH.
SO.
OKAY GET WE KILL WITNESS IRWIN
IF SHE'S. READY.
OKAY BUT STILL IT'S A CONSENT
FOR SAID DON'T HAVE EMOTIONS FOR
THE TO CONSENT ITEMS.
.
M. SECRETARY PLEASE CALL ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA.
YEAH THIS IS AB. THREE SIXTY AND
A FEE ARE TOO CUTE TO.
TOUGH GUY AYE KILEY. AYE BAKER.
AYE BERMAN. CALDERON. IRWIN.
I MULLIN OBERNOLTE. AYE RARE.
I MEAN THE THINGS THAT
TED SAID THOSE TWO ITEMS ARE OUT
THAT WOULD BE AB THIRTIES SIXTY
SEVEN CHAO AND ACR TO TWENTY TWO
GREAT.
SO WITH THAT MS IRWIN WHICH YOU
LIKE TO PRESENT YOUR BILLS.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO BILLS ARE
STARTING WITH ITEM TO AB
NINETEEN OH SIX.
.
WHAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE WHICH
LIKE THIS I WOULD EFFORTS OR
WHICH?
TWO IF YOU DON'T MIND THAT I
WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THAT
TWENTY SIX SEVENTY EIGHT.
FIRST TOKAY. AND.
TWENTY SIX SEVENTY EIGHT. THE
ITEM NUMBER SIX.
REQUIRES CERTAIN DATA BREACH
NOTIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE AN
EXPLANATION TO CONSUMERS.
THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
PLACE A SECURITY FREEZE ON THEIR
CREDIT FILE. WITH LARGE SCALE
DATA BREACHES LIKE THE EQUAL
FACTS BREACH BECOMING THE NORM
OUR RESPONSE TO IDENTITY THEFT
MUST BE THOUGHTFUL. BUT THEY TO
BREACH NOTIFICATIONS PROVIDE
IMPORTANT INFORMATION INCLUDING
THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE
CONSUMER CREDIT REPORT AGES
REPORTING AGENCIES THEY DO NOT
DESCRIBE THE MOST EFFECTIVE
TOOL.
TO BET THAT PREVENT FINANCIAL
FRAUD WHICH.
WE BELIEVE IS A SECURITY FREEZE
WITH THIS BILL CALIFORNIANS WHO
SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION
HAS BEEN STOLEN WILL BE AWARE
THAT CREDIT FREEZES ARE
AVAILABLE TO THEM. AND THEY CAN
MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ON HOW
THEY WANT TO PROTECT THEIR. OF
FINANCIAL FUTURE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL.
PLEASE COME ON UP.
SEEING NONE OPPOSITION.
WELCOME.
GOOD AFTERNOON DANIEL KENDO
KAISER ON BEHALF OF THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
AND THE PRIVACY RIGHTS
CLEARINGHOUSE. PERSON ONE I
THINK THE AUTHORS OFFICE FOR
COMMUNICATING WITH US ABOUT OUR
CONCERNS I'VE FROM BOTH PARTIES
WE CONTINUE TO REMAIN OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL.
MY APOLOGIES I GUESS I GOT IT
THEY'VE JUST TO CLARIFY THIS IS
ON THE NEXT BILL MY APOLOGIES.
GIVEN GIVEN HER BUSY BUSY DAY IF
BILL ON THEIR.
NO BROWN.
SO FOR THE RECORD WE DON'T HAVE
ANY OPPOSITION OR AT LEAST
RICHARD OPPOSITION TODAY SO.
ALEX BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MISTER OBERNOLTE GO
AHEAD.
SO WHEN I.
IN SUPPORT OF YOUR BILL.
JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF
SUGGESTIONS OBVIOUSLY IF THE
PREVIOUS BUILT ARTWORKS BILL
WERE TO PASS YOU DID SOME
CHATTERING OUT. AMENDMENTS TO
AVOID CONFLICTS WITH THAT
HOWEVER.
YOU'VE GOT SOME LANGUAGE IN
YOUR BILL THAT I FEAR WOULD NOT
BE SOLVED WITHOUT SHATTERING OUT
OF LEMONS AND THAT'S RELATED TO
THE FACT THAT OF THE REQUEST. TO
CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY FOR
SECURITY FREEZE WOULD HAVE TO BE
IN WRITING.
AND.
.
SO I I WOULD.
ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT WAS IN WRITING OR
ELECTRONIC.
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT.
YOU KNOW THAT CONSUMERS ARE OF
PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
AND AND THAT WAS.
TAKEN CARE OF IN THE.
AMENDMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
THAT MANAGER TAKING TODAY.
OKAY GREAT THANK YOU.
AND WE ARE STILL WORKING WITH
ANYBODY THAT HAS A CONCERN TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE CREDIT FREEZE
IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT.
.
YOUR. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
CHAIR AND IGNORANT RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOUR AYE VOTE VERY GOOD.
.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS SAID TO
PASS.
AND ALL I NEED A MOTION FOR THE
BILL.
THE BILLS AND SECOND IT.
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. SHALL I HIGH KILEY. AYE
BAKER. AYE BERMAN.
AYE CALDERON.
IRWIN AYE.
AYE LOW IN.
OBERNOLTE I REYES.
I T..
THAT SEVEN
YOUR BILL IS ALL SEVEN ZERO.
AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE UP
YOUR OTHER BILL NOW A. B.
NINETEEN OH SIX THIS ITEM TO.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR THIS BILL
HAS BEEN A PRODUCT OF EXTENSIVE
COLLABORATION BY MY OFFICE AND
THE TECH INDUSTRY TO ADDRESS A
CRITICAL CYBERSECURITY PROBLEM.
ONE THAT IS ONLY FORECASTED TO
GET WORSE
THIS BILL REQUIRES MANUFACTURERS
TO EQUIP CONNECTED DEVICES WITH
REASONABLE SECURITY FEATURES
APPROPRIATE TO THE DEVICE TO
PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED REMOTE
ACCESS OR USE.
ON OCTOBER TWENTY FIRST TWENTY
SIXTEEN THE WRY BOTNET TOOK DOWN
MAJOR PARTS OF THE INTERNET FOR
NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE. THE
PLAN OF THE HACKERS WAS
INUNDATED INTERNET
INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDED BY
DYING.
REFERRED TO AS A.
DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE
ATTACKS STOPPING INTERNET
ACTIVITY FREEZING ONLINE
COMMERCE AND THREATENING THE
SYSTEMS THAT WE HAVE COME TO
RELY ON.
THIS ATTACK AND OTHER SHOWS THAT
BUSINESS AS USUAL IS NOT WORKING
AND THOUGH WE HAVE HEARD FROM
MANY IN THE INDUSTRY. THAT SAME
PER FOR SELF REGULATION AND WE
THINK IT IS TIME TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HAVE THE A MINIMAL LEVEL
OF AND SECURITY.
THE NUMBER OF AYE A TWO DEVICES
HAS ALSO EXPLODED OVER THE LAST
YEAR FEW YEARS AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS DESCRIBES.
AT ESTIMATES FROM FIFTY BILLION
DEVICES BY TWENTY TWENTY TWO ONE
TRILLION DEVICES BY TWENTY
TWENTY FIVE. THESE CONNECTED
DEVICES PROVIDE MANY BENEFITS TO
CONSUMERS BUSINESSES AND
GOVERNMENTS BY ALLOWING MORE
INSIGHT AND CONTROL TO
ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER THERE ARE
RISKS BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR
SOCIETY WITH THE WIDESPREAD
ADOPTION OF THESE DEVICES.
AS ANYBODY THAT HAS EVER
STRUGGLED TO SET UP A.
TV ROUTER OR OTHER SMART DEVICE
THERE'S AN INCENTIVE FOR
COMPANIES TO CREATE.
DEVICES THAT ARE PLUG AND PLAY.
THIS USUALLY MEANS SECURITY IS
EITHER NOT INCLUDED OR IS A
LATER OPTION THAT THE SAVVY
CONSUMER CAN ENABLE. WITH LITTLE
TO NO SECURITIES HACKERS HAVE
FOUND A GOLD MINE IN I OR T.
DEVICES WHICH THEY IN FACT. AND
THEN STRING TOGETHER.
INTO BOUGHT NETS TO DO THEIR
BIDDING FOR THE MORE I BOUGHT
THAT I MENTIONED AT THE
BEGINNING OF MY REMARKS THE
DEVICES WERE PRINTERS SECURITY
CAMERAS HOME ROUTERS AND BABY
MONITORS.
IT IS MY HOPE WITH THIS BILL
THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET IN
FRONT OF THE WAVE OF BILLIONS OF
CONNECTED DEVICES AND MAKE SURE
THAT THE ONES BEING SOLD IN
CALIFORNIA. ARE REASONABLY
SECURE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT ENSURING
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS NEW
REQUIREMENT MAY TAKE TIME AND
ADDITIONAL EFFORT BY
MANUFACTURERS TO INCREASE
SECURITY OF THEIR PRODUCTS. WHY
DO NOT WANT TO DELAY ANY LONGER
THAN IS NECESSARY AS?
BECAUSE BECAUSE THE RISK TO
PUBLIC ONLY INCREASES WITH EVERY
NEW I OR T. DEVICE CONNECTED
EFFORTS TO APPROPRIATELY.
SECURE DEVICES SHOULD BE.
ACCOMMODATED THAT IS WHY I'M
COMMITTING TO AMEND INTO THE
BILL A ONE YEAR DELAY. OF THE
EFFECTIVE A DATE MAKING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL IF IT
ACTED TO GO INTO A FACT AND ON
JANUARY FIRST TWENTY TWENTY.
I BELIEVE THAT WITH THE
EXTENSIVE WORK WE HAVE
UNDERTAKEN WITH THE TECH
INDUSTRY AND OTHER PARTNERS ON
THIS BILL. THIS COULD BE A MODEL
TO EXPORT TO OTHER STATES AND
SECURE ALL SMART HOMES AND SMART
CITIES FROM BRING BEING
LEVERAGED AGAINST.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH EFFORTS WHEN
IS PLEASE.
MISTER CHAIRMAN REYES LARA BUT
IT WITH TECH NEXT WE CURRENTLY
HAVE AN OPPOSE LET'S AMENDED
POSITION BUT WITH HIM AM IS THAT
MR OUR WHEN JUST EXPLAIN WITH A
DELAY IMPLEMENTATION DATE WE ARE
MOVING OUR OPPOSITION WILL
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE WE HAVE EIGHTY PERCENT A
EIGHTEEN PLUS MEMBERS IN OUR
ASSOCIATION WE HAVE VARIOUS AYE
ANTI DEVICES BEING DESIGNED FOR
CONSUMERS TODAY AND WE BELIEVE
THIS WE SAW MEASURE MOVING
FORWARD WE ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OUR NEXT
WITNESS PLACE.
THAT CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE I AT THE TIME I LETTER
WAS DUE FOR BAD WE WERE OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED WANT TO COMMEND
THE AUTHORED THANK HER FOR
WORKING WITH US FOR MONTHS ON
THIS BILL TO MAKE IT WORKABLE.
AND WITH THESE RECENT AMENDMENTS
AT THIS TIME WE'RE GONNA BE
REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION AND
WE'LL BE TALKING WITH OUR
MEMBERS TO SEE IF WE CAN GET TO
A POSITION OF SUPPORT. I THINK
YOU'RE MY CHILD.
NEXT WITNESS PLEASE. RESEARCHER
MEMBERS CHRIS MCKINLEY ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION WE JOINED
THE OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. BY AS
SOON AS THE AMENDMENTS COME I'M
SURE WE WILL REVISE THAT
POSITION THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT PLEASE.
MARGARET WHAT'S IN BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
I'LL ECHO THE ROCK REMARKS OF MR
MCCAIN WE A BELIEVE WE TOO WILL
BE MOVING TO A NEUTRAL POSITION
THANK YOU THANK YOU MATCH NEXT
PLACE.
RIGHT FEELING GRIEVES WITH THE
ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION WERE ACTUALLY
NEUTRAL THE BILL RIGHT NOW WE
JUST HAVE SOME REMAINING.
ISSUES TO WORK OUT WERE
REVIEWING THE LANGUAGE BUT WE'VE
HAD A GREAT. A PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE AUTHOR WE THANK HER FOR HER
TIME WORKING WITH US.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
GOVERNOR AND ALL DEROGATORY
CALIFORNIA LIFE SCIENCES
ASSOCIATION. LIKE TO LET MYSELF
BECOME IT'S MAD MAD I THINK THE
AUTHOR HERSELF FOR WORKING WITH
US. THANK YOU MITCHELL
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES EITHER IN
SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION PLEASE
STEP FORWARD
.
HAMM KEVIN MASTERMAN THE
ASSOCIATION OF HOME APPLIANCE
MANUFACTURERS.
SO.
.
WE APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS
FOR THE AUTHOR TO TO TALK TO
EVERYONE ABOUT THIS INCLUDING
US.
WE STILL OPPOSE THIS BILL IT'S.
.
FOR A FEW REASONS OUT JUST BRIEF
BRIEF ONE IS.
IT'S HARD JUST LEGISLATIVE LEAD
TO IT TO DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES
BECAUSE.
THE LAW MOVES SLOWER THAN
TECHNOLOGY SO WE DON'T DISAGREE
THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE AND WE'RE
NOT SAYING THAT INDUSTRY SHOULD
SELF REGULATE.
WE'RE SAYING THE BETTER AVENUE
IS A.
THIRD PARTY STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION WHICH
DOES THIS ALL THE TIME IS MORE
NIMBLE AND WERE QUICKLY CAN
ADDRESS THE INNOVATIVE NEED SO
WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS BILL.
GOES TOO FAR OR NOT FAR ENOUGH
OR COULD HAMPER THINGS THE OTHER
THING IS TOM PROBABLY WHY YOU
SEE SOME INDUSTRY DIVIDED
BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE THE
ONLY BILL THE. ONLY INDUSTRY
MAKE REAL OF MANUFACTURES OF
MAKE THEIR PRODUCT AND SELL THEM
OF THE BRAND THE WAY THE
MANUFACTURES TO FIND. ONLY
IMPACTS MANUFACTURERS WHO ARE
OEMS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT
MANUFACTURERS WHO ALSO SELL
THEIR PRODUCT IF THE SOURCE YOUR
PRODUCT IN CHINA OR SOMEWHERE
ELSE THEN PUT YOUR BRAND ON IT
THEN THE WAY THE MANUFACTURES
DEFINED COULD NOT BE IMPACTED
SO.
FOR US IT HITS HOME BECAUSE IT
ACTUALLY IMPACTS US.
THE REASONABLE SECURITY STANDARD
THAT'S JUST A LAWYER'S DREAM
AND.
AND PEOPLE CAN THAT'LL JUST
OPEN US TOO LEGIT LITIGATION AND
UNCERTAINTY.
AND BY HAVING THE SAFE HARBOR
ISSUES WHERE YOU HAVE A PASSWORD
THE PASSWORD MIGHT ALREADY BE
OBSOLETE NOW HAVE FINGERPRINT
AND FACIAL RECOGNITION SO. WE
DON'T TO BE LOCKED INTO A SAFE
HARBOR THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY
BE THE BEST AUTHENTICATION AND.
AND PROTECTION BECAUSE WE HAVE
TO STAY ONE STEP AHEAD OF THE
BAD GUYS AND LOCKING IT IS NOT
HELPFUL. LAST POINT IS THAT THEY
SHOULD HAVE A FISCAL NOTE
THIS'LL OBVIOUSLY IS BEING
FORCED BY THE CALIFORNIA AG AND
SO THERE'S FISCAL IMPACTS SO. IT
WOULD HAVE A FISCAL.
IMPACT THAT SHOULD BE SHOULD BE
DEALT WITH BY THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. HAVE ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS COMMITTEE THANK
YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE.
BUT THINK TO THE CHAIR IN THE
COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE AUTHOR
ENTER STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT
SHE'S DONE ON THIS BILL SO FAR.
NOT MANY MISTRAL COOK I
REPRESENT THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION WE ARE OPPOSED TO
THIS BILL UNLESS IT IS AMENDED
TO DO TWO THINGS. FIRST CREATE A
MORE PRECISE DEFINITION A
MANUFACTURER. SECOND PROVIDE
MANUFACTURERS NOTICES TO WHAT IT
WOULD REQUIRED OF THEM BY
GRANTING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FOR THOSE THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE
THAT THEY'VE RESEARCH SECURITY.
FEATURES AND IMPLEMENTED IT
NEEDS TO SECURE DEVICES BASED ON
THAT RESEARCH
BUT WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM WE WE
DISAGREE ABOUT THE NATURE SO THE
SOLUTION MANUFACTURERS ARE NOT
THE BAD ACTORS HERE. WE'RE
LEADING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CYBERSECURITY SOLUTIONS AT THE
TABLE EVERY STANDARD DEVELOPMENT
ORGANIZATION AND PUBLIC PRIVATE
SEE.
CYBERSECURITY COLLABORATION THE
PROBLEM IS AS WE SECURE DEVICES
THERE ARE BAD ACTORS THEY'RE
KEEPING PACE AND DEVELOPING
EQUAL MORE SOPHISTICATED TOOLS
TO HACK THEM.
WE BELIEVE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE.
TOWARD STOPPING THEM NOT
IMPOSING A STICK PARA SANCTIONS
AND POTENTIALLY ARBITRARY
STANDARDS ON THE VICTIMS
A A. B. NINETEEN OH SIX INVITES
US DOWN THIS ROAD.
OF ARBITRARY STANDARDS SETTING
WITH ITS REASONABLE TEST OF OF
SECURITY FEATURES BUT WITH ALL
THIS VERY THING IN TWENTY
SIXTEEN WITH THE CALVARY
ATTORNEY GENERAL LEASES DATA
BREACH RESPONSE REPORT. IN AT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL USED ITS
ENFORCEMENT POWER TO PICK A SET
OF STANDARDS AND SEE THAT
ANYTHING LESS THAN THE STANDARDS
WOULD BE DEEMED UNREASONABLE. A
THIS SORT OF INFLEXIBLE
ARBITRARY STANDARD SETTING
WITHOUT DELIBERATE OF
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OR PUBLIC
NOTICE AND COMMENT IS SOMETHING
THAT EVERYONE AGREES IS THE
WRONG WAY TO GO HOWEVER AB
NINETEEN OH SIX AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN CREATES A PARALLEL
STRUCTURE THAT'LL GET US HERE
FIVE. SEVEN TEN YEARS DOWN THE
ROAD.
SO ARMAMENT IS A COMPROMISE.
THAT GETS US CLOSE TO SOLVING
THE PROBLEM WE LEAVE THE
REASONABLENESS FRAMEWORK AS IT'S
WRITTEN INTACT
BUT.
WE PROVIDE CERTAINTY FOR
MANUFACTURERS.
THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY
DID WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO
DO THAT THEY HAVE.
EITHER FOLLOWED INDUSTRY
STANDARDS ARE INNOVATIVE NEW AND
BETTER STANDARDS.
AND AND PROVIDES THEM AND
SAFETY AND SECURITY THEY WILL BE
HELD IN THE COURT INTO GOTCHA
LITIGATION OR FORSMAN ACTIONS
SO.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I'LL
STOP THERE AND LEAVE
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MORE TECHNICAL
AYE. DEFINITION.
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT THAT.
BUT WILL ASK THAT YOU THAT THE
AUTHOR CONSIDER ARMAMENTS.
INNING ENCOURAGE US TO GET TO A.
.
EQUITABLE SOLUTION FOR ALL
PARTIES THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH OUR NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON DANIEL KENDALL
KAISER ON BEHALF OF THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
AND PRIVACY RIGHTS CLEARINGHOUSE
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
TAX.
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION LET'S BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS.
A MISTAKE AGO AT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU I DO HAVE A QUESTION
CERTAINLY FOR THE AUTHOR THIS
POINT OF THE DEFINITION OF
MANUFACTURE IN THE CONCEPT THAT.
AN OEM.
COULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY
THAN IF YOU MAY HAVE YOUR
REFRIGERATOR THAT CAN CONNECT TO
THE INTERNET MADE. IN ANOTHER
COUNTRY AND THEN BRANDED AND
SELL IT HERE. THAT'S MY FIRST
QUESTION IS EVER IF YOU CAN HELP
BY NOW THAT WAS THAT'S NOT OUR
INTENTION OF AND AND SO THIS IS
A MATTER OF. DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATION OF HEALTH THE
WORDING IS AND WE HAVE EVERY
INTENTION TO.
TIGHTEN THAT UP UNTIL AND AND
AND. YOU KNOW TO MAKE CERTAIN
THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE WOULD
CERTAINLY IN THE ANALYSIS IT
WASN'T A READ THAT WAY THINK YOU
AND I ENCOURAGE IF YOU'RE GOING
BACK TO THE.
DISCUSSION AND CONVERSATIONS TO
SEE WHAT ELSE CAN BE DONE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T THAT
WHAT. SOUNDS LIKE A GAPING
PROBLEM BUT IT COULD PROBABLY BE
FAXED.
M.. SECONDLY IS OFTEN WHEN YOU
SEE A REASONABLENESS STANDARD AN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.
YOU DO YOU WANT TO PUT INTO LAW
AYE FLEXIBILITY.
BUT THE THE PRACTICALITY OF WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE HAS A
LAWSUIT THEY CAN THEN SUE A
COMPANY FOR TO AND THEN TEST IF
IT'S A REASONABLE IT'S A
QUESTION OF FACT THAT GOES
BEFORE A JUDGE OR A JURY. WHICH
IS POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO A
COURT PROCESS EVEN AN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.
WHILE. GENERALLY GET SOMEBODY
OUT OF COURT.
SO I'M THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THE
SAFE HARBOR MIGHT BE A GOOD WAY
TO GO BECAUSE YOU CAN YOU CAN
HELP US.
AT LEAST GIVE SOME AREAS WHERE
YOU CAN BYPASS.
A THE COURT AND. YOU KNOW TO IN
A FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THAT AT
TRIAL.
THAT IT AND THAT CYBER COST TO
GO TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S BEEN
A REASONABLE ACTIONS TAKEN.
THE FLIP SIDE THE SAFE HARBOR
CAN ALSO BE TO.
EITHER DAVID OR INFLEXIBLE SO
THAT IT'S REALLY NOT A SAFE
HARBOR. AND MY CONCERN JUST SEEN
HOW.
AND I I'D LIKE YOUR BILL I LIKE
WHAT IT'S DOING I WANT PROFITS
THAT.
THEY CAN YOU VISIT ALL ABOUT
YOUR INTEREST IN MAKING THIS A
SAFE HARBOR MORE FLEXIBLE OR AT
THE SUGGESTION OF AN AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE ATTRACT LEVEL SURPRISED
ABOUT HIS HERE. THAT THAT ONLY
AGAIN YOU HAVE TO GET THE COURT
OR.
SOMEONE TO AGREE TO THE FACT
THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
APPLIES IN THAT'S EXTREMELY
EXPENSIVE.
CAN YOU VISITED ALL ON YOUR
INTEREST AND I'M WILLINGNESS TO
TRY TO MAKE IT IMPROVE THOSE TO
REDUCE LITIGATION COSTS.
A SO ON A SAFE HARBOR ISSUE.
THERE WAS SOME CONSENSUS
BETWEEN US AND.
THAT THE.
COMMITTEE STAFF THAT THAT THERE
WAS A SAFE HARBOR CREATED WE TRY
TO TIGHTEN UP THE LANGUAGE TO
MAKE THAT. A NOT BE THE CASE
BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT
WAS ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND
THAT WE WERE NOT LOCKED INTO.
FORCING.
DEVICE MANUFACTURERS TO USE A
PASSWORD WHEN THERE ARE VERY
MANY OF MORE ADVANCED METHODS
THAT THEY CAN USE AND AND AGAIN
IF WE RAN THIS BY.
MANY MANY COMPANIES TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT WE WERE FLEXIBLE
ENOUGH.
IN.
IN IN THAT AREA AND.
AS FAR AS A REASONABLE THE
REASONABLE STANDARD GET THE
STANDARD REASONABLE NO STANDARD
WE DID USE THAT TO MAKE SURE
THAT.
.
THAT THAT WE HAD FLEXIBILITY AND
SO.
WHILE IT DOES CARRY WITH IT
CERTAIN UNCERTAINTY IT IT'S THE
UNCERTAINTY THAT ALLOWS US TO
EMBRACE INNOVATION AND NEW
TECHNOLOGY DOWN THE ROAD AND. WE
THINK A COMPANY SHOULD BE
EXPLAINED ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO ITS
CONSUMERS WHY IT'S CHOICES
RELATED TO SECURITY ARE
REASONABLE. AND APPROPRIATE TO
THE DEVICE AT THEY ARE SELLING
AND I THINK THAT IS FAIR FOR A
COMPANY TO EXPLAIN TO ITS
CONSUMERS ULTIMATELY IF THERE SU
THEY HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO.
YOU KNOW A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE.
AND AND LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS LATER YOU
MIGHT GET A DETERMINATION OF
THAT EITHER IN THE FORM OF A
SETTLER CASE AYE. I THINK M. AYE
IF IF I COULD.
I THOUGHT I'D OFFER TWO CENTS ON
THIS PART IS.
AT A CERTAINLY A SAFE HARBOR
THAT'S FLEXIBLE BUT THAT DOESN'T
ESSENTIALLY MEAN ANOTHER PATH IT
HAS TO BE LITIGATED. TWO THREE
YEARS THROUGH COURT THAT IS VERY
EXPENSIVE AND AND THE SAFE
HARBOR THAT IS SUFFICIENTLY.
.
HELPFUL SO THAT GOOD ACTORS
REALLY DO HAVE A SAFE HARBOR
AND.
AYE ABSURDLY SUPPORTING THIS
TODAY I JUST DO HAVE THAT
CONCERN ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF
MANUFACTURE YOU VERY ADDRESS
THAT. AND HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT.
CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THIS REALLY TO NOT BE RESOLVED
UNTIL VERY LATE IN THE TRIAL
PROCESS IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE
THANK YOU AND I. LATELY AGREE
WITH YOUR CONCERNS AND WE WILL
AND DEFINITELY KEEP WORKING.
.
WITH THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS
TO MINIMIZE THAT POSSIBILITY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR
OBERNOLTE.
I WOULD ECHO THEIR CONCERNS BY
REYES BY ASSEMBLY WOMAN BAKER UP
HAPPY BIRTHDAY BY THE WAY.
WELL.
YOU SINGING BUT YOU KNOW MY
CONCERNS REALLY IT IS SOMEONE
THAT THAT'S BEEN IN THE.
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY.
MY CONCERNS REVOLVE AROUND THE
DEFINITION OF REASONABLE AND
YOU'VE GONE OUT OF YOUR WAY IN
THE RECITALS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT
AUTHENTICATION MEANS WHAT A
CONNECTED DEVICE IS WHAT A
MANUFACTURING IS. WHAT A
SECURITY FEATURE IS AND I REALLY
THINK THAT IT'S MISSING A
SECTION THAT DEFINES WHAT
REASONABLE IS BECAUSE THE LAST
THING WE WANT TO DO? IS PUT A
WORD WITH NO TECHNICAL MEETING
IN THERE AND LEAVE IT UP TO
ROOMS FULL OF LAWYERS ARGUE
ABOUT WHAT'S REASONABLE MUST NOT
RUN REASONABLE SO.
THESE SOLUTIONS THAT WAS
OFFERED BY THE OPPOSITION I
THINK.
NO MIGHT SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM
SOMEONE ENCOURAGE USE THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD HERE TO TO MAYBE
CONSIDER PUTTING THAT ON.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
SO FIGURE MUCH MISS MULLIN.
THINKING WE SHARED FAME IS
OFFERING THE BILL I JUMPED INTO
THE CONVERSATION MIDSTREAM HERE.
I DID WE RESOLVE THE ISSUE
AROUND DEFINITIONS.
OF MANUFACTURE MY CONCERN IS
THAT THE COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE FOR CALIFORNIA HAVE
WE.
UNRESOLVED THAT IF. WE AND OUR
HAVE EVERY INTENTION OF MAKING
SURE THE BILL DOES WHAT IT WAS
INTENDED TO DO IT WAS NEVER TO
DISADVANTAGE.
.
CERTAIN COMPANIES AND SO WHAT WE
ARE AND WE NEED TO JUST TAKE
ANOTHER LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND
AND.
TIGHTEN IT UP BUT THAT IS NOT
THE INTENT.
BUT I'D FIGURED IT PROBABLY WAS
AND JUST WANT TO CLARIFY GOING
FOR YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIX
THAT DEFINITION.
MISTER KILEY CUT.
I JUST TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A
STEP BACK.
IN TRYING TO THINK ABOUT. HOW
THIS BILL WOULD WORK IF IT WERE
TO BECOME LAW?
IS IT YOUR INTENT TO I CREATE A
NEW LEGAL DUTY THAT DOESN'T
CURRENTLY EXIST.
FOR THESE MANUFACTURERS.
A NEW LEGAL DUTY.
THAT'S RIGHT THAT ARE AS I. YOU
KNOW THAT.
TO THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE TO
AYE APPROACH SECURITY FEATURES.
THIS IS.
REQUIRING DEVICE MANUFACTURERS
TO HAVE SOME SORT OF REASONABLE
SECURITY ON THEIR DEVICES SO
THAT THEY. ARE I MEAN. THAT AS I
MENTION BEFORE WITH THE BIG.
BOTNET ATTACK THAT WE HAD.
.
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO IT'S TO
PREVENT THOSE TYPE OF THINGS
FROM HAPPENING AND AND ALSO.
NO PRIVACY PRINT PROTECTION IT'S
NOT JUST ABOUT THESE DEVICES
BEING USED HARNESSED TOGETHER.
TO OVERWHELM AND BRING DOWN THE
INTERNET BUT IT'S ALSO MAKING
SURE THAT.
CONSUMERS.
ARE NOT EASILY HACKED INTO SO
IF YOU HAVE CAMERAS ON YOUR
COMPUTERS OR YOU HAVE THE RING
DOORBELL JUST MAKING SURE THAT
THOSE DEVICES ARE NOT HACKED
INTO.THERE IS NO.
IT IN GENERAL THERE'S NO
MINIMAL SECURITY LEVEL NOW WE
DID HAVE THE MEDICAL DEVICE
MANUFACTURERS UP AND AND THEY
WERE.
NEUTRAL ON THE BILL AND IF YOU
HAVE AN INDUSTRY THAT ALREADY
HAS FEDERAL STANDARDS.
THEN THEY CAN ABIDE BY THOSE
INSTEAD OF ABIDING BY THAT
CALIFORNIA STANDARD BUT WORK
FILLING IN WHAT RITE NOW IS A
GAPING HOLE.
I I GUESS MY QUESTION IS YOU
KNOW WE ALL HAVE AT EVERY
COMPANY HAS A DUTY I NOT TO
CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS THROUGH.
UNREASONABLE CONDUCT AND SO.
WHAT IS THIS LANGUAGE ADDING TE?
THAT EXISTING LEGAL DUTY JUST
KIND OF SAYING THAT.
A REASONABLE A STANDARD NOW
EXIST SPECIFICALLY I WITH
RESPECT TO SECURITY FEATURES
WITH THEIR CONNECTED DEVICES.
WHAT IS THIS ADDING WILL THIS IS
ADDING IT IS ADDING THAT
REQUIREMENT OBVIOUSLY WHAT IS
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS
ALLOWING COMPANIES TO BE
COMPLETELY SELF REGULATING ISN'T
WORKING SO THERE DOES HAVE TO BE
SOME? MINIMAL LEVEL OF
REGULATION.
RIGHT BUT I MEAN THAT YOU KNOW.
A COMPANY CAN BE SUED AS IS.
YOU KNOW FOR.
THE A IN CONDUCT THAT CAUSES
HARM TO CONSUMERS OR TO ANYONE
I'VE SHOWN THAT CONDUCT IS
UNREASONABLE AND I THINK WHAT
THE OPPOSITION IS SAYING IS
THAT.
THERE'S ALREADY.
AN EXISTING DUTY OUTLAW I TO
HIGH TO BE REASONABLE.
AND SO IF WE WANT TO GIVE THAT
FOR THEIR CONTENT.
THEN YOU KNOW THAT THE
ACTIVITIES OF STANDARD SETTING
ORGANIZATIONS MIGHT BE A BETTER
WAY TO GO RATHER THAN SORT OF
OPENING A NEW.
FRONTS.
WHAT IS IT IS NOT REASONABLE IN
STATUTE THAT WITH THEM LIKELY BL
ELABORATED?
THROUGH FOR THE REGULATIONS SO
WHY WHY IS THIS APPROACH
SUPERIOR TO THE ONE THAT THEY'RE
PROPOSING.
AND.
THE IF THEY WOULD PREFER TO USE
OF FEDERAL STANDARDS AND THEY
HAVE THEIR ORGANIZATION AND MAKE
SURE THAT THAT YOU KNOW THEY
WORK WITH NEST AND COME UP WITH
FEDERAL STANDARDS AND THEY CAN
BE. REGULATED.
BY THE FEDS BUT RIGHT NOW.
MOST DEVICES DO NOT HAVE FEDERAL
STANDARDS.
BUT DOES THE OPPOSITION JUST
WANNA WAY ON THIS WITH RESPECT
TO THE ROLE THAT ASK INDUSTRY
STANDARD SETTING ORGANIZATIONS
COMPLY.
SO STANDARDS AND MAYBE IT'S
TERMINOLOGY CONFUSION BUT.
REGULATIONS VERSUS STANDARD
STANDARDS YOU WELL AS A EXAMPLE
OF MANY STANDARD TODAY YOU
SAFETY STANDARDS AND ON BACK OF
MOST COMPUTERS AND EVERYTHING
YOU HAVE THAT SO COMPANIES.
PUT THE UL STANDARD ON THERE AS
A MATT MARKET REALITY. AND THAT
STANDARD ORGANIZATION DOES THESE
TO CONTINUALLY IS CHANGES AS
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS CHANGE AND
GET IMPROVED AND IT'S AN ONGOING
PROCESS THAT TYPE OF STANDARD
PROCESS THERE'S A U. S. STANDARD
FOR SECURITY. THERE'S A NEST
PROCESS GOING ON RIGHT NOW FOR
PRESS WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT
STANDARDS PROCESS NOT OF SELF
REGULATED. NOT OUT SOMETHING
FROM THE CUSTOMS BORDER PATROL
OR HOMELAND SECURITY IT'S A
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
THAT IS USED THROUGHOUT THE
WORLD.
FOR THIS KIND OF EFFORT TO
BECAUSE LAWS TAKE TOO LONG FOR
EXPENSIVE FOR TECHNOLOGY SO
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS
A STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS
ALREADY. EXISTS AND THAT IT
COULD EVEN BE INTERNATIONALIZE
SEE AND YOU REALLY A BROADER
CONTROL BUT DOING STATE BY STATE
PATCHWORK OF LAWS TO CREATE
LITIGATION VULNERABILITIES AND
ARE TOO SLOW TO REACT.
IN OUR VIEW IS NOT THE IS NOT
THE BEST WAY TO DEAL PROTECTION.
JUST ONE MORE A QUESTION FROM
ISRAEL AND I SEE THERE'S NO NEW
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION WHICH I
I'M I'M HAPPY ABOUT.
I SEE THERE'S NO NEW PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION HERE WHICH I'M
HAPPY ABOUT.
THERE WAS SOME MENTION OF MAYBE
THE AG WILL HAVE SOME
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY HERE I DO
YOU THINK THAT'S THE CASE OR DO
YOU SEE ANY OTHER ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM. BUT THERE IS NO
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AND YES
THE AGE YOU MIGHT HAVE AN
ENFORCEMENT BACK.
AND WHAT.
SO WHAT WHAT OUT OF FORT SMITH
ALREADY ENTAIL.
I WAS JUST INFORMED THAT IT WAS
BNP CODE.
SEVENTEEN.
TWO HUNDRED.
I'M NOT A LAWYER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF THE
ELECTORATE CHIME IN HERE ALSO I
I PRESUME THAT MANY MANY OF THE
MANUFACTURERS OUT THERE ARE
ALREADY PROVIDING SECURITY
MEASURES. WHILE OTHERS ARE NOT
AT ALL I THINK WITH THIS BILL
WILL DO IS ESSENTIALLY SET A
BASELINE UPON WHICH DAY BUILT ON
WHETHER YOU CALL THOSE TWO
CONDITIONS SAFE HARBORS OR. A
LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR
WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE I THINK
THAT BASICALLY SUCH A BASELINE
FOR ALL. ON YOU KNOW
MANUFACTURES TO COMPLY WITH AND
AND I THINK THAT YOU KNOW TO ME
IT THIS IS A VERY IS GREAT
CONCEPT I THINK. YOU KNOW
BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE A
FRAMEWORK FOR ALL THESE AYE I'LL
TWO DEVICES TO TO BAIT BASICALLY
ABIDE BY OUR BECAUSE WE AS YOU
MENTIONED WE GONNA SEE BILLIONS
OR MAYBE EVEN TRILLIONS OF
SENSORS AND. AND.
DEVICES TO BE CONNECTED TO THE
THE I TT I'LL TEACH. YOU KNOW
WITHOUT SOME KIND OF OUR.
PROTECTION ON YOU KNOW
EVERYBODY COULD POTENTIALLY A
RISKS ARE YOU KNOW SECURITY AND
I THINK IT THE BILL ALSO IS IN
LINE WITH WHAT WE CALL USUALLY.
.
PRIVACY BY DESIGN AND ALSO
SECURITY BY DESIGN THE MEETING
THAT YOU KNOW FROM THE GET GO
MANUFACTURE WOULD INCORPORATE
ALL THE SUDDEN ARE YOU KNOW
CONCEPTS INTO THE PRODUCT
ITSELF.
SO THAT THEY WILL BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW SO I
THINK I THINK THIS WILL HOW FAR
FAR REACHING RAMIFICATIONS. ARE
IF WE PROVIDE THE YOU KNOW A
SOLID FOUNDATION FOR IT ON IT
YOU KNOW IT'S BEEN MENTION ABOUT
THOSE TWO CONDITIONS OR. AS SOME
HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE SAFE
HARBORS AND I THINK WE PROBABLY
NEED IN THE FUTURE TO. ARE YOU
TO UPDATE THOSE UP.
OR MEET THOSE A LITTLE BIT
BECAUSE WE DON'T BECAUSE AS YOU
MENTION SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT.
THE CYBER ALL CRIMINALS ARE
GONNA HOUSE MARGO'S IN THE UNIT
JUST TO GET AHEAD OF US SO WE
NEED TO CONSTANTLY UPDATE THE TO
THE SAFE HARBOR OR THAT. THE
LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.
IN THAT REQUIRED SO I'M SIT
STILL THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I
YOU KNOW IT WOULD ADVISE THAT
YOU DO YOU KNOW GOING FORWARD
BUT I I THINK THAT.
THE BILL DOES PROVIDE THAT KIND
OF A BASS LINE OR THRESHOLD FOR.
MANUFACTURES TO COMPLY WITH.
AND I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE
CLARIFICATION IF THERE ARE NO
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTS.
AB THE OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO
PASS ON THE OF AMENDMENTS
REFLECTED IN THE ANALYSIS ARE
AND I HEARD YOU MENTION THAT
THAT THE.
YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT
TO THE DELAY IMPLEMENTATION BY
ONE YEAR SO WHAT WOULD YOU
CONSIDER THAT TO BE PART OF THE
AMENDMENT AS WELL IF WE CAN DO
THAT RIGHT NOW CERTAINLY. OKAY
SO YOU JUST GO FOR THE RECORD
YOU KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE
THE CASE BUT BUT I'M VERY
ENCOURAGED BY THE LEVEL OF
ENGAGEMENT THAT YOU HAVE WITH
THE OPPOSITION AND ALL PARTIES I
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU YOU DID
REACH OUT TO MANY PARTIES. AND
TRY TO BUILD CONSENSUS AND I
THINK THAT'S VERY ADMIRABLE ON
SO.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE I THINK
YOU KNOW GOING FORWARD WE MAY
NEED TO KIND OF YOU KNOW FINE
TUNE A LITTLE BIT MORE. A
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO
THOSE TWO ARE JUST SAFE HARBOR
LANGUAGE OF A LACK OF BETTER
TERM. ON.
AND I THINK I'M ARE VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONCEPT IN
GENERAL AND I HOPE TO YOU KNOW A
YOU KNOW TO CAN CONTINUE TO
INVOLVED WITH US THE PROCESS AS
WELL SO. IF THERE ARE NO
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
A. HA I LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION
ON.
AND.
OH YES AND I'LL LET YOU GUYS DO
THE CLOSING AS WELL ACTUALLY ASK
FOR RIVAL. FIGURE MUCHA MAN
SECRETARY PLEASE KALRA.
DO PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
ASSEMBLY FLOOR.
HI I KILEY.
NO.
BAKER.
I. MEAN I'VE AYE CALDERON.
IRWIN CHI I MULLIN AYE AYE
OBERNOLTE. NO REYES.
I TING.
YOU HAVE SIX VOTES OF THE BILL
IS OUT CONGRATULATIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NOW THAT
BRINGS US TO MISTER OR LEVINE
THAT BELIEF YOU HOW OF.
ITEM NUMBER THREE THAT'S AB
NINETEEN FIFTY.
WELCOME ANYTIME YOU'RE READY YOU
MAY PROCEED THANK YOU SO MUCH MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS I'M HERE TODAY
TO PRESENT EIGHTY NINETEEN FIFTY
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE WEBSITE
OPERATOR.
TO DISCLOSE WHETHER THE OPERATOR
UTILIZES BOTS TO GATHER
PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE
INFORMATION.
.
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS NOTES
THAT FIVE YEARS AGO THIS SAME
CODE SECTION WAS AMENDED TO
ADDRESS THE NEWER INDUSTRY
PRACTICE OR NEW AT THAT TIME.
THE USE OF COOKIES.
TRACKING COLLECTED DATA AND THE
GROWING INDUSTRY PRACTICE OF
SHARING INTERNET USAGE DATA WITH
THIRD PARTIES.
SPECIFICALLY IN TWENTY THIRTEEN
AB THREE SEVENTY BY OUR
COLLEAGUE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MERRITT SUIT SHE. WAS ENACTED TO
REQUIRE THAT THE OPERATOR OF A
COMMERCIAL WEBSITE OR ONLINE
SERVICE DISCLOSE HOW RESPONSE
WHAT WEB BROWSERS DO NOT TRACK
SIGNAL. THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS OF AB THREE
SEVENTY NOTED THE LEGISLATION IS
FUNDAMENTALLY A TRANSPARENCY
BILL IT DOES NOT REQUIRE WEBSITE
I'D REQUIRE WEBSITE OPERATORS TO
MAKE ANY AFFIRMATIVE CHANGES. TO
THE DATA COLLECTION PRACTICES
THE SAME IS TRUE. OF AB NINETEEN
FIFTY.
I WILL CONCLUDE BY NOTING THAT
THE LAST. NOVEMBER GDP OUR
REPORT RAN AN ARTICLE TITLED
POTS AND PREACHES CLOSING THE
SECURITY GAP THE RECOUP THE
REPORT HIGHLIGHTED IN TWENTY
SIXTEEN BOTS CONDUCTED. FIFTY
TWO PERCENT OF ALL INTERNET
TRAFFIC FLOW WITH MORE GROWTH
EXPECTED SO THE COMPLEXITY OF
SECURITY GROWS THIS MAINLY
APPLIES TO BOT DATA TAX BUT IT
ALSO APPLIES OF HONOR ABILITIES
CREED BY BOUGHT DRIVEN DATA
TRANSFERRED. BACK AND FORTH ON
COMPANIES INTERNAL NETWORKS
THANK YOU I ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
OFFERS WHEN A WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL PLEASE STEP
FORWARD.
SCENE NINE OPPOSITION.
WELCOME.
THANK YOU HUTCH HER HER UP SO
THAT HIS ACTION.
YEAH GOOD AFTERNOON MR LEVINE
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS.
SERIBU WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TESTIFYING
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
PRIVACY POLICIES ARE IMPORTANT
DOCUMENTS THAT EXPLAIN THE
CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION THAT
WEB OPERATORS COLLECT ABOUT
CONSUMERS IN THE CATEGORIES OF
THIRD PARTIES WITH WHOM THEY
SHARE THAT INFORMATION.
TO ENSURE THAT CONSUMERS CAN
UNDERSTAND PRIVACY POLICIES THEY
NEED TO BE AS CLEAR AND CONCISE
AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S A POLICY
GOAL THAT IT'S BEEN WRITTEN
EXPRESSED REPEATEDLY RIGHT HERE
IN THIS COMMITTEE.
ADDING DISCLOSURES AS TO WHETHER
A COMPANY UTILIZES BOTS WOULD
LENGTHEN AND CLUTTER PRIVACY
POLICIES FOR BENEFIT THAT IS
REALLY UNCLEAR.
THE LANGUAGE MISTER LEVIN'S
REFERRING TO TODAY WOULD BE
REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF BOTS
USED TO COLLECT PERSONALLY
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION.
AGAIN CURRENT LAW ALREADY
REQUIRES.
THEM TODAY OPERATORS TO
DISCLOSE THE TYPES OF THAT
INFORMATION THEY COLLECT AND WHO
THEY SHARE IT WITH AND IT'S NOT
CLEAR HOW A NOTICE OF.
THAT THAT INFORMATION IS
COLLECTED USING AUTOMATED
SOFTWARE AS OPPOSED TO A PERSON
IS SOMEHOW MEANINGFUL TO A
CONSUMER.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL ALSO
REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF WHETHER
OR NOT.
WEB OPERATOR USED USES BOTS SO
THE OPERATOR DOES NOT USE ANY
pBOTS THAT HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT
THE PRIVACY POLICY WHICH SEEMS
CONFUSING.
ON THE BIGGER ISSUES VIRTUALLY
EVERY WEB OPERATOR USES IT BOTS
IN SOME WAY AND THAT MAKES
DISCLOSURES ABOUT THEM. SEEM TO
BE IN THIS INSTANCE ESSENTIALLY
MEANINGLESS I WOULD RESPECT THE
ARGUMENT THIS DISCLOSURE IS
ANALOGOUS TO. TO COOKIES.
DISCLOSURE ABUSIVE COOKIES WE
WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT.
IN THAT INSTANCE THAT THE
DISCLOSURE ABOUT. OF THE TYPE OF
INFORMATION THAT'S COLLECTED
THAT VISITORS. AT THE USERS.
THEIR VISITS TO DIFFERENT
WEBSITES AND THE TYPES OF
ACTIONS THEY TAKE ON THOSE
WEBSITES THE LANGUAGE ISSUE HERE
THE USE OF BOTS ONLY FOCUSES ON
THE METHOD OF COLLECTION.
AND THERE'S BEEN NO SHOWING THAT
THAT METHOD.
IS SOMEHOW NEFARIOUS THOUGH
REQUIRING THIS BLANKET
DISCLOSURE WOULD CERTAINLY IMPLY
THAT.
THE REALITY IS THAT THE PROBLEMS
WE'VE ALL READ ABOUT THE MEDIA
WITH RESPECT TO BOTS INVOLVE
THIRD PARTIES UTILIZING BOTS FOR
NEFARIOUS PURPOSES. THEY DON'T
BOB AUTOMATED SOFTWARE USED BY
THE WEB OPERATOR IN CLOSING THE
BENEFITS OF THIS BILL SEEM VERY
UNCLEAR BUT THE DRAWBACKS OF
ADDING UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS TO
PRIVACY POLICIES IS SIGNIFICANT
SO FOR THOSE REASONS WE WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. FEAR
NO VOTE THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY
MUCH ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
LARA BENNETT WITH TECHNO
ASSOCIATE OR COMMENTS WITH THOSE
BY COUNTING PER THANK YOU THANK
YOU NEXT PLEASE.
GOVERNOR KILLING THE INTERNET
ASSOCIATION ALSO ECHOES COMMENTS
THANK YOU THANK YOU. THANKS
PLEASE.
MISTER CHAIR CHRIS MCCARRON ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPUTING
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
ALSO POSE THINKS
THANK.
DANIEL KENDO BECAUSE OUR BEHALF
OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION ALSO IN OPPOSITION
THANK YOU MUCH NEXT.
MARGARET WAS SAM RAVALLI
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
BANKING NETWORK ALSO IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SEEN AND
LOTS OF BRING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
MISTER OBERNOLTE GO AHEAD.
I CARE ABOUT MISTER LEVINE I.
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO HERE I'M CONCERNED WITH HOW
BROADLY YOUR BILL DEFINES.
THE WORD BOUGHT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
DEFINITION IS SO BROAD THAT.
MOST.
SOFTWARE THAT'S DESIGNED FOR
INTERACTION WITH THE USER
COMMUNITY WOULD FALL UNDER THE
DEFINITION OF IT.
SO I MEAN FOR EXAMPLE WALL MAY
ASK YOU SO IF IF I HAVE MY OWN
EMAIL SERVER.
AND THE SERVER HAS.
THE ABILITY FOR ME TO SET ON
AUTO REPLY IF I'M GONNA BE OUT
OF TOWN FOR A WEEK.
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD
CONSTITUTE A BOT UNDER THE
DEFINITION OF YOUR BILL IS TO DO
WHAT IT OR WHATNOT. I DON'T I
DON'T THINK IT WOULD APPLY SO
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BIG COLLECTION OF PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION AND DOT
DISCLOSURE OF THAT SO WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT. JUST BOTS IN
GENERAL BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS DOES POINT
OUT AND WE.
HAVE A THE BILL AS IT IS A
BEFORE YOU IS ODD JUST.
PASSES A MEANT THAT ARE JUST
PASS IT HAD BEEN AMENDED BEFORE
COMMITTEE.
THE ON HOWEVER THERE ARE AYE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS NOT THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAD ASKED ME TO DO
TO FURTHER DEFINE WHAT A BOT IS.
BUT I WOULD ALSO CONCEDE OUT
MUCH LIKE ON A BILL THAT WE HAD
BEFORE YOU A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO
AB TWENTY ONE
TWO I WORKED.
VERY CLOSELY WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO LAND ON
DEFINITIONS
FOR THE CALIFORNIA DATA
PROTECTION AUTHORITY WHICH THIS
BILL APPROVED OUR THIS COMMITTEE
APPROVED. THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION.
IN MUCH THE SAME VEIN AND MUCH
THE SAME PARTNERSHIP AND IT WITH
ALL OF THE BEST GOOD WILL TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOUND
POLICY THAT WORKS. OUT TO LAND
IN A PLACE THAT WOULD REMOVE
THAT OPPOSITION I CAN'T SPEAK
FOR THEM OF COURSE BUT WE WOULD
THAT WOULD BE MY INTENTION GOING
FORWARD. A WE DID A WHOLE THE
BILL BACK
A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WE WORKED
WITH THE COMMITTEE THAT THIS
BILL WAS ALSO ASSIGNED TO BUT
BECAUSE.
WE WOULD HAVE TIME TO GO TO
BOTH COMMITTEES WE WORKED WITH.
THE INTERNET COMMITTEE.
SPORTS TOURISM INTERNET MEDIA
COMMITTEE.
TO LAND ON THE LANGUAGE THAT WE
HAVE HERE SO THAT IT WOULD NOT
HAVE TO BE DOUBLE REFERRED. AS
WE WORKED.
AS MUCH AS WE COULD WITH THE
TWO COMMITTEES TO MAKE IT WORK
THAT WE COULD.
FURTHER DEFINED THIS BUT I
THINK THAT THAT COMMITMENT
DOESN'T AND WITH PASSAGE TODAY
AND OF COURSE YOUR INPUT WOULD
ALSO BE. ARE GLADLY WELCOMED.
I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDED I'VE I
STILL HAVE. SOME PRETTY MAJOR
CONCERNS WITH.
THE WAVE DIVIDED AFTER
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. WITH YOUR
INTERPRETATION OF THE BILL
BECAUSE I'D KNOW WHERE IN THE
BILL TO SAY THAT THE BOT HAS TO
COLLECT THE. PERSONAL
INFORMATION SO JUST THE FACT
THAT ELSEWHERE IN MY COMPANY I
COLLECT PERSONAL INFORMATION
THAT.
INFORMATION OPENS ME UP TO
HAVING TO HAVE THIS DISCLOSURE
AND SO MY READING OF THE BILL
SAYS THAT. BY IF I HAVE ANY MAIL
SERVER YOU KNOW I CAN'T DO AN
AUTO REPLY BECAUSE THAT'S A POD.
AND SO I I REALLY THINK THAT
THAT.
WE NEED TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME
IN NAILING DOWN THE DEFINITION
BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO YEAH TO WORK ON
THAT AND I'D BE HAPPY TO TO.
TO HELP AND THAT'S WHY I
MENTIONED THE.
IS SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS IN THE
ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE NOT.
ASKED OF ME TO TAKE OUR
AMENDMENTS NOT ONLY AM I WILLING
TO TAKE THEM IN IN THE FUTURE.
UP FOR THE NEXT COMMITTEE BUT
ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO REFINE.
MS BAKER HAD THANK YOU I'M I
SHARE MR OF MINORITIES EXACT
CONCERNS BECAUSE THAT I I THINK
I'M I'M ASSUMING WE'RE TRYING TO
GET AT IS NOT.
EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
THE CONSUMER IN A COMPANY OR
RESOURCE RATHER RISE BUT THAT IS
EXACTLY WHAT THE DEFINITION GOES
AFTER IT DOESN'T LIMIT IT TO
PERSONAL INFORMATION. IT'S THE
MOST AUTOMATED.
EASIEST COMMUNICATIONS WE WOULD
HAVE WITH ENTITIES THAT WE DON'T
PARTICULARLY THINK WANNA MAKE
MORE COMPLICATED. AND.
WE ONLY HAVE THE BILL BEFORE US
TO VOTE ON TODAY NOT ONES THAT
ARE MAYBE AMENDMENTS THERE TAKEN
OR NOT AND IT'S GOING ON TO
ANOTHER COMMITTEE OTHER ALWAYS
APPRECIATE WHEN AUTHORS. REALLY
ARE TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THE
LEGISLATIVE DEADLINES TO DO
THAT.
I.
IF IT'LL BE REALLY ESSENTIAL I
WOULD THINK TO GET THIS.
TO GO AFTER THE NEFARIOUS USE
YES
AND.
I I CAN'T SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF ME
HAS. A A DEFINITION THAT IS
REALLY.
OVER PRIDE AND I THINK YOU
YOU'RE RECOGNIZING THAT WITH THE
INTEREST IN FIXING AT. THE HOPE
THAT WILL HAPPEN.
BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF
NEFARIOUS.
BOTS ARE EVERYONE CALLING OUT
THERE.
ONE ENCOURAGEMENT IS THAT IN IN
THAT DEFINITION BEING CAREFUL
NOT TO TOUCH
TO MAKE IT SO RIGID THAT TWO
YEARS FROM NOW SOME OTHER
TERMINOLOGY OR SOME OTHER
DEFINITIONS USED IT DOESN'T GO
AFTER IT.
I'M ALWAYS THE TASK WITH.
SOMETHING LIKE THIS
IT'S YOUR BIRTHDAY AND YOU GET
TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS US.
FIGHT EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING
YEAH EXACTLY BICU THE.
I THINK THAT WE WERE VERY
CAREFUL IN THE ORIGINAL BILL.
NOT TO BAN THE USE OF POTS.
AND THAT IS STILL HERE WE WE
DON'T SAY THAT BOTS ARE BAD.
ANYWHERE IN MY LEGISLATION WE
DON'T LIMIT THE USE OF POTS WE
ACTUALLY DON'T. CHANGE THE
BEHAVIOR.
OF THE BOTS AS WELL OR HOW. ARE
THE WEALTHIEST CORPORATIONS IN
HISTORY THE WORLD ARE USING
BOTS.
BUT.
IT'S CLOSE THE FACT
THAT THEY ARE I GATHER
INFORMATION PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION SO WE
CAN CHOOSE NOT TO ADVANCE THE
BILL. TODAY.
AND I COULD GIVE THE CLOTHES
FOR YOU KNOW MY OPPOSITION WHICH
IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE
HERE AND YOU KNOW WE'RE WE'RE
NOT. HARMING ANYBODY.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT
PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF HOW THE
SPOTS ARE BEING USED AND THAT'S
THE GOAL OF THE BILL IS THE
INTENT MOVING FORWARD IT'S GOOD
TO KNOW AND IT'S VERY HELPFUL IT
KNOWING THOUGH THAT THAT
DISCLOSURE IS CAN. IS ONLY AS
HELPFUL AS IT IS TRULY
MEANINGFUL AND SO IF IF I'M
GETTING A DISCLOSURE WHEN I GO
TO A SITE IN A PRIVACY POLICY
THAT SAYS THE CIDER THIS.
WHATEVER USES BOTS.
AB I THINK WAS UNIVERSALLY THE
IMPRESSION OF MOST OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS AS SOMETHING
NEFARIOUS IS GOING ON AND IT'S
JUST BEEN DISCLOSED TO ME WHEN.
THAT MAY NOT ONLY NOT BE THE
CASE BUT THAT MADE DISCOURAGE
ME.
AND US FROM HAVING THE TYPE OF
TRADE AND COMMERCE WE WOULD WANT
TO HAVE BUT I KNOW YOU'RE GOING
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE
MEANINGFUL IT'S IT'S AN
INTERESTING POINT THAT YOU MAKE
I THINK OF THE SAME ARGUMENT
COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT
COOKIES AND TWENTY THIRTEEN.
AND I I THINK THAT A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW COOKIES ARE
BEING USED OR ALSO HOW WE'LL TO.
USE OR ALLOW ACCESS BY COOKIES
NOW THAT WE HAVE IN AWARENESS
ABOUT IT EMPOWERS CALIFORNIANS
EMPOWERS INTERNET USERS AND
THAT'S MY HOPE HERE AS WELL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ARE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR.
QUESTION IS SEEING NONE OF LET
ME ALSO I THINK YOU ARE. MISSILE
LEAN FOR WORKING WITH OUR STAFF
ARE AND GENERALLY SPEAKING I I
DO NOT LIKE TO LENGTHEN PRIVACY
POLICIES AND. IN FACT A FEW
YEARS AGO I HAD A BILL TO
SHORTEN A PRIVACY POLICIES.
BUT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT
THE BOXES ARE GENERATING SO MUCH
ATTENTION AND IT'S A THE ISSUE
OF ARE. OF VITAL IMPORTANCE I I
THINK THAT.
THAT COMPETITION IS TO GO ON
AND ALSO ON WHO WANT TO
ENCOURAGE YOU TO. ALSO GO AFTER
THOSE.
QUESTIONABLE ACTIVITIES OTHER
NEFARIOUS UNFIT TO RESULT THERE
I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE
BEEN TRYING TO GET OUT IN FACT
SO. TIGHT DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE
YOU TO STEAL OUR MOVE ON IN THAT
DIRECTION ALSO SO OUR WITHOUT IT
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE AND THAT
I ACTUALLY WOULD NEED A MOTION
FIRST. TRY HAVE A MOTION.
IF YOU LIVE YOU KNOW AND IF
CLOSER SIDE ANOTHER DAY I WILL
WORK WITH YOU IN THE COMMITTEE
TO MAKE SURE WE GO AFTER. OTHER
NEFARIOUS SPOTS THAT TAT WAS THE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL KNOWN
WORKING WITH THAT COMMITTEES
TO GET THERE. KNOW ME WAITING
QUITE LAND ON GOING AFTER ONLY
THE EVIL BOTS WHICH IS
DISCLOSURE IN GENERAL ABOUT POTS
TO RAISE AWARENESS IS MY HOPE
THAT WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A
SECOND IN THE VOTES TO CONTINUE
WORK ON THIS ISSUE THAT
CALIFORNIANS TO CARRY GREAT TILL
ABOUT.
ABSOLUTELY.
VERY GOOD AND ONCE WE.
AS A COURTESY I'M HAVING TO
PROVIDE A MOTION BIG IT WE HAVE
A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.
WE JUST HAVE TO WAIT FOR
SOMEBODY ELSE TO COME INTO A
SECOND AMONG YOUR MOTION HOW
THAT.
YEAH I DON'T LIKE I DON'T KNOW I
COULD. YEAH I DON'T KNOW IF I
COULD.
NOW I DON'T KNOW OKAY THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. BURGERS.
THIRTY COUNTIES MOST.
OF COURSE.
SO MISTER COUNTIES THAT EMOTION.
I'M TO SAY.
YEAH BUT THE THING.
ACCORDING TO CHRISTOPHER.
WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY OR.
I DO NOT BELIEVE I HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO SECOND OKAY ON
MISTER KILEY DOES.
THAT IS.
BUT I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY
MUCH MR CLEARING COMMITTEE THANK
YOU MORE PEOPLE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO WITH THAT THAT WE HAVE MISTER
SANTIAGO. EUROPE.
THAT WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER FIVE
AB TWENTY SIX THIRTY TWO
WELCOME.
THEY MISTER CHAIR MUCH
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY
PRESENT BEFORE YOU.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING
THE COMMITTEE AND WORKING AND
FOR WORKING WITH THE AUTHORS
AMENDMENTS AND I LOOK FOR TO
CONTINUE THE WORK ETHICALLY TO
ADDRESS.
THE PREEMPTION ISSUES RAISED IN
THE ANALYSIS UP THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR THAT.
SPECIFICALLY AB TWENTY SIX
THIRTY TWO WOULD PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS TO SLACK
BILL LAWS. A ONE WERE PACKAGING.
DISCREETLY TELLS YOU THE NUMBER
OF PRODUCTS IN CLEARLY STATES.
THE SIZE OF THE PRODUCT AND
INTO.
ALLOWING FOR A FILL LINE TO. ON
THE EXTERIOR OF THE PACKAGED SO
THAT THE CONSUMERS KNOW EXACTLY
HOW MUCH.
MADE.
MATERIAL OR AND GOODS IS WHICH
IS WITHIN THE PACKAGING. AND
THREE.
FOR E. COMMERCE ARM.
PURCHASES.
I HAVE A WITNESS OF FOR THE BILL
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE
VOTE MISTER CHAIR THANK YOU VERY
MUCH EFFORTS WHEN THIS PLACE.
YES MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE THANK YOU VERY MUCH
JOHN HEWITT ON BEHALF OF THE
CURSE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION.
REPRESENTING FOOD BEVERAGE
CONSUMER AND PERSONAL CARE
PRODUCTS COMPANIES.
I'M. ASSEMBLY BILL TWENTY SIX
THIRTY TWO IS THE AUTHOR SAID
JOB PROPOSED TO CLARIFY.
AND CLEARLY ARTICULATE A COUPLE
OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE NON
FUNCTIONAL SLACKS PHIL WOULD BE
DEEMED APPROPRIATE. AND IN DOING
SO.
WE BELIEVE ADDS CLARITY TO
MANUFACTURERS FOR PURPOSES OF
ENFORCEMENT AND EQUALLY AS
IMPORTANT ADDS CLARITY TO
CONSUMERS ABOUT WHAT'S INSIDE
THE PACKAGE.
THE ANALYSIS GOES THROUGH.
IN GREAT DETAIL THE CHRONOLOGY
ALSO YEP.
I'LL SKIP MY A RECITATION OF
THAT JUST NOTING A COUPLE MAJOR
MILESTONES.
WITH RESPECT TO SLACK FILL IN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN
NINETEEN EIGHTY EIGHT.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN
COOPERATION WITH DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S DEVELOP A SLACK FEEL
ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES.
THOSE WERE THOSE WERE.
THOSE RATE CAPS SLATED INTO
STATUTE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL
THIRTEEN NINETY FOUR NINETEEN
NINETY SEVEN.
FIFTEEN YEARS LATER.
AND THROUGH CONTINUED TO.
ENFORCEMENT AND INCONSISTENT
ENFORCEMENT.
WE ARE ONCE AGAIN FACED WITH
THE PROSPECT OF NEED TO UPDATE
MODERNIZE OF THE THE STOCK FELL
PROVISIONS SO IN TWO THOUSAND
AND THIRTEEN. LEGISLATURE.
PAST FORCED AS BEFORE SIXTY
FIVE BY WIDE MARGINS AND WAS
SIGNED INTO LAW.
THAT BRINGS US TO TODAY IN ONCE
AGAIN.
SUBJECT SUBJECTIVE
INTERPRETATION CLASS ACTION
SUITS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS.
BASED ON SELECT DELEGATIONS
CONTINUE.
.
PROLIFERATE.
AS SUCH A YOUR ASSISTANCE IS IS
NEEDED TO AGAIN CLARIFY SEVEN
SEVERAL COMMONLY EMPLOYED
METHODS FOR COMMUNICATING.
INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS WHILE
PROVIDING CERTAINTY TO.
MANUFACTURING COMMUNITY.
LINK IN CLOSING MISTER CHAIRMAN
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
LIKE ASSEMBLY BILL THIRTEEN
NINETY FOUR.
SP FOUR SIXTY FIVE
ASSEMBLY BILL TWENTY SIX THIRTY
TWO WOULD AGAIN UPDATE SLOP FILL
STATUTE.
COMMONSENSE OPPORTUNITIES TO
CONVEY INFORMATION TO THE
CONSUMER AND REDUCE UNNECESSARY
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY ADDING
CLARITY TO THE FLAG SOCK FILL
REQUIREMENTS WE WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR. AN AYE
VOTE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH YEAH THANKS
WHEN HIS PLACE.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER TERRY
MEMBERS TRICIA GERINGER WITH
AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA WE REPRESENTS OVER
FIFTEEN THOUSAND FARMERS AND
FARMER AND BUSINESSES FROM OFF
THROUGHOUT THE STATE VERY MUCH
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL FOR THE
REASONS STATED THINK TAKING
ACTION EXPLAINS.
ADAM RIGHTLY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ALSO INSUPPORTABLE THINKS THANK
YOU NICE PLACE.
MANUALLY ON BEHALF OF THE
PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS COUNCIL
IN SUPPORT THANK YOU THANKS
PLEASE.
DENNIS ALBION A HAVE TO THE
AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION WE
SUPPORT ACHING NECKS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN FIRST
ON CAP KEY MCCUE CAP CAN
ASSOCIATE SOMEHOW THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS A TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION STRONG SUPPORT AB
TWENTY SIXTY. TWENTY SIX THIRTY
TWO IS LISTED AS ONE OF OUR
MANUFACTURER MAKERS AFFORD
SUPPORT.
AND EMPOWER BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
ON INNOVATION INVESTMENT AND
JOBS FIGURE.
THANK YOU MUCH NEXT PLEASE.
MCCURRY FOR THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU NEXT.
MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS ROB
ROSSELLI HAVE A GENERAL MILLS IN
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
AIR MARIN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT THANK YOU NEXT PLACE.
MARC WATTS YUBA HAVE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION SUPPORT
THANK YOU NEXT PLACE.
OPPOSITION PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MISTER CHAIRMAN WAS NOT YOU
CYBERLINK BEHALF THE CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS AND
SEALERS ASSOCIATION. I'LL BE
BRIEF HERE TODAY.
WERE FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO
THE BILL.
I'VE BASICALLY FOR THE REASON
THAT ALL THE THE EXISTING
SAFEGUARDS CONTAINED IN THE BNP
CODE OF FOR THESE PRODUCTS.
MAKE SOME SORT OF A TENT
TO EXPLAIN.
THE EMPTY SPACE WITHIN THE BOX
OF THE CONSUMER BUT ISN'T ISN'T
BUYING.
THE NEW SAFEGUARDS ARE BEING
ADDED I'D DO NOTHING TO TO
EXPLAIN THE EMPTY SPACE OF THERE
IS IS SPACE IN THE BOX THEY
ALLOW FOR THAT SPACE TO TO BE
THERE AS LONG AS THEY DISCLOSE.
AT THE CONSUMER THROUGH A
SILHOUETTE OF A FELT LINED THAT
YES INDEED THERE'S ANTI SPACE IN
THIS BOX BUT. YOU SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN THAT BECAUSE WE TOLD YOU
ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BOX.
THE FOR THESE REASONS YOU KNOW
WE CLASSIFY THESE THESE NEW
SAFEGUARDS MORE AS A. GOOD
CONSUMER I'VE.
AB B. SEED NOTE IT'S IT'S IT'S
GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE UP WE
DON'T CONSIDER THEM SAFEGUARDS
AND WOULD ASK YOU TO VOTE NO ON
THIS BILL THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ON THE NEXT PLACE ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NONE LET'S.
COME BACK TO THE COMMUNITY
QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS.
CNN ARM.
CHRISTMAS ESSENTIAL WHICH YOU
WANT TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN
JUST BRIEFLY OR THE A PROPONENT
IS TO THE FORTY CLOSE.
NO. WE CAN BUT I CAN TELL YOU
THAT.
SPACES PRO AT A PREMIUM
WHENEVER YOU GO TO A STORE
WHENEVER YOU PACKAGE REMEMBER
YOU SHIP WHENEVER YOU.
BRING FORTH MERCHANDISE LIKE I
COULD IMAGINE THAT THERE WOULD
BE A MANUFACTURER OR A PACKAGING
COMPANY THAT'S GOING TO SAY HEY
LET'S GO CREE BIGGER BOXES
BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COST US
MORE. AND THAT WE WE COULD DO OF
THE CONSUMER.
QUITE ON THE CONTRARY OTHER
LEGITIMATE REASONS WHY A BOX IS
A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN THE
MITCHELL INSIDE A NUMBER ONE
MATERIAL DOESN'T BREAK.
LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE A YOUR
CHEERIOS. NOW YOU DON'T WANT
THEM SMASHED UP IMMEDIATELY AND
ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP WHAT
HAPPENS IF YOU GET A SMALL
LITTLE PUSH ON IT. I MEAN IT'S
SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A
CUSHION THERE TOO OR IF YOU SAY
YOU'RE BUYING FLOUR FOR EXAMPLE
IT'S GONNA PACK ITSELF DOWN
AFTER A LITTLE WHILE.
SO YOU GET A LITTLE BIT OF
EXTRA SPACE THERE.
IF SO I I EVEN LIKE THE ONE
LIKE THE ECONOMIST ONE THAT'S.
TO ME THAT LOOK PRETTY BASIC
BECAUSE YOU CAN GET AN ACTUAL
SIZE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR.
AT YOUR COMPUTER AND YOU WOULD
PUT THE MANUFACTURER OR A.
GLORIA STORY.
ELIGIBLE FOR A MORE RELIABLE
POTENTIALLY JUST BECAUSE YOU
LOOK IT UP ON THE INTERNET IT
DOESN'T SHOW YOU THE EXACT SIZE
SUCH WHY WE PUT THAT IN THERE I
THINK THESE ARE COMMON SENSE.
APPROACHES BUT I WOULD FINISH
OFF JUST BY SAYING I I DON'T
KNOW OF ANYBODY WHO WOULD SAY
LET'S GO SPEND MORE MONEY MAKE
CREATE A BIGGER BOX.
IN DEEP SOMEBODY.
OKAY WITHOUT YOUR CLOTHES.
VERY GOOD.
LET'S SEE I THINK THE OTHER IS
A MOTION IN THE WAS A SECOND
ALREADY.
SO.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO PASS
SO. AS I MEANT AS AMENDED YOU
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS RIGHT
COURAGEOUS SO HAPPILY SO ARM AND
SECRETARY PLEASE CARL. TOWN I
AYE KILEY NINE A BAKER. AYE
BERMAN. AYE CALDERON.
IRWIN. I AM MULLIN.
OBERNOLTE. I BASIS. NINE.
YOU BOTH ARE CONGRATULATIONS
SEVEN ZERO.
THAT BRINGS US TO MISS YOUR LOW.
THAT IS SO ITEM NUMBER. SEVEN.
TWENTY EIGHT SEVENTY THREE.
REPUBLICAN.
OKAY.
WELCOME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THIS IS ASSEMBLY
BILL TWENTY EIGHT SEVENTY THREE
WHICH WOULD EXPAND.
EXISTING SAFETY PROTECTIONS IN
FEDERAL AND STATE LAW TO APPLY
TO RENTAL CAR COMPANIES
REGARDING THE PERFORMANCE OF
SAFETY RECALLS TO FOOD PERSONAL
VEHICLE SHARING PROGRAMS AS
CURRENTLY DEFINED IN
CALIFORNIA'S. INSURANCE COAT.
I WILL BE ACCEPTING AUTHORS
AMENDMENTS IS NOT IN THE CAMINO
HOUSES ON PAGE SEVEN AND FORCE
AND NOT ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS
ON PAGE EIGHT AT SID TODAY WITH
ME AS. PRESIDENT ASIA HAND OUT
WITH CONSUMERS FOR AUTO
RELIABILITY AND SAFETY IN AND
YOU GO. WITH TECHNET.
OUR FIRST WITNESS PLEASE GRANT
MISTER CHAIRMAN MEMBERS I BIRDS
VERY SHE HIM PRESIDENT CONSUMERS
FOR AUTO RELIABILITY AND SAFETY
AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOADS LEADERSHIP
IN AUTHORING THIS BILL AND ALSO
THE PORT FROM THE.
VARIOUS ENTITIES WOULD BE
REGULATED UNDER THIS WE FEEL A
SENSE OF URGENCY TO GET THIS
ENACTED BECAUSE THE EXISTING LAW
HEARING CALIFORNIA DOESN'T FIT
THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. AND WE
WORKED WITH.
KELLY HOW KUSA MOTHER VERY
CHILLING JACQUELYN HOW OAK WHO
WERE KILLED BY A RECALL THE
RENTAL CAR ON THEIR WAY HOME
FROM. OR HIGH BACK TO SANTA
CRUZ.
AND IN GETTING ENACTED FEDERAL
LEGISLATION SPONSORED BY SENATOR
SCHUMER AND CO SPONSORED BY
SENATOR BOXER AND SENATOR
FEINSTEIN. AND OTHER SENATORS.
THAT.
YOU BOTH RENTAL CAR COMPANIES
WITH FLEETS OF THIRTY FIVE OR
MORE VEHICLES FROM RENTING
LOANING OR SELLING THEM. TO THE
PUBLIC UNLESS THEY HAVE A SAFETY
RECALL THERE'S BEEN PERFORMED.
AND WE APPRECIATE THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER GORDON AUTHORED A SIMILAR
BILL IN CALIFORNIA THAT.
ADDRESSES THOSE WHO POLL
REGARDING RENTAL CAR COMPANIES
THAT HAVE FEWER FIELD GOALS IN
THEIR RENTAL CAR FLEETS.
BUT THE MODEL IN THAT EXISTING
LAW DOESN'T REALLY FIT THE THE
BUSINESS MODEL THAT.
THEIR PEER TO PEER RIDESHARING
COMPANIES HAVE. AND IT ASSUMES
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET
NOTICES THE MANUFACTURES RECALL
BUT.
UNDER FEDERAL LAW THE NOTICE
GOES TO THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
THEY'RE NOT THE OWNER. SO
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT
RECALL NOTICE.
IT ALLOWS THE EXISTING LONG
CALIFORNIA ALLOWS THEM FORTY
EIGHT HOURS.
AFTER THEY RECEIVE THE NOTICE
TO. REMOVE THE VEHICLE FROM
STEPPING IN SERVICE.
IT DOESN'T.
AGAIN IT DOESN'T FIT THEIR
BUSINESS MODEL AND ALLOWS FOR AN
INTERIM REPAIR BUT THEY WOULDN'T
BE ABLE TO OVERSEE THAT REAP
YOUR.
AND WHAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOW'S
BILL WOULD DO IS REQUIRE
ACTUALLY A HIGHER STANDARD AND
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT
THEY'RE WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT
A HIGHER STANDARD THAT SAYS. IF
IT'S UNDER SAFETY RECALL.
THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR
MONITORING IT. AND GETTING IT
OFF THE PLATFORM. AND WE HAVE
NATIONWIDE ABOUT FIFTY SEVEN
MILLION CARS THAT HAVE OPEN
SAFETY RECALLS THE MANUFACTURES
ARE DOING THINGS LIKE GOING ON
FACEBOOK AND GOING DOOR TO DOOR
AND MAYORS OF CITIES IN
CALIFORNIA DOING OUTREACH IN THE
POLICE ARE DOING HOURS. TRYING
TO GET THESE CARS FIXED WE SEE
THIS BILL AS SOMETHING THAT WILL
SAVE LIVES.
WE HOPE SOONER BIG BECAUSE IT'S
ALL ABOUT TIME.
AB IF WE CAN PREVENT MORE
FATALITIES AND INJURIES.
EVER EVERYONE BENEFITS THANK
YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEXT
WHEN HIS PLACE MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS ARE UNABLE REPRESENTING
TORO THE TRAGEDY THAT MS SHEA
HAND DESCRIBED.
LED TO THE RENTAL CAR INDUSTRY
GOING OUT TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND ASKING FOR AN
EXPLICIT EXEMPTION FROM
VICARIOUS LIABILITY WHICH THEY
ACTUALLY ACHIEVED. BUT YOU IN
CALIFORNIA PASSED A LAW IN
TWENTY TEN THAT EXPLICITLY
HOLDS.
OUT SHARON COMPANIES LIKE THIS.
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FULL
LIABILITY OF OWNERSHIP AND YOU
ALSO PASSED A LAW THAT REQUIRES
US TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM LEVEL OF
INSURANCE. FOR ALL OF THESE
REASONS WE DO NOT WANT ANYTHING
IN THIS BILL WE ARE HOPING THAT
COMMITTEE WILL MAKE THIS
DECISION. THAT WOULD LANDED A A
FUTURE LEGISLATURE TO REDEFINE
US AS RENTAL CAR COMPANIES IT
WOULD LOWER THE STANDARD OF
LIABILITY. IT WOULD LOWER THE
STANDARD FOR INSURANCE IN THE
WHOLE REASON WE'RE COMING HERE
TODAY TO BACK OUR CONSUMER
ALLIES. ON THIS BILL AND ASK FOR
YET ANOTHER OBLIGATION ON A
HOUSE THAT RENTAL CAR AGENCIES
DON'T HAVE UNDER CURRENT
CALIFORNIA LAW. IS BECAUSE WE
DON'T WANT.
ARE ANYTHING TO HAPPEN TO OUR
CUSTOMERS THAT HAPPENED TO
THERE'S IN THAT INCIDENT THANK
YOU. THANKS VERY MUCH ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL.
PLEASE COME FORWARD YA ALL
BALTIC THE FIRST I'M THIS IS
ANDREA ABOUT IT SIR I'M VICE
PRESIDENT FOR TECHNET I WILL
KEEP MY REMARKS BRIEF.
AS YOU KNOW WE REPRESENT OVER
EIGHTY COMPANIES IN THE
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION SPACE IT
IS NOT OFTEN THAT TECHNOLOGY
COMPANIES ASKED TO BE REGULATED
BUT IS THAT IS WHAT WE'RE HERE
TODAY TO DO ALL AYE. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE VOTE
HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU A NEXT WITNESS PLEASE
AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIR CASSIE
GILSON ON BEHALF OF GET AROUND A
SAN FRANCISCO BASED CAR SELLING
CHAIRING PLATFORM ALSO IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU NEXT PLEASE.
KEVIN KILLINGS INTERNET
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU THANK YOU NEXT PLACE.
MARGARET BLOODSTAIN NOW HAVE
GLOBAL MODEL MAKERS ALSO SUPPORT
THANK YOU MUCH. NEXT PLEASE.
CNN OPPOSITION PLEASE COME
FORWARD.
IT'S A HALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
AIRPORTS COUNCIL REPRESENTING
THIRTY ONE COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS
IN THE STATE. WE'RE NOW NEUTRAL
ON THE BILL HOWEVER WE WOULD
URGE THE COMMITTEE TO ADOPT ALL.
OF THE ANALYSIS IS.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS WE THINK
THAT WILL STRENGTHEN.
THE BILL THANK YOU.
YOU NEXT
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS VERY BROAD
ON BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS.
WE REPRESENT TENS OF THOUSANDS
OF.
PEOPLE IN THIS INDUSTRY.
HAVE I NEED TO CLARIFY A COUPLE
OF THINGS WE WERE TOLD JUST
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. THAT THE
AUTHOR WAS ACCEPTING A DIFFERENT
AMENDMENT THEN. HE JUST
ACCEPTED.
SO.
.
I AS I UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE
ACCEPTED WE WOULD REMAIN IN
OPPOSITION WHAT I WAS TOLD HE
WAS ACCEPTING WOULD HAVE REMOVED
OUR OPPOSITION. SO SUDDEN
SHIFTED HERE SO I'M GONNA ASSUME
THAT WE OPPOSE THIS BILL AND I'M
GOING TO TELL YOU WHY. FIRST OF
ALL TORO WAS A RENTAL CAR
COMPANY UNTIL SIX MONTHS AGO.
THEY HAD AN OPERATION IT SAN
FRANCISCO AIRPORT THEY DECLARED
THEMSELVES NOT TO BE A RENTAL
CAR COMPANY BECAUSE THEY RENT
THEIR CARS ON AN APP.
AND STOP FOLLOWING ALL THE RULES
INCLUDING ALL THE SAFETY RULES
RELATED TO. RENTAL CAR COMPANIES
AND ALL THE CONSUMER RULES
AND THERE'S MORE TO CONSUMERS
THAN CONSUMER RULES AND SAFETY.
VAN RECALL ISSUES IF THEY ARE
RENTAL COMPANY THEY'RE COVERED
BY RECALL BUT THEY ALSO CAN'T
RIP PEOPLE LOCKS.
THEY ALSO CAN'T THEY ALSO HAVE
TO MAINTAIN THEIR VEHICLES IN
GOOD WORKING ORDER.
THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF THINGS
THAT THOUGHT OF ACCIDENTS GET
HAPPEN BECAUSE CARS ARE NOT
MAINTAINED APPROPRIATELY WHICH
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY
RECALLS.
SAFETY RECALL SHOULD BE COVERED
BUT WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE
AND WHAT WAS THE FIRST VERSION
OF THIS IS JUST THE NEXT.
ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE
SOMEBODY CREATES AN APP AND SAYS
THERE ARE BASICALLY A
DEREGULATED BUSINESS SO WHEN
THEY COME HERE SAYING THEY'RE
ASKING TO BE REGULATED. THEY'RE
ASKING TO BE DEREGULATED.
EXCEPT FOR ONE THING.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY GOING
ON HERE AND THAT'S WHAT YOU
VOTING FOR.
NOW.
THIS SANTA SCHOOL AIRPORT HAS
LITIGATION AGAINST THEM SAYING
YOU KNOW JUST BECAUSE YOU CHANGE
YOUR NAME AND STOP FOLLOWING ALL
THE RULES DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE
NOT A RENTAL CAR COMPANY. AND
THEY SAID WELL WE'RE ONE OF
THESE PERSONAL SHARING PLATFORMS
AND LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THESE
PERSONAL SHARING PLATFORMS AND
WHY THEY ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE.
YOU CANNOT MAKE A PROFIT.
YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY VEHICLE IN
COMMERCIAL SERVICE.
AND WORSE THAN THAT.
THAT EVEN THIS PROVISION.
IN THAT INSURANCE CODE PROVISION
THAT SAYS AND I JUST WANT TO
READ THIS TO YOU THE PRIMARY AND
EXCESS INSURER OR INSURERS AND
THE OWNERS OPERATORS AND
MAINTAINERS OF THE PRIVATE
PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE. USED IN
A PERSONAL VEHICLE SHARING
PROGRAM SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
NOTIFY AND ENSURED THAT IT HAS
NO DUTY TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY
ANY PERSON ORGANIZATION FOR
LIABILITY. FOR ANY LOSS THAT
OCCURS DURING THE USE OF THE
VEHICLE IN A PERSONAL VEHICLE
SHARING PROGRAM SO THE PERSON
WHO RENTS THE CAR.
AS OPPOSED TO THE PERSON WHO
OWNS THE CAR DOESN'T HAVE
COVERAGE.
SO THIS IS NOT A GOOD BILL FOR
CONSUMERS LASTLY.
IF YOU LOOK AT TOROS WEBSITE
IT TALKS ABOUT RENTING A CAR IF
YOU WILL IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE
HOW THEY'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT
PEOPLE IT SAYS MAKE MONEY OFF
YOUR CAR.
SO IT'S OBVIOUSLY A FOR PROFIT
RENTAL CAR BUSINESS.
BUT WHAT IS MORE PERNICIOUS
ABOUT IT.
AND WHAT THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS
NO AND YOU NEED TO NOW.
ISN'T THIS IS JUST THE NEXT SUB
PRIME LENDING DEAL IN THE AUTO
INDUSTRY BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT.
GET YOURSELF INTO A CAR THAT YOU
CAN'T AFFORD.
AND WE ALL AND THAT'S WHY THE
AUTO COMPANIES ARE INVESTING
DIRECTLY IN THE SKY IN THE EAST
COMPANIES.
PUT YOURSELF INTO A CAR THAT YOU
CAN AFFORD AND HELP YOURSELF PAY
THE LOAN THAT YOU WOULDN'T
OTHERWISE QUALIFIED FOR. FOR
BEING IN THE HOUSE.
TAKE A LOOK AT IT TAKE A LOOK AT
THEIR WEBSITE SEE HOW THEY ARE
ARE CLAIMING TO ATTRACT PEOPLE.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM AND
YOU'RE GONNA SEE IT HERE SOME
DAY IF THIS THING.
TAKES OFF AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO
THE CONSUMER RULES OF THE RENTAL
CAR INDUSTRY FINE TO HAVE IT.
BUT THIS IS THE RENTAL CAR
BUSINESS AND ALL THE RENTAL CAR
COMPANY SHOULD BE UNDER THE SAME
SET OF CONSUMER RULES THAT'S THE
ONLY THING THAT'S REALLY FAIR
AND EQUITABLE.
SO AS IT STANDS NOW WE OPPOSE
THE BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OUT.
NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.
WHEN YOU LABOR FEDERATION.
AND SURE MISTER BROUGHT WHICH
YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO STAY JUST
IN CASE THERE'S QUESTIONS LATER
ON EXISTS.
IN THE FRONT ROW IF YOU WANT.
HE GLANCED AREA BUSINESS YEAR
MEMBER SARAH FLOCKS IN THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION WE
ARE ALSO IN OPPOSITION I'M TO
THIS BILL GIVEN THAT THE AUTHOR
DID NOT TAKE THE AMENDMENTS ON
PAGE EIGHT OF THE ANALYSIS. WE
DO ALIGNED HERSELF WITH MR
BROADS COMMENTS AND THINK THAT
PERSONAL VEHICLE I'M SHARING
PROGRAMS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AND LEVEL
OF COMPETITION AS RENTAL CAR
COMPANIES THANK YOU. THANK IMAGE
NEXT PLEASE.
JOHN ROSS TO THE HERTZ
CORPORATION OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE.
SEEING NONE LET'S SO BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
COMMENTS MISTER MONNING GO
AHEAD.
THEY'VE IS SURE THANK YOU MISTER
LOWE SO THAT MISTER BROADER FOR
DO SOME DISCREPANCIES OVER
AMENDMENTS AGREED TO WERE NOT
AGREED TO.
CAN YOU ARTICULATE FOR ME SORT
OF WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE IS I
UNDERSTAND THERE WERE
CONVERSATIONS.
YOU KNOW RIGHT UP TO THE
COMMITTEE TODAY I'M I'M PREPARED
TO SUPPORT THE BILL AND MOVE IT
FOR BUT CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR ME.
WHAT THAT OUTSTANDING ISSUE IS
AND WHAT IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON?
I THINK YOU VERY MUCH AYE SOME
OR MULLIN.
AS.
YOU MAY HAVE SEEN COMING OUT OF
THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WE
DID WANT TO INITIALLY HAVE. A
CONVERSATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
RENTAL CAR COMPANIES AND THAT
OF.
THESE A PERSONAL VEHICLE
SHARING PROGRAMS ABOUT FROM TO
DO SHARE COMMITTEE NOW WHEAT IS
SITTING SIGNIFICANTLY. NARROWED
AND TAILOR THE BILL BEFORE US
HERE TODAY IS JUST SIMPLY RISK
WITH RESPECT TO. THE SUBJECT OF
MANUFACTURERS RECALL FOR THESE
PERSONAL SHARING VEHICLE
PROGRAMS A SO WHAT YOU HAVE
BEFORE YOU HERE TODAY IS JUST
SIMPLY REQUIRING. A SUCH
APPLICATIONS TO ALSO BE
SUBJECTED TO THAT MANUFACTURES
RECALLS FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION.
OF THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE
US HERE TODAY.
WITH RESPECT TO.
THE LANGUAGE HERE.
AS.
THE COMMITTEE AS AS PRESENTED
IN COMMITTEE IF I MIGHT VIA THE
CHAIR.
JEFF YET OF THE THE
INTERPRETATION IS CLASSIFYING
THAT OF DEFINING THIS AS OF
RENTAL CAR COMPANIES AND THAT'S
NOT THE DIRECTION THAT WE. ARE
GOING IN AT PRESENT HERE BECAUSE
OF WHAT THE DISCUSSION AND
DIALOGUE. DID HAPPENED OUT OF
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO ADMIT
YOUR SECURITY WE DID WANT TO GET
INTO THAT BUT FROM JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE IT IS BEEN NARROWLY
TAILORED JUST TO.
THE RECALL MANUFACTURES RECON
REQUIRING THAT OF OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION BEING
APPLIED SIMPLY TO. SUCH AN
APPLICATION.
MISTER CALDERON GO AHEAD.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
THERE'S THE RECALL YOU KNOW I
EITHER THEY'RE DIFFERENT RIDE
SHARING COMPANIES IS THE PART OF
THIS BILL THAT DEALS WITH RECALL
OTHER PART IS THIS QUESTION OF
RENT A CAR COMPANY WHAT IT. AND
THIS IS REALLY THINK THIS BILL
IS TO ADDRESSING WHAT AND RENTAL
CAR COMPANY IS OR ISN'T I THINK
WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO. TO FOCUS ON
IS IS SPECIFIC TO ANY VEHICLES
ARE OPERATING SPECIFICALLY I TO
WRITE A PROGRAM WITH A SUPER
LIFTER WHATEVER THAT IF THERE IS
A RECALL ON THAT SPECIFIC.
VEHICLE THAT IS IN USE THAT THAT
CAR SHOULD NOT BE ON THE ROAD
PARTICIPATING IN THAT.
IN THAT ACTUAL PROGRAM OF RIDE
SHARING.
INABILITY.
ART HARRIS AND GET TOGETHER.
IF YOU HAVE A.
.
BUT.
BUT YOU KNOW I I DON'T I DON'T
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE
COMMENTS MADE BY MISTER BROAD
NOW WHEN IT COMES TO OTHER
COMPANIES WHETHER THERE'S TORO.
AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE
OPERATING AS A RENTAL CAR
COMPANY OR NOT I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO.
LOOK LOOK INTO. I JUST DON'T
KNOW IF IT'S THIS BILL OR NOT
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
THAT MAY BE BEGIN HAVE A LITTLE
BIT MORE.
THAT EFFORT TO WORK ON THIS
ISSUE WHETHER IT'S IN THIS BILL
OR SOMETHING ELSE BUT I HAPPY A
BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO BE PART
THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE I
THINK THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT.
THE OPPOSITION HAS BROUGHT UP
THAT YOU KNOW WE DO NEED TO PAY
ATTENTION TO US LEGISLATURE AND
TERMS OF WHAT IS DEFINED AS
WHAT.
AND WHAT SHOULD APPLY TO THIS
WHICH SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THIS.
MAY I RESPOND MISTER ABSOLUTELY
YES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT YOU VERY MUCH SOME OCCULT
WHEN WE INITIALLY HAD A
CONVERSATION WITH RENTAL CAR
COMPANIES AND THAT OF.
THIS.
INNOVATION ECONOMY WITH RESPECT
AS A SOMEONE FRIEDMAN. A
SUBSEQUENT AGAIN TO THAT OF
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WE DID
ADDRESS MANY OF THOSE DIFFERENT
ISSUES.
BUT WHAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY IS
JUST VERY NARROW IN SCOPE AND
JUST CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
PROVIDED HIM COMPETE CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS AN EQUALLY
COMMITTED.
TO YOU AND TO EVERYONE FORCE
COMMITTEE AND HAVING FOR THE
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE FRAMEWORK.
OF OUR ON THESE ISSUES AS MANY
OF YOU MAY KNOW I ENGAGED IN
MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH RESPECT
TO TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
COMPANIES AND THEN GUN FIGHTS
WITH TAXICABS AND THEN DID
TAXICABS LEGISLATION AND SO. AT
THIS IS PERFECTLY THE PURVIEW
BUT AGAIN BEFORE US HERE TODAY
THAT WE ARE NOT IN THAT
DISCUSSION WE'RE SIMPLY
DISCUSSING CONSUMER PROTECTION
AND REQUIRING THAT. OF THE
MANUFACTURES RECALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ARE.
JUST TO OF FOR CLARIFICATION
PURPOSES I I KNOW THERE'S A
LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION A A AS
TO WHAT AMENDMENT AND.
WAS ACCEPTED A WHAT TIME IT WAS
NOT ACCEPTED I THINK THE AUTHOR
I MADE REFERENCE TO PAGES SEVEN
AND EIGHT ARE. I THINK HE SAID
THAT HE.
WOULD ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS TO
THE STATE OWNS PAGE SEVEN IN PAY
SEVEN WHICH SAYS THAT THE
CHANGES TO THE SECTION MADE BY
DE ACT.
ADDING SO THE REGENCY SHOW NOT
APPLY IN ANY MANNER TO PENDING
LITIGATION THE REASON FOR THAT
IS BECAUSE THERE IS A PENDING
LET. OUR LITIGATION IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND THE GOAL OF ONE OF
THE OBJECTIVES FULL OF OF FOR
THE FOR THE COMMITTEE WAS.
ESSENTIALLY TO ARM PUT LANGUAGE
INTO THE BILL TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE DON'T INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME
OF THE LEGISLATION. ARE EITHER
PRESIDENT OR AND INTO THE FUTURE
SAYS THAT'S THE REASON WHY THE
COMMITTEE SUGGESTED A COUPLE OF
THEIR MEMBERS IN WHICH US.
DE WAS WHAT I JUST READ WAS SO
HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHOR
I.
DE A THE OTHER PROVISION WAS
NOT ACCEPTED BY BY THE AUTHOR OF
THAT PROVISION SAYS THAT NOTHING
IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT A
PERSONAL VEHICLE SHARE SHARING
PROGRAM FROM BEING DEEMED A
RENTAL COMPANY OR RENTAL CAR
COMPANY. PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER
SECTION AND DOT IS THE PROVISION
THAT THE AUTHOR OF IT IS NOT
ACCEPTING TODAY ARE JUST FOR THE
RECORD AND THE SUBSEQUENT TO
THAT THOUGH.
DE COMMITTEE DID OFFER A YOU
KNOW OTHER LANGUAGE TO THE
AUTHOR OF WHO HAS NOT THE WHO
HAS CHOSEN NOT TO ACCEPT IT
DOWN.
SO THAT SO THAT SO WHAT'S BEEN
HAPPENING FILE FOOTAGE TO FOR
THE RECORD.
MISTRESS DM QUESTION.
YES.
.
IN IN THE THE ANALYSIS THE ONE
SECTION THEM THAT IS NOT BE I
WANT TO JUST CONFIRM.
IS THE SENTENCE IT READS NOTHING
IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT.
A PERSONAL VEHICLE SHARING
PROGRAM FROM BEING DEEMED A
RENTAL COMPANY A RENTAL CAR
COMPANY PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER
SECTION. IS THAT THE PART THAT
IS NOT BEING ACCEPTED.
AS AMENDED. DOES AMENDMENT. TO
SOMEONE WHEN YOU'RE REFERRING TO
PAGE EIGHT IS THAT CORRECT.
THE REGISTER YES THAT'S CORRECT.
IT IT A. M.. RIGHT IT WILL BE
HAVE HERE BEFORE US IS THE
SIMPLY THE MANUFACTURERS RECALL.
AND AS WE DISCUSSED IN JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WE DO NOT WANT TO GET
INTO THIS DISCUSSION OF THAT THE
DEFINITION AS. SOME ARE CALLING
ON PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ABOUT A
WIDER CONVERSATION OR SIMPLY
SAYING HERE IS THAT NUMBER ONE
AS WE SAID IN JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AND RESTATE HERE
AGAIN.
THAT WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT
THIS WOULD NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON
ANY PENDING LITIGATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE SITTING COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO. ON THIS AND THE
DEFINITIONS OF THIS AND SO
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO BE VERY.
NARROW IN WHAT THIS BILL WILL D
AND AGAIN SUBJECT. OF TIPS TO
MANUFACTURE RECALL AND NOT GET
INTO THAT DISCUSSION BUT AGAIN
CLARIFYING THAT NOTHING IN THIS
BILL WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
PENDING LITIGATION BECAUSE WE DO
NOT WANT TO GET.
INTO THAT.
BECAUSE IT MIGHT RECOGNIZE THAT.
YOU WERE TRYING NOT TO SAY
WHETHER TO RENTAL OR NOT. WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT.
BUT I WENT ONLINE YESTERDAY.
AND ON TRUE. SAYS.
RENT BETTER CARS TRUE CAR RENTAL
MARKETPLACE THAT TODAY WHEN I
LOOKED AT IT.
IT SAYS RENT BETTER CARS BUT
IT'S A DIFFERENT WEBSITE.
BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
BECAUSE THAT DOES GO TO THE VERY
HEART OF THE LITIGATION. IN SAN
FRANCISCO.
.
ARE YOU WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION FROM LANGUAGE TO
ACCEPT.
OUR IS IT THE LANGUAGE OR IS IT
THE ENTIRE CONCEPT THAT YOU
DON'T WANT THAT PARTICULAR
SENTENCE IN.
SOMEONE AYE OF.
BEEN ENGAGING CONVERSATION
SINCE THE INCEPTION ABOUT THIS
AS A YOU KNOW AGAIN MAY RECALL
THERE ARE NUMBER OF AUTHOR AT
MYSELF IN SOMEONE FRIEDMAN WITH
PROSPECTIVE RENTAL CARS AND WE.
CAME UP WITH A FRAMEWORK FROM
ACQUIRING SIMILAR CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS FEES ALL OF THE
ASSOCIATED ISSUE SIMILARLY.
BUT OUT OF JUDICIARY GIVEN. THE
THE CHAIRPERSON AT THAT TIME I
IT WAS THE DESIRE TO BE VERY
NARROW IN SCOPE. AT THE SAME
TIME HAVE BUYING TIME TO HAVE A
FURTHER CONVERSATION ON A
DEFINITION SO IT WOULD BE MY
COMMITMENTS AS I MENTIONED IN
THE JUDICIARY TO WHICH YOU WERE
PRESENT. TO CONTINUE IN THOSE
CONVERT FRUITFUL CONVERSATIONS
BEGAN HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE
UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY OUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
A VERY NARROW ISSUE WHICH IS
THAT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION. I
SHOULD THE SLEEVE COMMITTEE I
KNOW THAT THIS WILL BE A
CONVERSATION AND SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITHIN THAT
AREA OF JURISDICTION TO DISCUSS
LEGALITIES BUT AGAIN. I JUST
WANTED TO URGED THE FOCUSED
POINT WHICH IS THAT OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION BUT AGAIN EQUALLY
COMMITTED TO HAVING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MISTER
TANK I.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR MR LOW.
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT
CONSUMER PROTECTION.
PORTIONS OF THE BILL I THINK
THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY.
AT NECESSARY I BY TACKLED MY
CONCERNS WITH THIS REYES AYE I
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS.
THAT WERE TAKEN OUT TO.
NOT IN ANYWAYS INFLUENCE THE
LITIGATION I DO DO HAVE A
CONCERN WITH MY OTHER COUNTY HAD
THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HAVE DUBBED
THE THREE OF US SHARE. IS THAT
THEY ARE THE VOTERS.
DECIDED TO RAISE TRANSPORTATION
DOLLARS THROUGH OF SLIGHTLY MORE
UNIQUE WAY BECAUSE OF SAN
FRANCISCO NATIONAL BUT THROUGH
RENTAL CAR COMPANY FEES AND THAT
WAS ON A MAJOR. HOME MAJOR VOTE
OF THE PEOPLE TO RAISE MONEY FOR
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN SAN
MATEO. SO.
MY CONCERN WITH THIS THIS
COMPANY PARTICULAR IN THIS
SPECIFIC INSTANCE IS THEY'RE
THEY'RE ACTING LIKE A RENTAL CAR
COMPANY BUT YET THEY'RE NOT
PAYING.
THE SAME FEES AND THEY'RE NOT
CRITICAL FEES THAT THE VOTERS
HAVE DECIDED TO RELY ON FOR.
PUBLIC TRANSIT IN THE COUNTY
THAT THERE.
SKINNER STARTED OPERATION SO I
GUESS THE CONCERN IS. GIVEN HOW
THE LEGISLATION IS WRITTEN TO
SEE
TO MAKE IT DEMARCATION OF RENTAL
CAR COMPANY VERSUS PERSONAL
VEHICLE.
SHARING ON. IT AND I KNOW YOU
WANNA OPERABLE PUTTING THE WHOLE
DISCUSSION ON FEES TOLL LATER IT
DOES GIVE ME CONCERN AT THIS
JUNCTURE AROUND. HOW THIS WOULD
IMPACT YOSEMITE OR COUNTY HARD
IMPACTS THE REVENUE COLLECTION
AROUND PUBLIC TRANSIT KILLED
THAT THE VOTERS ARE PRE CLEARED
THEIR NUMBER OF OTHER?
FEES THAT WERE DEBATED TO GO
GET PUBLIC TRANSIT DOLLARS BUT
THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS REALLY
DETERMINED.
YES IF I DON'T MAYOR ABSENT GUY
THINGS VERY MUCH IS EMERGING AS
I STATED EARLIER THIS WAS DOUBLE
OVER FOR ABOUT JUDICIARY. MANY
OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE
ADDRESSED. WE HAD BEEN ENGAGED
IN STAKEHOLDER CONVERSATIONS TO
FIND PARITY AND MANY OF AND
FRANKLY THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT
AGREEMENT.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE DIRECTION OF
THE A COMMITTEE. HOW COMING
HERE?
THE IT WAS THE PRODUCT OF OF
THE COMMITTEE AND I ACCEPTED IT
TO NOT GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION.
SO THAT WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS
ON THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
AND THEREFORE IN ORDER TO GET
THIS BILL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
GREAT MARY LEE TAYLOR JUST
SIMPLY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
BUT AGAIN. TO ADDRESSING MANY OF
THE COMMENTS THAT WERE
PREVIOUSLY RAISED AB WE WERE
ENGAGED IN THIS CONVERSATION TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS PARITY
AND SIMILARLY ON. OF SOME OF THE
MINUTES POLITIES OF LOCAL
ENTITIES AND ENGAGING AND MAKING
SURE THAT THERE IS A SENSE OF
OF.
OWNERSHIP AND A COMMITMENT TO
SOME OF THE SAME TYPE OF FEES
AND REGULATIONS IN WHICH IT AT
THAT THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT I
THINK. I THINK THERE'S A THERE'S
SOME CONCERN FROM.
YEAH YOU KNOW WITHOUT. I THINK
THERE'S SOME CONCERN THAT.
MAYBE THAT THIS BILL BECOMES
SOMETHING ELSE IN THE SENATE.
I PILED REALLY POP NOT THE CASE
BECAUSE I WOULD WANT TO LET.
THAT DON'T SUPPORT THE BILL AND
THEN IT BECOMES.
THIS SEMESTERS AGO AGREEMENT OF
COURSE THAT'S OKAY. AT HOME BUT.
ALSO THE CONCERN THAT I THINK
IS THIS.
DOES NEED TO GET RESOLVED SOONER
RATHER THAN LATER BECAUSE IT IS
AGAIN FAIRLY.
CRITICAL ISSUE ON CAPITOL AND
YOU KNOW AT OUR LOCAL AIRPORT.
AT OUR LOCAL AIRPORT THE FOUR OF
US ON AUG GO TO THEIR PART OF
IT.
AND I THINK IT'S EXTRAORDINARILY
IMPORTANT ADOPTED COME BURKE
RESOLVED.
OKAY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR COME
QUESTIONS.
BUT MR MELINDA HAD.
JUST IN IN LIGHT OF.
IN LIGHT OF MR THINGS COMMENTS.
.
I TOO WOULD LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS ON THE REVENUE IMPACTS
INSANITY OF COUNTY WHICH HOUSES.
SFO.
AND AND THE SFO IMPACTS
GENERALLY SO ALL OF THE SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY.
I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY HEARD OUT
FROM MY COUNTY. WITH CONCERNS
ABOUT REVENUE AND AS THIS NEW
MODEL GROWS AND WHAT THAT IMPACT
MIGHT BE. AYE AT SFO BUT I WILL
BE LOOKING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
IN THAT REGARD AND I EXPECT A
AFTER THE HEARING TODAY YOU HAVE
SOME ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS.
A WITH THE UPON AND SO ON.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE MOVED IN
SECOND BILL THAT I WAS
SUPPORTING IT TODAY BUT I LOOK
FOR SOME ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATION.
AND FUTURE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH OUT.
THE ORIGINAL ON THE
RECOMMENDATION WAS AYE WITH THE
A MENSA IN BECAUSE OF THE FACT
THAT.
THE AUTHOR HAS ACCEPTED ONE OF
THE TWO ON SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.
DOT RECOMMENDATION BECOMES A
NON RECOMMENDATION UNJUSTLY
RECORD AND AND IF IN YOUR
CLOSING.
MR LOW IF YOU COULD ALSO
ADDRESS THE THE THE REASON WHY
THE LATEST SET OF AMENDMENT.
WAS NOT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
IF YOU SO DESIRE AND JUST LET
ME READ FOR THE RECORD OF THE
LAST SET OF AMENDMENTS HAS DONE
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL
PREVENT A PERSONAL VEHICLE
SHARING PROGRAM FROM BEING.
DEEMED ANY OTHER THE ANY OTHER
LEGAL ENTITY PURSUANT TO ANY
OTHER SECTION OF THE LAW. ON
THAT SIDE OF THE AMENDMENTS
EARLY ON THAT DOES NOT MAKE
MENTION OF THE FACT THAT YOU
KNOW THIS AND MENTION THE FACT
RENTAL. SO I'M JUST KIND OF
CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU KNOW THAT
WAS NICE OF ACCEPTABLE TO GO
WITH THAT DOUBT YOU KNOW YOU
FEEL FREE TO CLOSE IF YOU WANT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER
CHAIRMAN I APPRECIATE THE
ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE NON
RECOMMENDATION.
YES.
OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE YOU
PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO IN MY
INTERPRETATION IS IN DIRECT
CONFLICT WITH GETTING THE
PENDING LAWSUIT WE DON'T GET
WANT TO GET IN FRONT OF THAT.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO
THAT DISCUSSION.
THIS IS WHITE BEFORE OF PRIVACY
THAT AS I MENTIONED TO YOU
EARLIER I WAS VERY MUCH WILLING
TO ENGAGE IN THESE CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT SOME OF THESE AREAS OF
ISSUES OF CONCERN. BUT BECAUSE
THIS WAS DOUBLE REFERRED.
AYE TO JUST HAD THIS
CONVERSATION WITH FORD IT IS
BEFORE US HERE TODAY.
AND SO I'M EQUALLY COMMITTED TO
THOSE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT HOW TO ENGAGE IN LOOK AT
LOCALITIES AND WHAT THAT IN THE
END TAX MIGHT BE. OF BUT AGAIN
SPECIFICALLY BEFORE US.
IT IF WE WERE TO VOTE NO AND DO
NOTHING SAYS CO EXIST THESE THIS
COMPANIES TO OPERATE. ACCORDING
TO THE DO NOTHING BUT IF WE VOTE
IN SUPPORT OF THIS THEN WE WILL
REQUIRE THEM TO BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE THE SAME.
MANUFACTURES RECALL.
SO THAT IS VERY NARROWLY
TAILORED TO WHAT WE'RE HAVING
CONCEPTS WITH BUT AGAIN I AND II
BELIEVE DEEPLY COMMITTED TO EACH
AND EVERYONE OF IN THIS
COMMITTEE TO. HAVE FURTHER
HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE
ENTIRE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.
WITH RESPECT TO THIS AREA AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FIVE THANK YOU
VERY MUCH MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL.
SHALL I I I I
KILEY.
ALRIGHT.
BAKER.
I BERMAN. AYE CALDERON.
I. IRWIN. AYE MULLIN. AYE
OBERNOLTE.
I REYES.
NOT VOTING.
TEN.
FIGURE EIGHT THOSE.
THE BILL'S OUT CONGRATULATIONS.
THE MAN ANSWERED.
THE BILL.
NO LEGAL
.
BEFORE I PRESENT MY BILLS.
LET'S. TAKE CARE OF WHO WON
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE JUST A
MINUTE
.
YEAH
DEFINITIONS.
YOU. CAN SEE.
I COULD.
YEAH.
WADE.
WELL.
SHARE A.
SHE.
YEAH.
WE NEED SIX.
OKAY.
WELL I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT WE
ASK THAT.
YEAH.
YEAH OKAY HONESTY THAT.
MEANWHILE ANYTHING BECAUSE.
ARE I'M GONNA PRESENT MY TWO
BILLS I'M GONNA HAND ON THE
GALLERY TO VICE CHAIR. KILEY SO
THAT I COULD DO THAT.
MR SHALL BE PRESENTING.
FILE ITEM FOR THAT IS AB TWENTY
FIVE ELEVEN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MISTER
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
.
TODAY I PRESENT TO YOU AB TWENTY
FIVE ELEVEN.
LET ME START OFF BY ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS SELES IT ON PAGES
SEVEN AND TEN OF THE ANALYSIS.
DE AMENDMENTS ARE PROHIBITS
SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES FROM
SELLING AND MINERS INFORMATION
WITHOUT ACTUAL PARENTAL CONSENT.
AND REQUIRE ONLINE RETAILERS TO
TAKE REASONABLE STEPS
TO VERIFY THE AGE OF THE
PURCHASE.
THE BILL AB TWENTY FIVE ELEVEN
ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER
IT SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR INTERNET
COMPANIES TO OBTAIN PARENTAL
CONSENT.
IN BOILERPLATE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS WRITTEN IN LANGUAGE
THAT CHILDREN MAY NOT
UNDERSTAND.
IF A CHILD WALKS INTO BRICK AND
MORTAR STORE IN ATTEMPTS TO BUY
ALCOHOL* A WEAPONS.
STORE WERE CHECK THEIR
IDENTIFICATION.
IF A CHILD REFUSES TO OFFER
PROOF OF AGE.
STORE WOULD DECLINE TO SELL THE
PRODUCT.
THIS IS BECAUSE CALIFORNIA LAW
PROHIBITS THE SALE OF SUCH
DANGEROUS ITEMS TO CHILDREN.
THESE ITEMS INCLUDE ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES FIREARMS ARE HANDGUNS
AMMUNITION OR RELOADED
AMMUNITION.
AND AEROSOL CONTAINER OF PAINT
THAT IS CAPABLE OF DEFACING
PROPERTY. ETCHING CREEN THAT IS
CAPABLE OF DEFACING PROPERTY.
ANY TOBACCO FOR CIGARETTE OR
CIGARETTE PAPERS BLUNT WRAPS
OR ANY OF THE PREPARATION
PREPARATION OF TOBACCO
ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES AND
OBSCENE MATTERS.
MANY ONLINE RETAILERS FINE PRINT
FINE PRINT BOILERPLATE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS MAKE NO EFFORT
WHATSOEVER COMPARABLE TO THEIR
BRICK AND MORTAR COMPETITORS TO
OBTAIN AGE VERIFICATION. OR
PARENTAL CONSENT TO PREVENT
CHILDREN FROM PURCHASING ILLEGAL
FIREARMS.
THE ONLY A FOR ONE COMPANY MAKES
IS TO INSERT THIS LANGUAGE IN
ITS FINE PRINT BOILERPLATE TERMS
AND CONDITION AS FOLLOWS.
IF YOU ARE UNDER EIGHTEEN YOU
MAY USE THE SERVICES ONLY WITH
THE INVOLVEMENT OF A PARENT OR
GUARDIAN.
THE DANGERS OF INTERNET
COMPANIES DOING NOTHING TO
VERIFY EACH OR OBTAIN PARENTAL
CONSENT. FOR THE KINDS OF
TRANSACTION COVERED BY THIS
BILL.
HOW VERY REAL A RECENT CASE YOU
ARE A NEWS STORY DETAILED HOW A
FOURTEEN YEAR OLD BOY? WAS ABLE
TO PURCHASE ONLINE A BB GUN
THROWING KNIVES AND HUNTING
KNIFE ALL WITHOUT HIS PARENTS
CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE.
AND HE WOULD LOOK OVER HERE.
DOES.
THAT'S A PICTURE OF THE GUY AND
THAT WAS PURCHASE AND A REAL
GUN.
YOU COULD SEE THE RESEMBLANCE
BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND THIS SITUATION A FOURTEEN
YEAR OLD WAS ABLE TO BUY THESE
ITEMS.
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CHECK.
I SEE OF THE PURCHASER WAS OVER
THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN.
NOW SOME SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
OPERATE ALMOST IDENTICALLY WHEN
IT COMES TO PARENTAL PERMISSION
FOR BEING. ALLOWED TO SELL THE
USE OF A CHILD'S NAME AND
LIKENESS.
TO A THIRD PARTY ADVERTISERS.
THE WAY ONE COMPANY SUPPOSEDLY
OBTAINS PARENTAL PERMISSION FOR
USING CHILDREN IN SUCH A MANNER.
IS THROUGH THIS LANGUAGE INSERT
INSERTED IN THIS BOILERPLATE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
IF YOU ARE UNDER THE AGE OF
EIGHTEEN YOU REPRESENT THAT A
PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN ALSO
AGREES TO THIS ON YOUR BEHALF.
THIS BILL AB TWENTY FIVE ELEVEN
ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE IN A FEW
WAYS FIRST IT WILL PROHIBITS
SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES FROM
SELLING. A MINOR'S INFORMATION
WITHOUT ACTUAL PARENTAL CONSENT.
IT REQUIRES THAT THE CONSENT BE
SEPARATE FROM THE SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE OR. IT'S A GENERAL TERMS
AND CONDITION.
IT PROHIBITS PARENTAL CONSENT
FROM BEING OBTAINED THROUGH THE
MINOR AND PROHIBIT A SOCIAL
MEDIA WEBSITE.
ARE FROM DENYING A MINORS ACCESS
TO THE PLATFORM THE FOR FAILURE.
OF THE PARENTAL CONSENT.
AB TWENTY FIVE ELEVEN FURTHER
REQUIRES ONLINE RETAILERS TO
TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO VERIFY
THE H. OF THE PURCHASER FOR
PRODUCTS ILLEGAL TO SELL TO A
MINOR. AND TWO ADDITIONALLY
PROHIBIT DELIVERY OF THOSE GOODS
TO A PERSON LESS UNDER THE AGE
OF EIGHTEEN. WOULD DOT I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
ARRIVAL AND I HAVE TWO WITNESSES
WAS STARTING WITH MISTER ALLEN.
HER COLLINI WHO IS THE FATHER OF
THE FOURTEEN YEAR OLD THAT I
SPOKE ABOUT WHO PURCHASE A
WEAPONS ONLINE AND ALSO MR AT
HOWARD. WHO IS WITH THE CHILDREN
OF CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE
DEL WITHOUT MISTER OR CLEANING
GO IF YOU?
AS A PARENT I HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO LIMIT ACCESS
INTERNET AND ONE OF THE SITES
ARE SEND VISITS HOWEVER HE'S A
TEENAGER.
RARELY LISTENS.
IT'S NOT PERFECT AND IT ALWAYS
FOLLOW OUR RULES.
I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES HAVE FOR
KEEPING UP WITH THE ONGOING
CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY AND
PROTECTING CONSUMERS.
THEREFORE I'M NOT EXPECTING
PERFECTION FROM COMPANIES.
THAT CONDUCT BUSINESS ONLINE
HOWEVER I DO EXPECT COMPANIES TO
CONDUCT BUSINESS ONLINE TO BE
HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD. AS
BRICK AND MORTAR BUSINESSES.
IT'S HELL TO SPECIAL WHEN IT
COMES TO SALES TO MINORS.
RIGHT NOW SOME ONLINE BUSINESSES
ARE NOT EVEN TRYING TO BE HELD
TO THE SAME STANDARD.
MY SON WAS DIAGNOSED WITH MAJOR
DEPRESSION DISORDER MODERATE
ANXIETY DISORDER. IMPOSE CONTROL
IN CONDUCT DISORDER.
MY SON WAS ABLE TO USE A GIFT
CARD TO PURCHASE THROWING KNIVES
AND HIGH POWERED BB GUN THROUGH
AMAZON.
MAINLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
ELECTRIFICATION WHEN PURCHASING
THOSE PRODUCTS.
WHEN ONLINE RETAILERS LIKE
AMAZON ARE SELLING PRODUCTS THEY
DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE SELLING
AND WHAT CONDITIONS.
WHO THEIR SONGS YOU LOOK
EMISSIONS MAY HAVE?
ALL THE MORE REASON FOR
COMPANIES CONDUCTING BUSINESS
ONLINE TO TAKE REASONABLE ACTION
TO PREVENT SALES TO MINORS.
THESE COMPANIES DON'T HAVE TO BE
PERFECT.
BUT THEY MUST DO BETTER WHEN IT
COMES INSURING THE SAFETY OF
CONSUMERS.
AB TWO FIVE ONE ONE WILL ENSURE
THAT ONLINE RETAILERS MUST TAKE
REASONABLE STEPS TO VERIFY. THE
AGE OF THE PURCHASER OF PRODUCTS
ILLEGAL TO SELL TO MINOR.
I ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON AB
TWO FIVE ONE ONE THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS AT HOWARD SENIOR COUNCIL
OF THE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW PLEASED.
TO SPONSOR THIS MEASURE BEFORE
I BEGIN I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
ALL OF THE HARD WORK AND
EXCELLENT WORK. UP PUT IN BY THE
A COMMITTEE STAFF AND WENT
THROUGH THE CHAIR.
THANK THEM FOR THAT. ON.
CURRENT LAW HAS PROVEN
INSUFFICIENT.
TO THE TASK.
OF PREVENTING MAJOR COMPANIES
FROM SEEKING ONE.
TO SELL ITEMS THAT ARE ILLEGAL
TO SELL TO CHILDREN.
AND TO FROM GETTING PARENTAL
PERMISSION. TO USE THE CHILD AS
PART OF AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
USER CHILD'S FACE AND NAME
CARRILLO HAS PROVEN INADEQUATE
TO THE TASK TO PREVENT MAJOR
COMPANIES. FROM SEEKING TO
OBTAIN PARENTAL CONSENT FOR
THESE TWO SORTS OF THINGS.
BY STICKING IN BOILERPLATE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS WORDS THAT ALLOW
A CHILD.
SILENTLY TO PROMISE TO NOBODY.
BUT THEY HAVE THE PARENTS
PERMISSION TO DO THOSE THINGS.
AS AMENDED THIS BILL APPROACHES
THAT PROBLEM WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY
NOT ANY KIND OF MEANINGFUL
PARENTAL CONSENT IS THE GIVING
UP. ANY HOPE OF TRYING TO GET
PARENTAL CONSENT THIS BILL AS
AMENDED SEEKS TO DO APPROACH
THAT PROBLEM INTO VERY NARROW
WAYS.
FIRST IF AN INTERNET COMPANY
ELECTS TO BE AMONG THOSE THAT
SELL.
ITEMS THAT ARE ILLEGAL TO SELL
TO CHILDREN IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND MANY OTHER STATES
BY THE WAY. THAT ARE LEGAL TO
SELL. UNDER THIS BILL AND I'M
QUOTING FROM THE BILL.
SUCH A COMPANY HAS TO TAKE
REASONABLE STEPS TO VERIFY AGE.
AND QUOTE CANNOT DELIVER OR
CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED.
THOSE ITEMS.
TO ANYONE UNDER EIGHTEEN.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE SOCIAL
MEDIA FACET OF THE BILL. IT IS
AGAIN EXTREMELY NARROW IT ONLY
APPLIES TO WIN A COMPANY SEEKS
TO ENLIST MY DAUGHTER'S FACE OR
MY DAUGHTER'S NAME TO ENDORSE
PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.
WHEN THAT CAMPAIGN IS PAID FOR
BY A THIRD PARTY AGAIN QUOTING
FROM THE BILL.
IT SEE IT ONLY APPLIES WHEN
THERE IS A COMPANY THAT IS. PAID
BY A THIRD PARTY.
TO DISPLAY THE MINOR'S NAME
PICTURE OR INFORMATION THAT
COULD REASONABLY USED TO
IDENTIFY THE MINOR AGAIN THAT
APPLIES ONLY IN CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHERE A MAJOR COMPANY IS IN
LISTING MY CHILD'S FACE AND NAME
TO ENDORSE PRODUCTS?
HOW DOES THE BILL DEAL WITH THAT
ISSUE?
AGAIN VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD
QUOTE.
PRIOR CONSENT PRIOR PARENTAL
CONSENT IS REQUIRED AND QUOTE.
SECOND PARENTAL CONSENT CAN FOR
THAT CAN THAT KIND OF UNIQUE
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AGAIN THE
LEVERAGING MY CHILD'S FACE AND
NAME FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES.
SHALL BE SEPARATE
QUOTE UNQUOTE FROM THE
BOILERPLATE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.
THAT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE A
PROPORTIONAL TO THE THING BEING
ASKED.
AND THIRD AND MOST OBVIOUSLY THE
BILL PROHIBITS PARENTAL CONSENT
FROM RESPECTFULLY PREPOSTEROUSLY
BEING OBTAINED.
BY ASKING A CHILD IN BOILERPLATE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHETHER OR
NOT THEY HAVE GOTTEN THEIR
PARENTS PERMISSION TO BE ON THE
SITE. BY QUOTES AND PARENTAL
CONSENT SHALL NOT BE OBTAINED
THROUGH THE MINOR.
THAT'S THE BILL MISTER CHAIRMAN.
NOW TWO QUICK OF THINGS IN
CONCLUSION AND I THANK YOU FOR
YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR TIME.
THE FIRST IS NO AGE VERIFICATION
SYSTEM. THAT IS ALL PERFECT.
WHEN MY CHILD.
BRINGS HOME A PARENTAL
PERMISSION SLIP.
FOR A.
A FIELD TRIP.
IT IS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE THAT IF
SHE COULD SIGN IT AND SEND IT
BACK.
ON HER OWN.
IT IS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE THAT A
CHILD COULD FORGE.
A NOTE SAYING THAT THEY WERE
ABSENT LEGITIMATELY.
THAT'S THE WAY THE REAL THREE
DIMENSIONAL.
WORLD WORKS AND WE HAVE NEVER IN
RESPONSE TO THAT CHALLENGE
WE HAVE NEVER SAID. WELL LET'S
JUST GIVE UP.
SINCE A CHILD COULD FORGE MY
SIGNATURE.
ON A PARENTAL PERMISSION SLIP
LET'S JUST NOT HAVE THEM.
SINCE THE CHILD COULD FAKE ID
AND ALCOHOL WHICH JUST.
FORGET ABOUT AGE VERIFICATION
LET'S GIVE UP.
AND SECOND.
I APPRECIATE ENORMOUSLY THE WORK
THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE. UP
IN IN ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE
WE REMAIN AND I KNOW THAT THE
CHAIRS IS ISN'T OF THE SAME
MIND.
WILLING ABLE EAGER.
TO ENGAGE WITH ANY BUSINESS THAT
WILL ACTUALLY SIT DOWN AND TALK
WITH US AND ENGAGE ABOUT HOW TO
DEAL WITH PRACTICAL PROBLEMS
WITH THIS BILL I AM EAGER.
TO DO IT WE HAVE TO THE EXTENT
THAT GROUPS HAVE ENGAGE WITH US.
BEEN ABLE SO FAR TO PREVENT
OPPOSITION FROM EVERY SINGLE
GROUP THAT ACTUALLY ENGAGE WITH
US IT IS MY HOPE AND AIM TO BE
ABLE TO DO THAT AS WELL. ON BUT
RIGHT NOW THIS BILL REQUIRES
ONLY THE THINGS THAT EVERY
FOUNDATION ONLY RESPONSIBLE
BUSINESS IN OUR OPINION SHOULD
DO AND I RESPECTFULLY. FOREVER.
I THINK THE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE THANK YOU VERY MUCH
OTHER WITNESS IN SUPPORT ME NOW
PARCHMENT FOR.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN
FIRST KATHY RANKIN CALIFORNIA
COLLABORATION FOR YOUTH AND
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
CHILDREN'S SAFETY AND HEALTH IN
SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON I'M ELIZABETH
COOLEY SEE I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF
COMMON SENSE KIDS ACTION AND WE
SUPPORT THIS BILL.
TENACITY LISTS PARENT VOLUNTEER
FOR COMMON SENSE KIDS ACTION
REACHING YOUR FULL SUPPORT.
BECAUSE OF HIM THAT I MEAN IS
NOT SIMILAR CHILDREN NOW IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
MORNING CARVEL WITH THEIR AND A
STRATEGY GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION CALIFORNIA
SINCE.
CHAIR MEMBER TRUST BUT THAT THE
PERSONAL INSURANCE FEDERATION OR
LIVE IN BETWEEN POSITIONS.
WE WERE PREVIOUSLY OPPOSED TO
THE MEASURE BUT WITH AMENDMENTS
OUTLINED ANNOUNCES WERE THEIR
OPPOSITION GOING TO NEUTRAL.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON MR VICE CHAIRMAN.
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS THE COMMITTEE
KEVIN KELLY WAS INTERNET
ASSOCIATION.
FIRST AND FOREMOST I WANT TO
SAY THAT THESE ISSUES REGARDING
SAFETY MINORS OR SOMETHING THAT.
OUR MEMBERS TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW
PROVIDES ROBUST PROTECTIONS IN
THIS AREA AND FEDERAL LAW.
INCLUDING SIGNIFICANT ACTIONS
THOSE UNDER THIRTEEN TEENAGERS.
ALLOWING A LOT OF CONTROL. FOR
MINORS INCLUDING ALLOWING THEM
TO REMOVE CONTENT FROM WEBSITES
ETCETERA THIS LEGISLATURE HAS
BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THAT REGARD.
THE BILL UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT A
STRAIGHT FORWARD AND NARROW I
THINK IS IS CAME ACROSS.
.
BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO SELLING.
MINERS INFORMATION.
AND IT'S NOT JUST WANTED TO
ADVERTISING.
SO ON THE CONTRARY IT CONCERN
IS.
THAT THE BILL APPLIES TO MINOR
SHARING INFORMATION ON THESE
PLATFORMS.
AND. SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE.
CONSTRUCTED SO THAT PEOPLE CAN
SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH
ACCORDING TO YOU ARE YOUR LIKES
AND DISLIKES PICTURES YOU'RE
TAKING. ACCEPT IRA.
SO CONCERNED THAT THE REACHING
IMPACT OF THE BILL IN THAT
REGARD IS MUCH BROADER.
THEN.
MAYBE IS THE INTENT.
AND ONE THING THAT WAS
REFERENCED.
IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS OF THE
PROPONENTS A SPONSOR.
.
IS A CONCERN ABOUT COMPANIES
USING THE LIKENESS OF A MINOR
WITH ADVERTISING.
NO.
IF THAT'S THAT CONCERN HERE IN
ASPEN NO CONCERN CALIFORNIA LAW
ALREADY REGULATES THAT IT
REQUIRES PARENTS WILL CONSENT.
IN THAT REGARD THAT'S.
WITH THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY THE
RIGHT TO CONTROL WHO YOU ARE IF
ANYONE'S MAKING MONEY ON THAT
THAT'S ALREADY DRESSED IN
CALIFORNIA LAW.
SO THIS.
THIS BILL ON BOTH PIECES THE
SOCIAL MEDIA PIECE IN THE
RESELLER PIECE.
REGULATES
ALREADY REGULATED ACTIVITY
ALREADY PROHIBITED CONDUCT AND
IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE MECHANICS
OF HOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE BILL.
DOESN'T
HELP
SHED LIGHT ON WHAT THOSE
MECHANICS OR.
AND.
THERE IS REFERENCE THAT.
THE COMPANY SHOULD TAKE
REASONABLE MEASURES TO DO THESE
THINGS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY IN THE SOCIAL
MEDIA PIECE
THE BILL REQUIRES PERFECTION.
STRICT LIABILITY THAT.
THESE WEBSITES FIGURE OUT.
THE AGE OF EVERYONE ON THE
PLATFORM AND TO THE PARENT HITS.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT.
WAS VERY CONCERNING TO US.
AND THE MECHANICS OF HOW TO DO
THAT
ESCAPE US AT THIS TIME.
THE ONLY THING YOU KNOW THE ONLY
WAY IF POTENTIALLY DOING
ESCORTING MUCH MORE VERY
SENSITIVE INFORMATION THAT I
DON'T THINK.
MANY PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH
HIM COMPANIES.
GETTING.
AND AGAIN A STRICT LIABILITY ON
WEBSITE LEARNING THE TRUE AGE
NINETEEN THE OF EVERYONE ON THE
PLATFORM.
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT THE ONEROUS.
IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS TO CAMINO
CSUS NOSE MINERS HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THERE'S
NOT A MAGIC. SWITCH THE FLIPS
ONLY TURNED EIGHTEEN.
MINORS CAN ENTER INTO CONTRACTS
SO THE IDEA THAT TEENAGER MAY
NOT BUILDING GAGE ALSO FROM YOUR
WEBSITE WITHOUT PROVING WHO
THEIR PARENT IS IN OBTAINING
THAT PARENTS CONSENT. IS VERY
CONCERNING.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S A
SENSITIVITY OF ISSUES OF THE
MINERS HAVING.
SHE'S A HOME OF THE MINOR SIMPLY
CAN'T GET CONSENT TO ENGAGE ON
SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITE.
AND AS
AS MISTER HOWARD. AND KNOWLEDGE
YOU MAY NOT BILL TO BE PERFECT.
YOU CAN FORGE THAT PERMISSION
SLIP.
BEGIN THE BILL REQUIRES
PERFECTION WITH A STRICT
LIABILITY IN THE FIRST SECTION
OF THE BILL.
WHEN I REFERENCE THE ROBUST
PROTECTIONS THERE IN PLACE IN
CALIFORNIA LAW AND FEDERAL LAW.
AT SOME POINT ALL OF THOSE
PROTECTIONS RELY.
RELY ON A REPRESENTATION MADE BY
THE USER AT SOME POINT.
AND SO.
THERE'S A REFERENCE MADE THE
QUESTION SHOULD BE ASKED.
WE'RE NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT
WERE SAYING WHICH THE PROOF IT'S
REQUIRED WHERE'S THE BURDEN
HOW'RE WE GOING TO DO THAT THOSE
OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE.
SO THIS BILL TOSSES OUT THE
APPROACH OF ENTIRE BODY OF
CALIFORNIA LAW TO PROTECT
MINORS.
AND FEDERAL ON THE ISSUE.
TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT IS
ALREADY PROHIBITED.
AND CURRENT LAW.
SO THOSE ARE CONCERNS REALLY
WITH THE SOCIAL MEDIA PIECE IT'S
NOT DUPLICATE TESTIMONIAL TO
TURN IT OVER.
GOOD AFTERNOON A MISTER CHAIR
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS AT SERIBU
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE TESTIFYING IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. WE WISH
TO JOIN IN THE REMARKS OF MR
MCKINLEY.
IN THE INTERNET ASSOCIATION
INCLUDING THE EMPHASIS ON THE
IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING CHILD
SAFETY ONLINE.
I'M ADDITIONALLY WITH RESPECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF OF THE BILL
AIMED AT ONLINE RETAIL SALES WE
WOULD EMPHASIZE THE FOLLOWING
THREE CONCERNS. FIRST WHETHER
THE SALES ONLINE OR NOT IT'S
ALREADY ILLEGAL TO SELL THE
PROHIBITED ITEMS LISTED IN THIS
BILL TO MINORS THE COMPANY
VIOLATES THE CURRENT LAW THERE
ARE THE SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS.
SECOND GIVEN THAT WE SHOULD NOT
BE LEGISLATING THE MECHANISM BY
WHICH COMPANIES COMPLY WITH
THESE LAWS THIS BILL WOULD
REQUIRE COMPANIES TO VERIFY THE
AGE OF A PURCHASER WHICH IS
BEYOND REQUIRING AN ID CHECK OF
THE PERSON AT DELIVERY.
WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE
PURCHASER?
OUR MEMBER COMPANIES ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER THEY CAN
VERIFY THE AGE OF SOMEONE AT
POINT OF SALE.
BUYING ONLINE.
AND FINALLY THIS LANGUAGES
PRESENTED WHEN THE COMMITTEE
ANNOUNCES WENT PUBLIC JUST A FEW
DAYS AGO. LANGUAGE SEEKS TO MAKE
CHANGES TO A MASSIVE
MARKETPLACE.
THE BILL WOULD WORK BOWL THIS
WOULD REQUIRE A GREAT DEAL MORE
THOUGHT AND SUBSTANTIVE POLICY
DISCUSSIONS AS TO HOW IT WOULD
WORK AN IS THE UNANTICIPATED
CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY RESULT.
FOR EXAMPLE THE NEW LANGUAGE
STATES THAT A COMPANY MAY NOT
DELIVER PRESCRIBED PRODUCTS TO A
PERSON UNDER EIGHTEEN OR WHAT IF
A COMPANY. HAS A POLICY NOT TO
DELIVER CERTAIN PRODUCTS TO
MINOR BUT THEN A THIRD PARTY
DELIVERY SERVICE DOES SO ANYWAY
WHO IS LIABLE IN THAT SITUATION.
ANOTHER CONSIDERATION BE THE
FACT THAT COMPANIES WOULD NEED
TO BE ABLE TO CREATE A DELIVERY
VERIFICATION SERVICE OVERNIGHT
IN A REASONABLE.
AN APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATION
DATE WOULD BE TO BE CONSIDERED
THERE'S LIKELY MUCH MORE WERE
STILL TRYING TO GET A COMPLETE
UNDERSTANDING THE RAMIFICATIONS
OF THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION. SO
FOR ALL THESE REASONS I WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR NOVO.
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
MISTER CHAIRMAN REYES LARA
BENNETT WITH TECH NET WE
ASSOCIATE OUR POSITION WITHOUT
OF CAL CHAMBER INTEREST ISSUE
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIR
JUSTIN FANS ARE BEHALF AGAINST
CARD APOLOGIES FOR THE LATE
OPPOSITION WITH THE MOST RECENT
AMENDMENTS MY CLIENTS OR COUNSEL
JUST COMFORTABLE WITH MEAN SAID
THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THE
PROVISIONS EXTEND TO ITEMS
BEYOND THOSE THAT HER. OF
ILLEGAL TO SELL TO MINORS
I HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH SPONSORING
THE AUTHOR ON THAT ISSUE BUT WE
WERE NOT COME. IN IN THE MIDDLE
OF THIS CONVERSATION UNTIL WE
SOLVE THIS MOST RECENT MOMENTS
APPRECIATE THAT STAFF TRYING TO
WORK ON THAT BUT WILL HAVE TO.
REMAIN OPPOSED TO WE CAN WORK
THAT OUT WITH MITCHELL COUNCIL
TAX.
MARGARET CLASSY NUMBER HAVE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND WE WERE NOT OPPOSED TO THE
PREVIOUS VERSION WITH AMENDMENTS
YOU AUTHORS TAKEN AND WE ARE
STILL REVIEWING BUT I BELIEVE.
SPIRIT OF THE CHAMBER RAISE
LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS OF
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
ALSO SHARE AND SO FOR THAT
REASON WE NEED TO EXPRESS
CONCERN ABOUT THE BELL ON MALES
PLANNED UP IN OPPOSITION THANK.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR
PUTTING MEMBERS MISTER MALONE.
THING WITH SHARON THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR FOR BRINGING THE
BILL THIS DIFFICULT ISSUE BUT I
I THINK IT'S A. A RIGHTEOUS
EFFORT I THINK YOU'RE ON THE
RIGHT TRACK WE NEED TO DO
SOMETHING.
A STRONGER IN THIS AREA I JUST
WANTED TO OF AFFORD YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY.
BEFORE WE GET A MOTION A SECOND
TAKE A VOTE ON THIS THING.
AND AS I INDICATED I WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT BUT THE ISSUES
AROUND WORKABILITY.
AND HOW YOU DETERMINE.
H. HOW YOU CAN.
ENSURE THAT SOMEBODY IS WHO THEY
SAY THEY ARE. AND.
MISTER HOWARD TALKED ABOUT THE
IMPERFECT NATURE OF THIS I GET
IT. AUTUMN BLIGHT I THINK GOING
FORWARD WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK
THROUGH SOME OF THOSE
WORKABILITY. ISSUES THE.
OPPOSITION ALSO RAISE THE.
ISSUE AROUND. DUPLICATION OF
EXISTING LAW WE JUST WANT TO
GIVE THE AUTHOR THE OPPORTUNITY
IN PARTICULAR ON THIS.
WORKABILITY PIECE HOW THIS WOULD
ACTUALLY WORK IN PRACTICE I'M
HAVING A LITTLE DIFFICULTY
GETTING MY HEAD AROUND BUT I
WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY BUT CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT.
ABSOLUTELY THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION AND OF FIRST OF ALL LET
ME LET ME ON. OUR COMMIT TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE THAT I.
LOW FOR TO WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO SORT OUT SOME OF
THE. SOME OF THE WORKABILITY
ISSUE SAN AND.
OF FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE
CONCERN THERE. AND THIS BILL IS
ALL ABOUT THEIR PROTECTING KIDS
AND OUT IT'S BEEN MENTIONED
ABOUT THE CURRENT LAW. ARE YOU
KNOW THE WHICH IS.
ACCORDING TO OPPOSITION
SUFFICES. HERE YOU KNOW ONE WHO
INCOMES PROTECTION PROTECTING
OUR KIDS.
THE REALITY IS CURRENT LAW DOES
NOT PROTECT OUR KIDS FROM FROM
BUYING WEAPONS LIKE THESE ON THE
WEBSITE.
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT. OF PROTECT
OUR KIDS FROM HAVING THEIR NAME.
AND ALSO THEIR LIKENESS BEING
EXPLOITED. ARE.
AND THAT EVEN CURRENTLY.
WHAT THEY DO IS THEY TRY TO NOT
ONLY REACH OUT THE NOT ONLY THE
KIDS BUT ALSO THE KIDS FRIENDS
WITHIN THEIR CIRCLES WHAT THEY
DO IS? THEY USE THE KIDS NAME
AND ALSO THEIR PHOTO TO OF BE
USED IN FORGOTTEN IN OUR
ADVERTISING DIFFERENT PRODUCTS
THAT.
THE KID DOESN'T REALLY AND DOORS
ARE DOESN'T HAVE. ANY KNOWLEDGE
ABOUT.
AND CURRENT LAW I THINK A
OPPOSITION MADE REFERENCE TO
CURRENT LAW AND I THINK YOU ARE
USUALLY REFERRING TO AYE SP FIVE
SIXTY EIGHT WHICH WAS A
STEINBERG BILL.
WHICH DOES NOT REALLY ADDRESS
THE GENERAL PUBLIC IT'S TARGETED
TO KIDS ONLY. AND THERE'S ALSO
FEDERAL LAW BUT FEDERAL LAW OWNS
ONLY PERTAIN SEE KIDS UNDER THE
AGE OF THIRTEEN.
ON THE OTHER HAND THIS
PARTICULAR BILL ARE ADDRESSES
THE GENERAL WEBSITES FOR EXAMPLE
WEBSITES THAT ARE USED BY BOTH
KIDS AND ADULTS.
SO IN THAT REGARD. THERE'S NO
LAW CURRENT WEATHER Y. FEDERAL
OR STATE OR OTHERWISE THAT WOULD
COVER THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
AND ARE AS TO THE OUR. ASSERTION
THAT THERE ARE WE ARE DEPRIVING
THE KIT ARE HIS SO RIGHTS EITHER
CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHERWISE THAT
IS NOT THE CASE BECAUSE THERE'S
LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS
THAT.
I EVEN IF THE KID DOES NOT
OBTAIN A PARENTAL CONCERN. HERE
SHE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED ACCESS
TO THE WEBSITE SO THAT'S CLEARLY
SPELLED OUT IN THE LANGUAGE
ITSELF.
AND THE ONLY DOING NOW IS
ESSENTIALLY TO SAY LOOK IF THESE
THIRD PARTY PEOPLE WANT TO USE
THE TILES INFORMATION.
NAMES AND.
LIKENESS OF PHOTOGRAPHS THEY
HAVE TO GET THE PRIOR PARENTAL
CONSENT THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
THE OTHER PIECE IS THAT.
IF THEY WANT TO BUY SOMETHING
ILLEGAL AND THOSE COMPANIES ARE
TO HOW THEY ARE. SOMETHING
COMPLACENT MAKE SURE THAT
DOESN'T HAPPEN I MEAN THOSE ARE
THE TWO MAJOR ISSUES THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT I DO WANT
COMMIT MYSELF TO WORKING WOULD
YOU KNOW FOLKS TO YOU KNOW SORT
OUT THE THE WORKABILITY ISSUES
AND HOW WE. YOU KNOW HOW WE
GONNA DO THE CONSENT CURRENTLY.
THE BILL DOES NOT PRESCRIBE A
PARTICULAR METHOD FOR THE. FOR
THE FOLKS TO TO GET CONSENT BUT
CURRENTLY DRAFTING HAS NOTHING
IS BEING DONE SO ANYTHING THAT
WE COULD DO IS BETTER THAN
NOTHING.
SO SO THAT'S THAT'S TO THAT'S
THE THE CHEST OF THE OF THE
BILL.
AND AND IT'S A TOTALLY
REASONABLE BILL IN MY VIEW.
IF I JUST.
FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND WE
CERTAINLY DON'T WANT SOMETHING
WHICH IS OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE WE
WANNA. A THIS SET THE LOSS AT
THE STANDARD ALLOW A LITTLE BIT
OF FLEXIBILITY HERE FOR HOW.
HOW THE LAW? IS COMPLIED WITH
WHAT MISTER HOWARD YOU WANT
SPEECH AT THAT ISSUE. HIS WE
HEARD FROM.
AT THE OPPONENTS.
AS WELL ON THE.
SORT OF PRESCRIPTIVE NATURE OF
THIS BUT I JUST HEARD THE OTHER
SAY WERE WERE NOT. WELL IT IS.
WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE.
YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE YOUR POISON
RISK WITH NO DISRESPECT.
WITH AN OPPOSITION THAT WILL
ENGAGE.
SO EITHER WE COULD HAVE DONE
SOMETHING VERY PRESCRIPTIVE.
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE REGULATED
ENTITIES ABSOLUTE CRYSTALLINE
CLARITY ABOUT HOW TO COMPLY WITH
IT. AND THEN THE OPPOSITION
WOULD BE HERE SAYING YOU'RE
STIFLING INNOVATION YOUR E. OR
PREVENTING US FROM BEING ABLE TO
INNOVATE OUR WAY OUT OF A
PROBLEM.
THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO TAKE THE
APPROACH THAT IS CURRENTLY SEEN
IN THE BILL WHICH WE SEE.
THROUGHOUT MANY DIFFERENT KINDS
OF LAWS.
IT THE AT.
THAT IS.
EGGMAN REASONABLE STEPS TO
VERIFY AGE.
I DID THE GENTLEMAN. UP FROM THE
OPPOSITION WAS TALKING ABOUT
QUESTIONS RELATED TO BURDEN.
QUESTIONS RELATING TO PROVE.
I MY THAT THAT THE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE AND ITS
SISTER ORGANIZATION THE CENTER
FOR PUBLIC INTEREST.
ORG DEEPLY COMMITTED TO BEING
ABLE TO PROVIDE A CLEAR LAW.
THAT IS NOT IN ANY WAY A GOTCHA.
THAT ALLOWS EVERY SINGLE COMPANY
WITH ABSOLUTE CLARITY TO BE ABLE
TO CONFORM THEIR BEHAVIOR IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. IN
ORDER FOR US TO DO THAT IN A WAY
THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE
OPPOSITION. I NEED THEM TO SIT
DOWN AND ENGAGE AND SAY WHAT
WOULD WORK FOR YOU AND WHAT
WOULDN'T.
WE ARE ABSOLUTELY EAGER I AM
IMPLORING THEM TO DO SO. SO ON
THE WORKABILITY ISSUES I CONCEDE
THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WORD
REASONABLE STEPS TO VERIFY AGE.
THAT IS NOT PER SCRIPTED
THERE IS SOME UNKNOWABLE THERE
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WHAT YOU'RE
DOING. IS GOING TO BE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH LAW TO THE
EXTENT AS THAT IS A CONCERN.
LET'S FIGURE IT OUT. BUT ON THE
OTHER HAND IT ALSO OFFERS THESE
COMPANIES A ZILLION DIFFERENT
INNOVATIVE WAYS.
TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS AGE
VERIFICATION EVERYTHING FROM
THERE'S A SPIN CLASS THAT DID
THAT ONE WOMAN FRIEND OF MINE
OWNS YOU GO ONLINE YOU CLICK
HERE. YOU IT'S ONE PERSON NOT
FACEBOOK NOT IT WAS ON ONE
PERSON OWNS THIS YOU GO ONLINE
YOU CLICK TO ENROLL IT ASKS FOR
YOUR AGE IF THE AGE OF THE
PERSON IS YOUNGER IT GOES TO A
FORM.
IT JUST FILLS OUT.
YOU KNOW KIND LONG HERE'S MY
EMAIL ADDRESS MY KID CAN DO IT
TO MY MIND.
THAT'S FINE.
AND IT'S A MILLION TIMES BETTER
THAN THE STATUS QUO.
CURRENT LAW HAS PROVEN TO BE
INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE
CURRENT STATUS QUO.
WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY
PREPOSTEROUS WHICH NO ONE HERE
HAS DEFENDED.
WHICH IS IN BOILERPLATE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS WHEN FACEBOOK
SEEKS TO USE MY CHILD IS A
BILLBOARD FOR ADVERTISING.
BAY AREA IN BOILERPLATE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AND SAY QUOTE IF
YOU ARE UNDER THE AGE OF
EIGHTEEN.
YOU REPRESENTED THAT A PARENT OR
LEGAL GUARDIAN ALSO EXPRESSLY
AGREES TO THIS.
SO THAT'S THE STATUS QUO.
THAT CLEARLY IS NOTHING.
WE CAN AS THE FIRST WITNESS SAID
DO BETTER WE SHOULD DO BETTER.
THIS BILL IS VERY CLEAR.
ABOUT THE DIRECTION THAT BETTER
SHOULD GO INTO THE EXTENT OF
THEIR WORK ABILITY ISSUES I
WOULD. YOU EARN UP TO WORK THEM
OUT.
THANK YOU THAT I'M OF THE BILL.
MS BAKER.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN MISTER
FOR THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO GO A
LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO THE
LANGUAGE AT REGARDING.
THE.
REASONABLE STEPS AND FIRST FALL
COMPLETELY AGREE AS A PARENT OF
TWO TEENAGERS.
WITH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND ALSO TO TO MAKE IT
SOMETHING THAT IS MEANINGFUL
THAT IT'S NOT A. A CONSENT THAT
IS SOMETHING MY KIDS ARE JUST
GONNA.
BE ABLE TO IGNRE WHICH IN MY
DO. UP OR THAT IT IT JUST
DOESN'T HAVE ANY PURPOSE TO IT
BECAUSE MAYBE ESTO BURIED
SOMEWHERE. MINDFUL THAT WE THIS
THE LEGISLATURE ENDS GOVERNMENT
PUTS A LOT OF DISCLOSURE BURDENS
ALREADY.
THAT GET HIDDEN IN THERE SO WE
SOMETIMES CREATE THE PROBLEM
OURSELVES. SO WHEN IT COMES TO
REASONABLE STEPS.
WE HAD EARLIER BILL HERE TODAY
WERE HEADS ARE SIMILAR LANGUAGE
ABOUT REASONABLENESS AND I
BROUGHT UP THE CONCEPT OF A SAFE
HARBOR MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN
THE BILL BUT THE NEED FOR ONE.
AND THIS DOESN'T HAVE WINE AND I
I JUST WANNA PLAY OUT A LITTLE
BIT.
HOW THIS PRACTICALLY HAPPENS IS
A COMPANY WILL NOW HAVE TO TRY
TO GAS
WHAT IS REASONABLE?
AND INEVITABLY THERE GONNA PUT
TIME AND MONEY AND EFFORT INTO
THAT.
AND WE WANT THEM TO DO SOME.
TIME AND MONEY AND EFFORT INTO
PROTECTING OUR KIDS BUT THEN THE
LITIGATION THAT COMES LATER IS
VERY VERY EXPENSIVE.
JUST TO DO A MOTION TO DISMISS
WHERE THE YOUNG WHICH THEY WILL
ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET PAST
BECAUSE THE. QUESTION OF
REASONABLE S. IS A FACT QUESTION
THAT THEN IS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AGAIN.
GUY AND GOD FORBID YOU ACTUALLY
GO TO TRIAL YOU'RE LOOKING AT
HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.
S. AND THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. WHICH
DIVERTS RE RESOURCES AWAY FROM
BEING ABLE TO ACTUALLY PUT IT
INTO THE BUSINESS AND COMPLY.
HAVING A SAFE HARBOR IS HELPFUL.
AYE AYE OF MY FIRST QUESTION BE
ARE YOU ARE YOU OPEN TO HAVING
SAFE HARBORS THAT.
I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T SAY THIS IS
THE ONE WAY MAYBE IT'S THE. SPIN
CLASS WHATEVER EXAMPLE BUT
HERE'S ONE WAY.
BUT THE SAFE HARBOR THE GIVES
COMPANIES SOME BASIS TO
UNDERSTAND WORKING EVEN HAVE A
DEFICIENCY A MORE EFFICIENT
STARTING POINT.
AND SECONDLY.
EVEN AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
THAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE KNOWING
THAT THE FROM A DEFENSE CAN BE
USED UNTIL AGAIN THE FACT
QUESTION IS HAPPENED SO A LOT OF
MONEY.
IS GOING TO STILL BE AN
INCENTIVE FOR BUSINESSES TO GET
IT RIGHT.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON EITHER OF
THOSE TWO. POINTS
I HAVE YOU MORE AFTER THAT
FAILING TO TAKE A STAB AT IT AND
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO
MISTER HOWARD. LA WOULD RESPECT
YOU FIRST QUESTION WHETHER OR
NOT DEL WE'RE OPEN TO HAVING
SAFE HARBORS IS DEFINITELY WHERE
TO FULLY OPEN TO. A NEGOTIATION
AND INCOME COMPOSITION WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO SLIDE OUT WHAT
THOSE SO YOU KNOW BASIC.
SAFE HARBORS WOULD BE CELLS ON
YOU KNOW TOOK THAT'S TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION. NOW WITH RESPECT
TO THE AT THE TERM REASONABLE AS
I THINK I THINK.
LOW WE HAVE SEEN NO TIME AND
AGAIN DURING LITIGATION
OTHERWISE. OB THAT WE HAVE OUT
WE USED A REASONABLE PERSON
STANDARD IN THE IN THE CASE OF
NEGLIGENCE SO I THINK YOU KNOW
IT'S NOT AS THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE
A STANDARD IN PLACE I THINK.
LITIGATION THAT'S USE ALL THE
TIME SO I YOU KNOW AND FINAL
IMAGE YOU SEE THAT.
DEBATE THE BILL DOESN'T PROVIDE
A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
NOW IT IS UP TO THE AG OR THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO WOULD MAKE
THAT DETERMINATION WHETHER OR
NOT TO BRING ABOUT TO THE
ACTION.
SO SO I'LL WHETHER NOT THEY WANT
TO USE REASONABLE STATE STANDARD
OR OTHERWISE I THINK YOU KNOW
BUT BUT. YOU KNOW THAT'S UP TO
THEM BUT YET I'M OPEN TO HAVING
GOT KIND OF A CONVERSATION AS TO
WHETHER NOT SAFE HARBOR WOULD BE
NEEDED MISS HOW. THE
THE CHAIR AT A FAMILY MEMBER AND
THE ANSWER IS YES CIVIL.
I LIKE.
SAFE HARBORS I THINK THAT THEY
STAY IF THEY'RE DONE PROPERLY.
STRIKE A REALLY WONDERFUL
BALANCE BETWEEN PROVIDING
REGULATED ENTITIES COMPLETE
CERTAINTY IN COMPLETING THEIR
BEHAVIOR WITH THE LAW. BUT ALSO
FREEING REGULATED ENTITIES TO BE
ABLE TO INNOVATE IN WAYS THAT
MAY NOT BE CONTEMPLATED BY THE
SAFE HARBOR SO I I LIKE MY ALSO
LIKE THE IDEAL THOUGH. OF AN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AGAIN
CAREFULLY CRAFTED.
IT COULD SERVE NOT TO PREVENT A
LAWSUIT BUT TO A BE ABLE TO
DISMISS ONE AT THE EARLIEST
OPPORTUNITY AT LEAST EXPENSE
ALSO NOTE. OF FOR THE RECORD
THAT NOT ONLY DOES THE BILL NOT
PROVIDE FOR A PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION BUT THE MOST RECENT
AMENDMENTS ELIMINATED. THE A
PROVISION OF THE BILL AS WAS
INTRODUCED THAT FORBADE
ARBITRAGE.
THAT FORBADE.
COMPANIES FROM.
FROM PROHIBITING PEOPLE FROM.
CLASSING UP INTO A CLASS.
SO INCREASINGLY THERE ARE
COMPANIES THAT ARE PUTTING IN
PROHIBITIONS. AGAINST PEOPLE.
ARE TEAMING UP IN A CLASS ACTION
ORIGINALLY THE BILL HAD
SOMETHING THAT SAID YOU COULDN'T
DO THAT THAT LIKEWISE HAS BEEN
REMOVED. BUT ALSO SAID THE BILL
WOULD MAKE IT MORE LIKELY THERE
CAN BE A CLASS ACTION OR THE
OTHER WAY AROUND OKAY HE I
WASN'T CLEAR ON WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING HOW THE OTHER WAY AROUND
PLEASE. THE THE ORIGINAL BILL OF
AS WAS INTRODUCED.
SAID THAT A COMPANY COULD NOT.
PROHIBIT PEOPLE.
FROM JOINING UP INTO A CLASS GOT
I'VE GOT A FEW MORE QUESTIONS I
THINK THAT SONG I THINK YOU AND
I. I DON'T WANT TO YES THERE IS
A REASONABLE STANDARD ALL
THROUGHOUT THE LAW IT'S JUST
REALLY REALLY EXPENSIVE TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS AND
THESE ARE ALL RESOURCES GOING
AWAY FROM.
ENTERPRISES THAT ARE OTHERWISE
DOING LEGITIMATE WORK AND WE
DON'T WE WE DO PLENTY OF
CREATING THAT BURDEN ON THEM AND
I'M VERY GLAD THERE IS A POT AND
HERE. WOODEN UNDERVALUE THE FACT
THAT IF THE AG GETS TO DO THIS.
SOMETIMES THAT'S.
JUST AS BAD BECAUSE THEN YOU'VE
GOT A CLAIM FROM AG AGAINST
YOUR.
YOUR BUSINESS AND TRYING TO
DETERMINE REASONABLENESS I DON'T
UNDER I'M A DILUTED IMPACT THAT
THAT HAS.
AND SECONDLY THE THE LANGUAGE
WE HAVE THE WORD VERIFY.
IT'S NOT JUST THAT THEY HAVE TO
TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO ENSURE
THAT THE PURCHASER IS NOT A
MINOR OR OR OTHERWISE BUT YOU
WANT VERIFICATION. I DON'T KNOW
HOW OPEN YOU ARE TO THAT AS WELL
HOW COME I TRY TO WATER IT DOWN
IT TRULY IS. YOU WANT TO SET A A
REACH. REASONABLE WAGE EVEN
VERIFY VERIFIES QUITE A HIGH
STANDARD WHEN I SAW THAT WORD
DIFFICULT TO DO.
PEOPLE FAKE ID'S STILL TO THIS
DAY I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD
HAVE THAT I JUST AS ONEROUS
STANDARD THERE.
AND.
IN ADDITION THERE'S A QUESTION
OF WHAT THIS APPLIES TO.
SO WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT SOCIAL
MEDIA BUT MY REED OF THE BILL AS
IT APPLIES TO ALMOST ANYTHING ON
THE INTERNET.
AND.
I SHARE THE CONCERN IS THAT ME
MOMMY DOESN'T LET OUR KIDS ON
SESSION HE. I SHARE THE CONCERN
OF HAVING YOU KNOW THIS THESE
QUESTIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA BUT.
THEY CHILDREN DO YOU USE THE
INTERNET A LOT FOR HOMEWORK NOW
AND WEBSITES THAT HAVE.
.
THAT THIS WOULD APPLY TOO. AND I
WONDER IF YOU CAN CLARIFY JUST
HOW BROAD THIS IS BECAUSE ALL
THE CONVERSATION SO FAR HAS BEEN
ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES.
WHATEVER THAT'S DEFINED AS AND.
I NOT BASICALLY WHAT I SEE WHICH
IS THE ENTIRE INTERNET JUST
ABOUT EVERY WEBSITE THIS IS
GONNA APPLY TO HIM.
BUT.
CUT.
SOME THROUGH THE CHAIR AGAIN.
SO.
THE BILL SO.
THERE IS A CONUNDRUM WHEN YOU'RE
ATTEMPTING.
TO REGULATE SOCIAL MEDIA AND
THAT IS THERE SIMPLY ISN'T A
GOOD DEFINITION.
I LOOKED AT EVERY SINGLE ONE.
THERE SIMPLY ISN'T A TERRIFIC
DEFINITION OF WHAT A SOCIAL
MEDIA SITE IS THE ORIGINAL
VERSION OF THE BILL ATTEMPTED TO
DO THAT.
THE AMENDED VERSION OF THE BILL
GIVES UP ON.
AND HE'S LIKE INSTEAD OF
ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE THE
BEHAVIOR OF A COMPANY BASED ON
WHAT IT IS.
IT'S NOW REGULATES THE BEHAVIOR
A COMPANY BASED ON WHAT IT
OBJECTIVELY. DOT.
AND I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE
ABOUT THE BREADTH OF THE BILL
FOR THAT VERY REASON THE SOCIAL
MEDIA PART QUOTE UNQUOTE THE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOES NOT
APPLY DEFINITIONAL.
MEANING WHAT IS OR IS NOT A
SOCIAL MEDIA SITE IT APPLIES.
OBJECTIVELY BASED ON VERBS THAT
THE COMPANY DOES QUOTE IS PAID
BY A THIRD PARTY TO DISPLAY THE
MINOR'S NAME PICTURE OR
INFORMATION THAT COULD
REASONABLY. BE USED TO
IDENTIFY THE MINOR AND QUOTE.
THAT'S
THE BILL.
IF YOU DON'T DO THAT IF YOU
DON'T HAVE THAT.
OUT ARRANGEMENTS I MEAN
ACTUALLY THE BILL SAYS MORE
COMPLETELY QUOTE SEEKS TO USE A
MINOR'S NAME PICTURE INFORMATION
ABOUT A MINOR PURSUANT TO AN
ARRANGEMENT. IN WHICH A PERSON
OR BUSINESS IS PAID BY A THIRD
PARTY TO DISPLAY THE MINOR'S
NAME PICTURE OR INFORMATION THAT
COULD RESULT IN ABOUT MONEY IF
YOU DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF
PROCESS.
THIS BILL DOES NOT APPLY.
THE WHOLE REST OF THE INTERNET
THE ALMOST INFINITE VARIETY OF
THE INTERNET THAT DOESN'T DO
THAT PARTICULAR KIND OF SELLING
MY CHILD'S FACE AND NAME TO
THIRD PARTIES.
YOU CAN WHATEVER THEY WANT OKAY
AND LIKEWISE WITH THE WITH THE
OTHER PIECE THAT APPLIES ONLY TO
COMPANIES THAT SELL ITEMS ON THE
INTERNET THAT ARE ILLEGAL TO
SELL TO MINORS OKAY BECAUSE I DO
SEE. AND IN THAT FIRST AREA THAT
THE. YOU KNOW SIXTIES MINER'S
NAME PICTURE OR ANY INFORMATION.
ABOUT MY HER SO I'M LOOKING AT
THAT AYE I APPRECIATE. IT IT
SOUNDS LIKE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE IS.
SEEN SOME OF THE NEED ON THIS
ISSUE.
TO ADDRESS THE RECENT US AND
WHAT THE COMPANIES ARE BEING.
BOUND BY AYE.
GIVE A HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE
LESS.
DISCUSSION OF WHO'S COMING TO
THE TABLE AND WHO ISN'T BECAUSE
NOT REALLY PRODUCTIVE BUT THAT
THEY'RE JUST BE AN OPEN DOOR AND
THAT THERE IS GENUINELY TAKING
AS I'M SURE THE CHARITY PENSION
DOING.
SUGGESTIONS ON THIS TIME BECAUSE
I I THINK.
IN ITS CURRENT FORM IT REALLY
IS.
VERY BROAD AND CAN LEAD TO IT
AND VERY DIFFICULT STANDARD TO.
EMPLOYMENT I. SPECIFYING WHEN I
HAVE IS ON THAT I'M ENVISIONING
FULFILLMENT CENTERS.
THAT IF THEY'RE GONNA SELL IT
THEY'RE GONNA DELIVER MORE THAN
ONE TYPE OF PRODUCT TO A.
HOUSEHOLD YOU KNOW I'VE.
PROBABLY ALL GOT AND TOWARDS
SOME OF LARGER FULFILLMENT
CENTERS DETER.
PUTTING A LOT OF DIFFERENT
PRODUCTS IN THE BOX HOW YOU'RE
ANTICIPATING A FULFILLMENT
CENTER LAW WOULD BE ABLE TO
COMPLY WITH THAT. ASSURANCE THAT
A PRODUCT THAT THE CHILD IS NOT
ALLOWED TO HAVE IS NOT DELIVERED
TO THE HOUSEHOLD.
YEAH ON THAT PIECE WE NEED WE
NEED TO.
FINE TUNED OUT A LITTLE BIT AS
WE GO I THINK I THINK THAT'S US
ANTI THAT'S BEEN RAISED RECENTLY
AND OUT. OF YOU KNOW WILL YOU
KNOW WHO ARE VERY HAPPY TO KIND
OF WORK WITH OPPOSITION TO SEE
HOW YOU KNOW COULD BE WORKED
OUT.
SO SO THAT DIDN'T YOU KNOW IT'S
A GOOD IT'S A LEGITIMATE
QUESTION AND HAVE SO BUT I DO
WANNA. ARE CLEAR THE AIR ON
SOMETHING ON STRICT LIABILITY
WHICH IS THE BILL IS NOT IS NOT
A STRICT LIABILITY CODE CASE
WHATSOEVER SO I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW. MEMBERS
DON'T GET DATA CONCEPT YEAH I
THINK WHEN THERE'S.
I.
LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE
I DID HAVE THAT QUESTION TO THEM
EVERY OF A REASONABLENESS
STANDARD.
DO YOU YOU'RE LIABLE IF YOU'RE
NOT REASONABLE BUT YOU WANNA
MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE NOT HAVING
CONFLICTING LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
MAKE.
TIP THE SCALE TOWARD STRICT
LIABILITY WHICH IS IN FACT
QUESTION THANK YOU FOR THE
INDULGENCE OF THE TIME I
APPRECIATE IT. ARE MISTER BERMAN
AND THEM IS IRWIN HOLLISTER
OBERNOLTE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
FOR BRING THE BILL AYE AYE.
FRANKLY.
THIS SUMMER BAKER ASK A LOT OF
THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD.
ME IN MY OFFICE ALSO HAD A LOT
OF CONFUSION AS TO WHO THE THE
BILL APPLIES TO.
BUT YOUR EXPLANATION.
AGAIN PROVIDED ANSWERS AND
PROBABLY ALSO CREATE A COUPLE
MORE QUESTIONS.
THAT WILL FOLLOW UP WITH.
I THINK YOU KNOW I I APPRECIATE
THE INTENTIONALITY WITH WHICH A
LOT OF THE THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN
MADE.
TO THE BILL I STILL THINK I AND
I AGREE THAT THE CURRENT
SITUATION IS INADEQUATE.
AND AND I THINK.
YOU KNOW OUR OUR POLICY IN OUR
LAWS MIGHT BE. WRITTEN CORRECT
BUT THE WAY THAT WE IMPLEMENT
THEM AREN'T.
AND SO BUT AT THE SAME TIME AND
I I DON'T TO BE A DEAD HORSE
BECAUSE A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS
HAVE BEEN RAISED AND FRANKLY
THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL HAS.
DE EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO
ADDRESS A LOT OF THE CONCERNS
THERE ARE A LOT OF CONCERNS.
AND IF THIS WERE BILL WERE TO
COME TO THE FLOOR WHEN SUPPORTED
IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
THE I THINK IT'S A GOOD
CONVERSATION TO HAVE.
I I THINK THAT THE GOALS THAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE OUR AS.
A MISTER MULLIN SAID RIGHTEOUS.
I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT
TERM TO USE.
BUT I THINK THERE'S FAR TOO
MUCH AMBIGUITY CURRENTLY IN THE
BILL.
FOR MY COMPATIBILITY AS BEING
THE LAST STEP OR EVEN THE MIDDLE
STEP GETTING OUT OF THE
ASSEMBLY.
.
I'M I'M COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO
HAVE THE CONVERSATION KEEP ON
GOING.
I REALLY DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE.
EVERYBODY THAT I DON'T THINK
IT'S ACCEPTABLE ON OF HAD A VERY
FINE.
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE CONVERSATIONS
WITH BOTH SIDES OF THE BILL.
OVER THE LAST EIGHTEEN HOURS.
AND I I DON'T THINK IT'S
SATISFACTORY TO SAY WE LEAVE IT
UP TO TECH TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
IMPLEMENT IT.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE.
YEAH I DON'T THINK TO BE
PRESCRIPTIVE IN THE BILL BUT
OUTSIDE OF THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE
CREATING LAWS THAT ARE
IMPOSSIBLE TO TO IMPLEMENT
BECAUSE THOSE ARE JUST POISON
PILLS THAT ARE TRYING TO.
PROHIBIT ACTION.
GOT IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING.
AND SO.
I HAVE CONCERNS.
ABOUT THAT BUT I THINK IT'S YOU
KNOW THE AYE AYE. IT'S TRUE THAT
WE CAN'T LET THE PERFECT BE THE
ENEMY OF THE GOOD AND AND IF
WE'RE NOT AT A PERFECT STAGE AT
THIS POINT. LET'S FIND THE BEST.
WAY POSSIBLE.
SAID TO THE CHIEF THE POLICY
GOALS OF MAKING SURE THAT
MINERS.
IN A THEIR LIKENESSES AND USED
NOW FOR FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. NOW
AND BE THAT THEY CAN'T ACQUIRE.
.ITEMS MOSTLY WEAPONS LE THAT WE
HAVE AGE RESTRICTIONS ON.
SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
WORK TO BE DONE.
REALLY WANT TO IMPRESS UPON THE
AUTHOR.
TO TO WORK WITH THE INDUSTRIES
THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED.
TO MAKE SURE THAT.
YEAH THEY HAVE A SEAT AT THE
TABLE AND AND.
CAN CAN IMPROVE THE CURRENT
LANGUAGE.
BIBLE SUPPORTED AT THIS TIME.
THANKS VERY MUCH YOU HAVE LIKE
YOU.
THAT WRITTEN DOWN A WHOLE BUNCH
OF STUFF.
THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I
COVERED.
.
I MEAN I GUESS WE KNOW SOMEBODY
MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE WORRIED
THAT IN TERMS OF THE THAT. THE
PURCHASING ITEMS ONLINE THAT IT
EXTENDS BEYOND ITEMS WITH AIDS
LIMITATIONS.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE
OPPOSITION HAS HAS ANY. THING TO
ADD TO THAT ARE OF IF YOU DON'T
NEED TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T
LIKE.
IS IS IS THE POINT THAT I WANT
TO MAKE.
AND THEN.
.
AND THEY ALL LEAVE IT AT THAT
FOR NOW THINKS.
I THINK.
ALI HAVE COVERED THE UTMOST MY.
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES AND
CONCERNS ARE READY AT AYE BY ONE
OF THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE
BILL FORWARD AND WORKING TO AND
CREATE ADDITIONAL CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN ONLINE.
OBVIOUSLY THE INTERNET HAS A
MANY PROMISES AND PITFALLS
PITFALLS FOR OUR CHILDREN AND
IT'S IMPORTANT AS LEGISLATORS WE
SEE HOW. A WEEKEND. ADDRESS OF
SO I I THINK YOUR GOALS ARE
LAUDABLE I HAVE.
.
STILL A NUMBER OF ISSUES OF WITH
THE BILL BUT I AM GOING TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY AND AND WE'LL
SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT
GETS ONTO THE FLOOR. AND TO A
KIND OF REPEAT WHAT MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID I I HOPE
THAT YOU CONTINUE TO ACTIVELY
ENGAGE WITH THE.
RETAILERS AND SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITES
BECAUSE THERE ARE REAL
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES.
WITH THE AGE VERIFICATION AND
AND I DO THINK IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT AND.
WITH TECH LAW HAVE OF
FLEXIBILITY. BUT THERE ALSO HAS
TO BE AT LEAST WE HAVE TO SEE AT
LEAST ONE REASONABLE WAY TO
PERFORM.
THE FUNCTION.
THAT WE AS A LEGISLATURE DON'T
FIND OFFENSIVE AND SO YOU KNOW I
JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT IS.
I'D THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT
HAVING TO USE LET'S SAY. OF
PASSPORTS OR OR OTHER TYPE OF.
DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE AGE OUT
WE WANT TO GET INTO THAT AREA WE
DO NOT WANT THE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES OR ONLINE RETAILERS
HOLDING ANYMORE OF OUR PRIVATE
INFORMATION SO I THINK ALL THAT
NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. AND WE
NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE IS A
THAT A PATH FORWARD. TO DO THIS
AND SO ALL OF THE AS I SAID I I
WILL SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY BUT
I NEED TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE
WHEN IT GETS TO THE FLOOR.
PARTICULAR IMAGE.
MR OBERNOLTE. THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIR AT MR CHOW I. DEFINITELY
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO HERE ON THE BILL. ARE I HAVE
SOME CONCERNS THAT I JUST RAISE
THE ONES THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD
REYES SO FAR SO YOU'VE YOU'VE
GOT THE BILL DIVIDED INTO TWO
SECTIONS YOU'VE GOT SECTION A.
THE DEALS WITH ENDORSEMENTS AND
SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES AND
SECTION BE THAT DEALS WITH THE
SHIPMENT OF PHYSICAL GOODS TO
MINORS. AND I REALLY WISH THAT
YOUHAD JUST SEPARATED THEM AND
DETERMINE TWO SEPARATE BILLS
BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE.
SECTION BE IS A LOT BETTER
BATES THAN SECTION A.
I OUGHT SOMEONE OF JUST FOCUS ON
SECTION A BECAUSE I GOT SOME
SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AND
THAT THE REASON WHY I'M SO
CONCERNED IS THAT WE CAN TALK
ABOUT WHAT OUR INTENTIONS ARE.
HERE WHEN WE CRAFTED BILL BUT
THE WORDING OF THE BILL IS
CRITICAL BECAUSE ONCE IT GETS
OUT INTO THE WILD THE COURTS ARE
GOING TO INTERPRET IT BASED ON
WHAT WE WROTE THEY'RE NOT WHAT
OUR INTENTIONS WERE. AND SO IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT WE GET IT RIGHT
AND.
YOU KNOW I THINK THAT THERE'S A
LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE STILL
THURMOND FIRST OF ALL WE TALKED
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
DEFINITION OF A SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE. I DEFINITELY THINK IT'S
CRITICAL TO NAIL THAT DOWN
BECAUSE OF WHAT MIGHT BE OBVIOUS
TO US SITTING HERE WHAT WE MEAN
BY SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBSITE IS
NOT OBVIOUS TO. OUR PEOPLE WHO
ARE DESIGNING WEBSITES ARE GIVEN
EXAMPLE FROM MY OWN PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE YOU KNOW I RUN A.
VIDEO GAME DEVELOPMENT STUDIO
RIGHT SO WE HAVE LEADER BOARDS.
WHERE YOU POST YOUR HIGH SCORES
YOU CAN SEE HOW YOU RANK
COMPARED WITH ALL THE OTHER
PLAYERS OF THE GAME?
IS THAT A SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITE.
I THINK THAT A CASUAL OBSERVER
WOULD SAY NO BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY
LOOK AT A DEFINITION I THINK YOU
CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT. MAYBE IT
IS.
ARE WE YOU DON'T DEFINE REALLY
ARE HOW. A.
WEBSITE PROPRIETORS SUPPOSED TO
KNOW WHEN A MINOR HAS ENTERED
PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE
INFORMATION.
SO OUR GIVEN EXAMPLE LIKE THE
LEADER BOARD EXAMPLE.
USERS ENTER A USER NAME OR
HANDLE THAT THEY WANT POSTED ON
THERE WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING
WHETHER OR NOT. THAT YOUR REAL
NAME THEM IN SOME CASES IT'S
OBVIOUS IT'S NOT. WE HAVE TO
REGULARLY POLICE THOSE FOR FOUR
LETTER WORDS AND ANATOMICAL
REFERENCES RIGHT.
A PRETTY CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT
THE REAL NAY BUT SOME PEOPLE PUT
THEIR REAL NAMES ARE WE HAVE NO
WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT.
YOU KNOW THAT'S A REAL NAME AND
THEN ARE ALSO IN SECTION I
UNDERSTAND THE INTENTION IS TO.
PROHIBIT AN ENDORSEMENT TYPE OF
RELATIONSHIP BUT THE WORDING.
REALLY DOESN'T SAY THAT BECAUSE
ALL IT SAYS IS THAT. IF ANYONE
GETS PAID FOR THE DISPLAY OF
THAT USERS PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION.
THEN THAT IS ILLEGAL AND FRANKLY
THAT THAT COVERS A LOT BROADER
FIELD THAN JUST AN ENDORSEMENT
RELATIONSHIP I MEAN IF WE HAVE A
RELATIONSHIP WITH. A ANOTHER
COMPANY AT THAT IS A PORTAL FOR
OUR INFORMATION AND THEY DISPLAY
OUR LEADER BOARDS INITIATES IN
EXCHANGE FOR THAT.
THEY ALSO PUT AN AD FOR OUR
PRODUCTS
RIGHT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY GETTING
PAID BECAUSE WERE RECEIVING
SOMETHING OF VALUE THE
ADVERTISEMENT. AND THEY'RE
DISPLAYING THEIR PERSONAL HERE
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION EVEN
THOUGH NO ENDORSEMENT
RELATIONSHIP AS IMPLIED IT'S
STILL IN VIOLATION OF THE BILL.
BOB DYLAN IN ABOUT MY LAST.
KIND OF OUR CONSTRUCTIVE
CRITICISM FOR YOU IS.
THAT SECTION A UNLIKE SECTION BE
DOES NOT HAVE A REASON ABILITY
CLAUSE IN IT. IN OTHER WORDS
IT'S ALL A SECTION NAY SAYS IS
IF.
ARE IF A SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITE
DISPLAYS PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE
INFORMATION.
YOU KNOW IN ENDORSEMENT
ATMOSPHERE ALL THE MINOR THEN
THEY ARE GUILTY.
RIGHT AND EVEN IF THE MINOR TOLD
THEM I'M NOT A MINOR. IN SECTION
BE SAYS THAT THERE IS THERE'S A
REASON ABILITY THING IF IF IF
THEY TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO
TRY TO VERIFY. THAT THAT PERSON
WHO WAS A MINOR WAS NOT A MINOR
THAN THAN.
THAT'S ALL EXPECTED OF THEM BUT
THAT IS NOT IN SECTION A.
AND SO ARE. YOU KNOW IT AT THE
VERY LEAST I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU
TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT BUT AGAIN
I REALLY WISH THAT YOU'D
SEPARATED THE TWO BECAUSE. IT
WOULD BE A LOT EASIER FOR ME TO
SUPPORT IT IF IF THIS WAS JUST
SECTION BE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
AND NOT SECTION NAY JUST BECAUSE
IT SEEMS LIKE SECTION BE IS A
LOT FURTHER ALONG.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND
YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN WILL
LOOK INTO IT AND SEE SEE HOW ARE
WE CAN APPROACH IT. THE REASON
WHY WE.
HAD PULLED A HIPPIE IN ONE BILL
WAS BECAUSE I AYE WE THOUGHT
THAT THE COMMON THREAD WAS THE
CONSENT PIECE
PARENTAL CONSENT SO. SO THAT'S
WHAT TIED TO TWO PIECES TOGETHER
ARE INDEED BOTH DON'T DEAL WITH
A SOCIAL MEDIA OUR WEBSITES IN
GENERAL SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD
BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO DO. YOU
KNOW BOTH CONCEPTS IN IN JUST
ONE BILL. BUT WILL YOU DON'T LAW
GO FORWARD TO WILL BE HAPPY TO
KIND AYE RECONCILED THE YOU KNOW
BOTH A AND B. AND AND SEE HOW WE
CAN KIND. OF MAKE SENSE MAKE
MORE SENSE.
TO THE BILL AS WE GO ALONG
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE.
SO I LIKE MR OBERNOLTE HIGH MASS
MORE SYMPATHETIC TO THE SECOND
PART OF THIS.
.
A QUESTION ABOUT THAT ACTUALLY
SO CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN HOW THE I
UNDERSTAND IS THAT AGE
VERIFICATION PROCESS FOR ALCOHOL
PURCHASES ONLINE.
THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS HOW DOES
HOW DOES THAT WORK AND HOW IT
WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE
DIFFERENT ANYWAY.
IT.
ITS CHAIRMAN.
AT HOWARD JEWELERS ETHICS
INSTITUTE I'M SO THE AGE
VERIFICATION THAT HAPPENS WITH
ALCOHOL MOST COMMONLY HAPPENS
NOT ONLY THROUGH THE INTERNET.
BUT ALSO WHEN ALCOHOL WAS
DELIVERED.
THERE HAS TO BE SOMEBODY WHOSE
IDEAS CHECK BEFORE THEY CAN SIGN
FOR IT. IN THE WITNESSES
SITUATION THE BOX WEAPONS FROM
AMAZON SHOWED UP DESTRUCT. IT
WAS ON YOUR DOORSTEP OF ARTICLE
WHEN YOU CAME HOME FROM LUNCH SO
THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT. THAT
ANYBODY WHO IS EVEN POTENTIALLY
QUITE UPSIDE FOR BUT THAT'S.
THE BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT.
TO A LOT OF THE POINTS RAISED.
CORRECTLY HERE IN THE COMMITTEE
HEARING IT DOESN'T PRESCRIBE ANY
PARTICULAR METHOD OF DOING SO
BUT THAT'S THE WAY THAT AGE
VERIFICATION IS HANDLED WOOD
ALCOHOL IT IS NOT.
CURRENT LAW IS CLEARLY
INADEQUATE.
TO THE. TO THE TASK OF REQUIRING
SOMETHING EVEN REMOTELY
COMPARABLE FOR FIREARMS OR OTHER
ITEMS THEIR LEGAL ASSEMBLY
CHILDREN YES EVERY OPPOSITION
THAT WHAT WOULD BE THE THE
PROBLEM WITH SUBJECTING THESE
SINISTER LOOKING ITEMS.
TO THE SAME.
PROCESS AS WE CURRENTLY
FROGHALL.
WELL PART OF THE CHALLENGES THAT
THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL.
TALKS ABOUT VERIFYING THE AGE
OF THE PERSON PURCHASE ARE AT
THE POINT OF SALE.
SO RIGHT THERE THERE'S
CHALLENGES OF HOUSE SOMEONE HOW
A COMPANY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO
THAT AND I THINK A LOT OF THOSE
CONCERNS WERE RAISED.
WITH RESPECT TO THE THE
DELIVERY AGAIN YOU KNOW. THIS
CONCEPT WAS JUST PRESENTED TO US
A FEW DAYS AGO AND AGAIN THIS IS
TALKING ABOUT A HUGE CHANGE IN
THE MARKETPLACE WE STILL NEED.
TIME TO EXPLORE THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT.
CHANGE.
.
THERE ARE YOU KNOW THAT AS I
SAID IN MY REMARKS.
.
IF YOU HAVE A COPY LIKE WE NEED
TO EXPLORE WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN
IF YOU HAVE A COMPANY THAT HAS A
POLICY OF WE DON'T. DELIVER
THESE ITEMS TO SOMEBODY UNLESS
THEY HAVE A SIGNATURE AND THEN
YOU HAVE A DELIVERY COMPANY THAT
DOES THAT ANYWAY. WHO'S GONNA BE
LIABLE JUST THINGS LIKE THAT WE
NEED TO SORT THROUGH AND AND
FIGURE OUT AND ALTHOUGH. IN THE
SITUATION I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON
ALCOHOL REGULATION BUT IT'S I
KNOW IT'S VERY HEAVILY REGULATED
ALREADY. AND SO THEY ARE TO COME
TO THE TABLE WITH A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF OVERSIGHT.
AND THEY'VE ALREADY SPENT A
LONG TIME FIGURING OUT HOW TO
MAKE THOSE RULES WORK THIS IS
KIND OF STARTING FROM SCRATCH
INTO THAT NEEDS TO BE REFLECTED
IN THIS BILL WITH RESPECT TO IF
IF IT WEREN'T FOR DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION THAT SORT OF
THING. LOTS OF THINGS WE NEED TO
CONSIDER.
OKAY WHAT DOES SEEM LIKE WE HAVE
A PRETTY CLEAR PRECEDENT AND I
WOULD HOPE THAT.
WE CAN AT LEAST USE THAT AS A
REFERENCE POINT FOR DEVELOPING
THIS GOING FORWARD. NOT MY LAST
WISHES ON PART EIGHT SO. THAT
YOU KNOW I WAS INTO THE
DISCUSSION AND IT KIND OF SEEMS
TO ME LIKE GUY IF YOU'RE A
PARENT YOU KNOW OF ALL THE
THINGS YOU KID COULD GET IN
TROUBLE DOING ONLINE LIKE.
THE PROSPECT THAT A COMPENSATED
THIRD PARTY WOULD TAKE SOME
PHOTO SHARING FACEBOOK AND PUT
IT IN AND OUT IS.
SPRITE NOT THAT.
HIGH ON THE LIST BUT YOU CLEARLY
CAROLINE ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND SO
I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING WHAT
IS THE. WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL
WHAT'S THE HARM IN THE US THERE
ARE THREE HARMS.
IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER MISTER
CHAIRMAN.
THAT IN THE FIRST IS THAT IT
DOES.
SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT
DISRUPTION.
ON MY ABILITY AS A PARENT.
TO HAVE EVEN A PRAYER AT BEING
ABLE TO MONITOR MY DAUGHTER'S
BEHAVIOR. ONLINE.
THE SECOND IN THIS IS QUITE
IMPORTANT MY SON I JUST WENT
THROUGH THE PAINFUL PROCESS OF
HAVING MY SON.
APPLY FOR AND GO TO COLLEGE.
AT LEAST THAT HE PEACE DON'T
FIND BY THE WAY I IT IF I'M MY
WALLET THE LIGHTER.
THAT UP TO THIRTY PERCENT OF
COLLEGES NOW AS A PART OF THE
APPLICATION PROCESS.
EXAMINE APPLICATION FOR COLLEGE
EXAMINE YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA
PRESENCE.
MY SON APPLIED TO TWENTY
COLLEGES.
RIGHT THAT MEANS TWENTY
DIFFERENT GROUPS ARE LOOKING TO
WHETHER NOT WHEN WHEN WE IF YOU
MAY HAVE CLICKED LIKE ON A
PARTICULAR PRODUCT.
HE THAT BUT FACEBOOK IS ASKING
PERMISSION TO DO IN THESE
BOILERPLATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF TAKE THAT LIKE.
AND WITHOUT REAL KNOWLEDGE OF
ANYBODY'S PARENT OR HIMSELF
BROADCAST IT TO ALL OF HIS
FRIENDS OR ANY PARTICULAR GROUP
THAT HE MAY HAVE FOUND A BOX.
SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SOMETHING WHICH IS USING YOUR
CHILD'S NAME OR FACE IN A WAY
THAT POTENTIALLY COULD AFFECT
COLLEGE BUT ALSO SIMPLY AFFECT
THE REPUTATION AMONG THEIR PEER
GROUP IT'S NOT THE WILL.
YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S IT'S NOT A
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT THE TRIPS
THROUGH THE OCEANS I GRANT YOU.
BUT IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT GIVEN
BULLYING GIVEN COLLEGE IN GIVEN
MY ABILITY IS THE PARENT TO TRY
AND BE APPARENT IN THE TWENTY
FIRST.
I APPRECIATE THAT IT SEEMED TO
ME THAT MOST OF THE HARM THAT
YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE EXTENT
THERE IS HARM IS KIND OF
INHERENT IN IN USING THE
PLATFORM THEN. IN THAT YOU'RE
MAKING DECISION YOURSELF TO
RELEASED IMAGES OR INFORMATION
INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WHATEVER.
EXTEND THAT IS AMPLIFIED WITH
THIRD PARTY ADVERTISERS IS GOING
TO BE QUITE INFREQUENT AND.
SHIP RATHER MINOR IN COMPARISON
TO.
THE EXPOSURE THAT'S INHERENT IN
USING THE PLATFORM ITSELF SO IT
KIND OF SEEMS TO ME LIKE.
THE REMEDY BEING PROPOSED HERE
IS A PRETTY AGGRESSIVE ONE FOR
SOME IN THAT.
YOU KNOW MAY NOT BE A HUGE
PROBLEM BUT ALL AT HIS REYES DID
YOU HAVE A A COMMENT I'VE.
IT'S CLEAR FROM THE COMMENTS
THAT.
THERE ARE STILL SOME ISSUES.
BUT ONE OF THE THE COMMENTS FROM
THE OPPOSITION HOWEVER WAS ABOUT
STRICT LIABILITY AND I KNOW.
.
UM'S CHAO YOU'VE INDICATED THAT
THERE IS NOT STRICT LIABILITY I
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE
OPPOSITION WHAT IT IS YOU READ.
THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THAT
IMPRESSION LIKE I DID NOT SEE
THAT EITHER IN THE BILL.
THANK YOU ALL IN SO THAT.
IT'S ACTUALLY EXACTLY WHAT
MISTER A SOMEONE OBERNOLTE
REFERENCE TO SECTION EIGHT IS
NOT HAVE THE STANDARD THAT.
THE PLATFORMS THE WEBSITES TAKE
REASONABLE MEASURES.
IT SIMPLY SAYS THEY HAVE TO DO
IT PERIOD.
THAT'S A STRICT LIABILITY SECOND
SECTION SAYS WE STILL THESE
ITEMS YOU HAVE TO DO IT. WAY.
TEAM REGIONAL VERIFICATION.
THAT IS NOT PRESENT IN THE
SECOND SECTION IN THE FIRST
SECTION AT ALL DESPITE THE WAY.
MISTER HOWARD MAY HAVE
REPRESENTED IT IS EXACTLY THE
ISSUE THAT MISTER OBERNOLTE
REFERENCED.
THE TERM RESEMBLES NOT PRESIDENT
SECTION AT ALL.
NOW RESPECTFULLY STICK TO WHAT I
SAID THAT IT IS STRICT
LIABILITY.
VERY GOOD THEM THE I APPRECIATE
VERY MUCH WAS CHAU YOUR YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE TO SPEAK
WITH THE OPPOSITION. YOU'VE MADE
THAT CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING
AND.
IT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE
NEED.
BUT WE ALSO NEED FOR IT TO TO
HAVE THE THE GREATER DETAIL THAT
WILL BE NECESSARY WHEN WE VOTE
ON THIS ONE. UP ON THE FLOOR.
ATTACH.
SHALL ANY CLOSING REMARKS
I A I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR
RIVAL IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.
.
WE HAVE A MOTION WE NEED A
SECOND.
THE MOTION IS A DO PASS MADAM
SECRETARY.
AS AMENDED MADAM SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SHALL HIGH
HIGH KILEY NOT VOTING NOT
VOTING.
BAKER.
I MARC BERMAN.
I CALDERON.
IRWIN.
MORE.
IRWIN I.
MULLIN AYE AYE OBERNOLTE. NO
REYES. AYE TEN.
SIX.
EXPERTS THE BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S SAY FOR.
NEXT UP IS AB TWENTY NINE THIRTY
FIVE THAT IS FILE ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR CHAIRMAN
HOPEFULLY THIS WILL. DEAL
SHORTER.
AB TWENTY NINE THIRTY FIVE WOULD
PROHIBIT THE OPERATOR OF A
COMMERCIAL HEALTH MONITORING
PROGRAM FROM INTENTIONALLY
SHARING. WHAT IS CLOSING A
CONSUMERS INDIVIDUAL
IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH MONITORING
INFORMATION WITH A THIRD PARTY?
WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING
CONSUMERS ARE CONSENT.
THESE ARE THE FITBIT DEVICES SO.
THIS BILL THIS BILL IS TO PICK
UP WHERE NEGOTIATION NOW SO LEFT
OFF ON FORMER ASSEMBLYMEMBER
RICH GORDON SABIL AB TWENTY SIX
EIGHTY EIGHT TELL FROM OUR TWO
THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN.
AND ARM ARE.
I AM HOPEFUL THAT THAT WITH THE
INPUT OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS WE CAN
CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION TO COME
UP WITH A STRONG PROPOSAL THAT
PROTECTS THE SENSITIVE. HEALTH
DATA OF CONSUMERS.
ARMED PROTECTION OF MEDICAL
HEALTH INFORMATION ISN'T
ESTABLISH RIGHT WITHIN OUR
COUNTRY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. WE
HAVE THE HEALTH INSURANCE
PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT OF NINETEEN NINETY SIX WAR
HIPAA PLACES THAT WHICH PLACES
STRICT.
REQUIREMENTS ON THE SHARING OF
PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION AND
ALSO PROVIDES PROTECTION TO
CONSUMERS BY GIVING THEM THE
RIGHT TO KNOW WHO HAS ACCESS TO
THEIR HEALTHCARE. ALL DATA IN
CALIFORNIA WE ALSO HAVE THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL
INFORMATION ACT OR CMI A TO
PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL AS
MEDICAL INFORMATION FROM
UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE. HEALTH
MONITORING PROGRAMS HAVE
INCREASED IN POPULARITY THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS SO THESE DEVICES
ARE MOST COMMONLY WORN ON A
CONSUMER'S RISK. OUR AND OUR
CABLE LOW PERFORMING
CONSIDERABLE HEALTH MONITORING
INCLUDING THE TRACKING OF THE
CONSUMERS HEART RATE. OF BLOOD
GLUCOSE IN ALSO SLEEPING HABITS.
ADDITIONALLY SOME ENCOURAGE
USERS TO SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT
THEIR MOODS AS WELL AS SO.
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR YOU IN.
WHILE HIPPO AND CMI A PROVIDE
STRONG PROTECTIONS FOR MEDICAL
HEALTH INFORMATION THERE IS NOT
A SIMILARLY ROBUST FRAMEWORK OF
PROTECTIONS FOR HEALTH DATA
WHICH IS GENERATED. OUTSIDE OF
THE MEDICAL SETTING.
IN THIS VOID.
COOPERATORS OF COMMERCIAL
HEALTH MONITORING PROGRAMS ARE
GENERALLY ABLE TO SHARE AND OR
SELL THAT CONSUMERS ARE DATA TO
THIRD PARTIES.
WITH THAT IN MIND THIS BILL
WOULD ESTABLISH THAT IN ORDER TO
SHARE A CONSUMERS PERSONAL.
IDENTIFIABLE HEALTH MONITORING
INFORMATION AND OPERATOR OF A
COMMERCIAL HEALTH MONITORING
PROGRAM MUST FIRST OBTAIN A
CONSUMER'S AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT
THAT FULFILLS THE FOLLOWING
REQUIREMENTS ONE. THEIR REQUEST
MUST BE SEPARATE FROM ALL OTHER
AUTHORIZATIONS OR AGREEMENTS TO
THE CONSENT. REQUEST MUST
INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE THIRD
PARTY AND THE REASON FOR THE
REQUEST AND FINALLY IT MUST BE
MADE CLEAR THAT. A CONSUMERS
REFUSAL TO SHARE THE INFORMATION
A WOULD NOT PROHIBIT OR LIMIT
THEIR ABILITY TO USE A
COMMERCIAL HEALTH MONITORING
PROGRAM. OFF FINALLY THE BILL
WOULD PROVIDE A WAIVER OF ANY
RIGHTS A PENALTY OR REMEDY A TO
THE CONSUMER IN THE CONSENT IS
UNENFORCEABLE AND ALSO AVOID AS
A MATTER OF LAW. STILL OUT WITH
THAT IDEA ASKED WE ARRIVAL.
I ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS MANTICORAN
ON BEHALF OF BOTH PARTIES RIGHTS
CLEARINGHOUSE THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION WE DON'T
HAVE A POSITION ON THE BILL YET
HOWEVER. PREVIOUS ITERATIONS
WITH OTHER AUTHORS WE'VE WORKED
ON
EXTENSIVELY IN RECENT YEARS AND
AND LOOK FOR TO CONTINUE WORKING
ON THE OF DISSECTING AUTHOR
PARTICULARLY AROUND. DEFINITIONS
AND AND IMPLEMENTATION AND.
.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
EFFORTS ARE.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
WHAT IS AN OPPOSITION?
HELLO AGAIN SARAH BOOT ON BEHALF
OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
OUR POSITION ON THIS BILL IS
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED I WE DO
NOT OPPOSE THE CONCEPT OF THIS
BILL THAT PEOPLE SENSITIVE
HEALTH INFORMATION WITH THEIR
HEART RATE MONITORING DATA.
SHOULD HAVE HEIGHTENED PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS AND FOR THAT REASON
WE DO NOT OPPOSE THE
REQUIREMENT.
THAT HEALTH MONITORING PROGRAM
SHOULD PROVIDE CLEAR AND
CONSPICUOUS NOTICE TO CONSUMERS
OF THEIR DATA COULD BE SHARED
WHICH IS A HIGH STANDARD THAT
REQUIRES NOTICE TO STAND OUT
FROM THE SURROUNDING TAXED.
WE ALSO DO NOT OPPOSE THE
CONCEPT OF OPT IN AFFIRMATIVE
CONSENT FOR THE SHARING OF THIS
INFORMATION.
THE CONCERNS WE HAVE THIS FOLDER
TO BILL ARE TWOFOLD OUR FIRST
INFORMATION COVERED BY THE BILL
IS TOO BROADLY INTO VAGUELY
DEFINED AS A CONSUMERS. MENTAL
OR PHYSICAL CONDITION. THAT
DEFINITION CAN COVER SO MANY
DIFFERENT THINGS AND IT WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE FOR A COMPANY TO
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE. ON WHAT
KIND OF INFORMATION INCLUDING
THAT DEFINITION SECOND CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL PRESENT
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES ARE JUST
TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THEM.
THE REQUIREMENT OF SEPARATE.
CONSENT COULD RESULT IN
MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF
INFORMATION COMPETING FOR THEIR
OWN SEPARATE CONSENT. ULTIMATELY
LEADING TO USER COULD FATIGUE
PRESENTING PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF
THE IMPLEMENTATION DEPENDING ON
THE TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY.
THE REQUIREMENT OF CONSENT FOR
EVERY TYPE OF PROGRAM SHARES
INFORMATION WITH A THIRD PARTY
REGARDLESS OF THE REASON THAT
PRESENTS PRACTICAL CHALLENGES AS
WELL. AND COULD RESULT IN AN
EVER CHANGING LISTA ENTITIES
THAT WOULD NOT BE MEANINGFUL TO
CONSUMERS AGAIN RESULTING
POTENTIALLY IN USER FATIGUE.
THEN THERE'S OTHER THINGS AS
WELL BUT.
I WANT TO KNOW THAT TO DATE WE
HAVE ENGAGED IN A CONSTRUCTIVE
DIALOGUE WITH THE AUTHOR AND
PRESENTED THE AUTHOR OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE SENT A PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS THAT I'VE HIGHLIGHTED A
COUPLE MORE.
I DON'T WANT TO SUGAR COAT AND
IMPLY THAT THERE'S NOT WORK TO
DO TO REACH A PLACE OF AGREEMENT
BUT THE DIVIDE IS NOT
INSURMOUNTABLE HERE AND SO WE
HOPE THAT THE AUTHOR WILL
CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH US AND
MAKE THIS BILL WORKABLE.
THANK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD AFTERNOON NATASHA MINSKER
FOR THE ACLU OF CALIFORNIA ARE
CURRENT POSITION IS OPPOSING
LESS AMENDED WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
THE GOAL OF THIS BILL AND ARE
EAGER TO WORK WITH. THE AUTHOR
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LANGUAGES
OF FINELY TUNED TO ACHIEVE THAT
GOAL.
CHRIS MCEWEN BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION WE SHARE THE
CHAMBERS CONCERNS THANK YOU.
LARA BENNETT WITH TECHNET TEN
FOR THE LAST TIME TODAY AT LIKE
US OSHITA COMMON SENTIMENTS WITH
THOSE OF CAL CHAMBER THANK YOU
VERY TIME.
I FIELDING GRIEVES FOR THE
ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION NOT OPPOSE JUST
EXPRESSING SOME AYE CONCERNS AND
I WANT TO SHARE AN UPDATE.
FROM LAST WEEK SO THE VANCE
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
ADMITTED TRADITIONALLY.
REPRESENTS THE THE MEDICAL
DEVICES YOU THINK OF ALL TIME
CLASS ONE TWO AND THREE MEDICAL
DEVICES NOT YOUR. SORT OF
COMMERCIAL DIGITAL HEALTH
TECHNOLOGY INCREASINGLY WE HAVE
AN IMPORTANT.
DIGITAL HEALTH SECTOR THAT WE
REPRESENT FOR THE HEALTH CARE
SETTING AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO
DRAW MORE MORE DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN HEALTH CARE SETTING AND.
I THE COMMERCIAL SPACE BUT IT'S
DIFFICULT TO DO BECAUSE SOME OF
THE TECHNOLOGY SO NEW.
WE DID WANT TO SHARE THAT AS OF
LAST WEEK THE FDA HAS ANNOUNCED
A NEW REGULATORY PROCEEDING.
MOVING INTO THE SPACE IN
ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE ALL
DIGITAL HEALTH PRODUCTS
TOM IRRESPECTIVE OF SETTING.
LIKE THEY WOULD FOR MEDICAL
DEVICES OUT WE DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO
LOOK LIKE YET.
THAT WAS LITERALLY JUST
ANNOUNCE MIDDLE OF LAST WEEK AND
SO THE VANCE MICHAEL TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATIONS ONE OF THE. TOP
PLAYERS IT'S GONNA TRY TO WORK
WITH THE FDA DID TO.
IMPROVE THAT SITUATION IMPROVE
THAT REGULATORY PROCESS TO MAKE
SURE THAT OUT THAT. EVERYTHING
IS REGULATED AS A SHOULD BE.
BUT WE DID WANT TO SHARE THAT
WILL CONTINUE REVIEW THAT
LANGUAGE WERE REVIEWING THE BILL
IN FRONT OF US FURTHER TO TRYING
TO DETERMINE WHAT THE IMPACTS
WOULD BE. A IN THE CONTEXT OF
THAT NEW FTE THAT FDA
PROCEEDING.
AND OF COURSE THAT WOULD ADD
ANOTHER LAYER TO THE FDA FTC
ENFORCEMENT ABILITY THAT'S
THAT'S THERE TODAY.
SO HAPPY TO CONTINUE WORKING
WITH YOU ON A DEFINITIONAL
CHANGES ARE TWO WEEKS DOWN THE
ROAD AND THAT THE CALVARY LIFE
SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ALSO SHARES.
THAT CONCERN AS WELL THINK.
THANK YOU BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE NOW I'M MISTER BERMAN.
SO.
IT'S LIKE DEJA VU ALL OVER
AGAIN. OF.
.
YEAH DEFTLY RIGHT JUST BECAUSE
VERY NECESSARY NEEDED REGULATION
AND.
OVERLY BROAD AND VAGUE LANGUAGE.
THAT THE OPPOSITION RIGHTFULLY
AS CONCERNS ABOUT CAN YOU
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE RAISED.
FROM THE OPPOSITION AND AND
WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE TO.
AMELIORATE THOSE MOVING FORWARD.
UP WHAT THANK YOU AGAIN OF I
THINK I WANNA.
STATE THAT THIS IS STILL OING
TO BE A WORK IN PROGRESS I THINK
THERE'S. OF MUCH TO TO TO WORK
ON AND.
THE AYE IT BUT I'M I'M VERY
PLEASED TO SEE THAT THE
OPPOSITION IS A HAS A. A
PRESENTED THEIR SIDES OF THE
ARGUMENT RIGHT NOW I THINK.
WEARS BEFORE WE CAN HAVE YOU
KNOW THEY SELL YOU IN AND AND
CHAMBER NOW WE HAVE BOTH SITES
SO SO IT TO GET THE YOU KNOW I
THINK WE'RE WE'RE GOOD. BECAUSE
WEWE COULD ACTUALLY NARROW THE
SCOPE OF THE BILL TO SEE WHAT
WHAT IS A WORKABLE SOLUTION. SO.
AYE LOW FOR TO WORKING WITH
BOTH SITES ARE AND ARE IN I'M
COMMITTED TO DOING SO AS WELL
AND AND AS FAR AS THE FDA.
RULING THAT CAME DOWN AND I
JUST BEEN HANDED A COPY OF THAT
AS WELL AS WELL JUST FEW HOURS
AGO. AND WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT
AS WELL AS TO SEE WHAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS DOING AND
HOW WE COULD SPEAK OUT BILL TOO
APPIAN LINE WITHOUT THE FDA IS
DOING SO. YOU HAVE GOT
COMMITMENT FROM ME.
WE SHOULD THAT YEAH AND I'D
APPRECIATE THE COMMITMENT TO TO
WORK WITH WITH ALL PARTIES TO
MAKE SURE THAT.
THERE WE CAN ALL ACHIEVE THE
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVES.
IN A WAY THAT'S THAT'S
MANAGEABLE AND ALSO HOPEFUL FOR
THE END USER. CAPS I THINK.
MISTER OBERNOLTE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR UP SO I
AGAIN.
IT'S REALLY MATTER HERE.
ONCE A BILL GETS OUT IN THE
WILD.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET
THE VERBIAGE EXACTLY RIGHT AND I
SHARE SOME OF THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF
WHAT EXACTLY IS.
HEALTH INFORMATION. SO ADULT
ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP WORKING ON
THAT I I DO HAVE ONE. QUESTION
FOR YOU.
IN YOUR BILL AMONGST ALL OF THE
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDES
A REQUIREMENT THAT IF.
A CONSUMER OPTS OUT OF THE
DISCLOSURE THEY CONTINUE TO BE
ALLOW TO FULL USE OF THE. A OF
THE HEALTH MONITORING PROGRAM.
ALLEN I WONDER WHY YOU HAD
INCLUDED THAT BECAUSE THEN IF
YOU THINK ABOUT. ONE OR RUNNING
APPLICATION.
AND THE THE APPLICATION BECAUSE
OF THE YEAR BILL IS EXPLICIT
WITH ITS CONSUMERS ABOUT THE
FACT THAT.
WE ARE GOING TO USE YOUR
INFORMATION TO SELL YOU LIFE
INSURANCE BECAUSE IF YOU CAN RUN
A SEVEN MINUTE MILE YOU'RE
REALLY GOOD LIFE INSURANCE RISK
IN THEIR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO
COMPETE FOR YOUR BUSINESS. SO
THEY'RE EXPLICIT ABOUT THAT SO.
IF THE APPLICATION CLEARLY IS
THE PRODUCT OF.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MAN
HOURS OF TIME. MAIN THE THE
APPLICATION CREATOR HAS A PROFIT
MOTIVE FOR MAKING THAT.
WHY IF THEY'RE EXPLICIT WITH
CONSUMER SHOULDN'T THEY BE
ALLOWED TO SAY LOOK IF YOU WANT
TO USE US UNDER THOSE TERMS IT'S
FINE? AND IF YOU DON'T THEN YOU
HAVE TO PAY US FIVE DOLLARS A
MONTH WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT.
YES I THINK YOU KNOW I I'M GONNA
OPEN I MEAN AS FAR AS OFTEN
RESOLVED OUR OTHERWISE I I THINK
YOU KNOW A. THE THE INTENT IS
TO.
YOU KNOW.
BASICALLY ALERT THE USER THAT
THEY HOW OF OUR RIGHT.
.
TO THEIR OWN DATA I MEAN I I
THINK A SO.
YOU KNOW SO THE DINNER SHOW YOU
KNOW THAT THE THE IMPETUS FOR.
FOR THE OPT OUT IS JUST THAT I
MEAN I I THINK OUR.
.
YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S A IS A
STARTING POINT I MEAN I I THINK
OUR.
I'M OPEN TO ANY OTHER
SUGGESTIONS AS WELL I MEAN I I
THINK UP GUYS PAUL YOU.
THE VERY BASIC THAT RECONCILING
OKAY I THINK THE BILL WOULD BE A
LOT CLEANER NOW IF YOU DIDN'T
GET INTO THAT WHOLE RELATIONSHIP
AND JUST MERELY SAID. THAT THE.
APPLICATION PROVIDER HAD TO BE
TRANSPARENT WITH WHAT THEY WERE
DOING. AND WHAT THE CONSUMER
THEN MAKE THE DECISION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT. THAT COMMERCIAL
RELATIONSHIP WAS SATISFACTORY.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT YOU'RE
DELVING INTO A WHOLE DIFFERENT.
ENVIRONMENT YET ALL DIFFERENT
ISSUE WHEN WHEN YOU START
TALKING ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR
PART OF THE BILL. TECH DATA.
TIFFANY MS BAKER.
THANK YOU I'M I. ALMOST MISSED
IT BUT I THINK IT'S THEIR.
I BELIEVE YOU YOUR BILL
CURRENTLY WAVES BINDING
ARBITRATION.
THAT I WANNA MAKE SURE WELL I
MEAN THE WAY I READ IT IS PAGE
FOUR LINES ELEVEN TO FOURTEEN.
THAT WHY YEAH IT'S JUST OUT OF
THE HEALTH CONSENT I MEAN IT'S
JUST THERE. OF IT IT DOESN'T
WAIVE ANY ANYTHING ELSE JUST THE
CONSENT PIECE THAT IS SO PART OF
PART OF THE.
PART OF THE LANGUAGE OKAY
BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IN
THE LANGUAGE GOING TO MISTER
OBERNOLTE IS EXCELLENT POINT
THAT LANGUAGE MATTERS IS. A
WAIVER OF ANY LEGAL RIGHT
PENALTY REMEDY.
FORUM WHICH IS BINDING
ARBITRATION OR ENFORCEMENT
PROCEDURE.
PRESENTED TO THE CONSUMER IS
UNENFORCEABLE AND VOID AS A
MATTER OF LAW IN THIS PRE
CLASSIC.
GET RID OF BINDING ARBITRATION
ON WHICH THE INTENT IS JUST TO
HAVE THE LANGUAGE APPLY TO THEIR
CONSENT BECAUSE NOT NOT YOU KNOW
NOT IT ANYTHING ELSE. BUT I'LL
BE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO IT TO SEE
MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DOZEN YOU
KNOW EXTEND BEYOND WHAT WE
WANTED. YEAH I THINK YOU THAT
THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS I DO
THINK THAT IS AND. THAT IS THE
AFFECT OF THE LANGUAGE AND
APPRECIATE YOUR.
WILLINGNESS TO LOOK AT THAT
THANK YOU.
ELSE.
SEARCH OUT JUST BECAUSE I
RESPECTFULLY ASK RAGLE THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
YEAH WE HAVE A MOTION FROM IS
REYES BUT WE DO NEED A SECOND.
MISTER BERMAN HAS SECONDED THE
MOTION HIGH IT IS DO PASS.
THERE TO DO PASS.
ONCE EVERY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
NOW AYE AYE AYE KILEY NO NO.
BAKER.
NO. BERMAN AYE CALDERON.
IRWIN.
I.
MULLIN. I OBERNOLTE KNOW REYES.
I DIDN'T.
ARE.
THAT'S.
EXPERTS THE BILL IS OUT
.
BELIEVE THIS MORNING'S YOU SIR
THANK YOU.
I WAS VERY. BIG VERY MUCH OUT AT
THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO.
.
GO OVER THE AGENDA IT'S JUST
THERE TO MAKE PICK UP THE ABSENT
MEMBERS VOTE SO.
BUT I WOULD JUST GO DOWN THE
LIST HERE.
LET'S START WITH THE.
CONSENT TELL THAT WOULD BE
ITEMS NINE AND EIGHT.
.
CONSENT ITEM PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS.
NOT SENT TEN CONSENT. NINE AND
TEN.
BERMAN. I CALDERON.
MULLIN.
TENGAN SAID THE CONSENT.
TING AYE MULLIN. AYE.
THAT IS NINE NINE ZERO CONSENT
THOUGH THATDOES THEIR DUTY
SIXTY SEVEN AND ACR TO TWENTY
TWO. NOW LET'S START FROM THE
TOP FILE ITEM ONE A. B.
SEVENTEEN FORTY TWO QUARTS
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
BERMAN. AYE AYE.
CALDERON.
MULLIN.
I TING.
I THAT'S TEN.
TEN ZERO FF THOSE OUT. ITEM TO
A. B. NINETEEN OH SIX OR ONE
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
CALDERON.
TING.
I.
SEVENTY TWO AND TO THE BILL IS
OUT THE NEXT ITEM THREE AB
NINETEEN FIFTY LEVINE.
THAT WHEN WAS WE DID NOT HAVE
THE.
SECOND.
ITEM FOR AB TWENTY FIVE ELEVEN
CHILD PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS IF THAT'S A MANAGER
ASSEMBLY FLOOR JUST A TALENT.
CALDERON.
AND TING. I.
THANK YOU NEXT ITEM FIVE AB
TWENTY SIX THIRTY TWO SANTIAGO
PLEASE CALL YET ABSENT MEMBERS.
CALDERON. AYE WELL NINE.
MULLIN.
I SAID YOUNG. BABIES AND TWENTY
SIX THIRTY TWO.
I AM FIVE.
I.
TING. AYE THAT'S TEN ZERO AND
ZERO.
OUR NEXT ITEM SIX
AB THIRTY SIX TWENTY EIGHT THERE
ARE IRWIN THAT'S TWENTY SIX I'M
SORRY OKAY.
CALDERON.
I.
MULLIN.
I TING. I TENDED ZERO ZERO THAT
THOSE OUT ITEM SEVEN AB TWENTY
EIGHT SEVENTY THREE LOW PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS. TING.
I.
THAT IS NINE AND REYES NOBODY
NINE NINE ZERO NINE ZERO THAT
BILL IS UP NEXT TO ITEM EIGHT AB
TWENTY NINE THIRTY FIVE CHILD.
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
CALDERON. I.
AND SEVENTY THREE OF THOSE OUT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND. I WILL
LEAVE THAT ROLE OPEN FOR ADD
ONS.
WITH MR CONGRESS TOGETHER AND
THE CAP FOR HE WAS NOT. OKAY SO
HE STEPPED OUT HIS HERE LET'S.
LET'S GO S. STUFF FROM BEGINNING
ELECTED.
BUT LET'S START WITH CONSENT.
CONSENT ITEM PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS CALDERON. AYE
ITEM ONE A. B. SEVENTEEN FORTY
TWO QUITE PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS CALDERON. AYE.
ITEM TWO AB IN NINETEEN OH SIX
IRWIN PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS CALDERON.
EIGHT EIGHT TWO EIGHT EIGHT ITEM
THREE AB TETE A NINETEEN FIFTY.
IS TAKEN ARE NOT VOTING A. B..
ITEM FOR AB TWENTY FIVE ELEVEN
CHAO PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS.
CALDERON.
THAT BILL IS NOT TO TAKE OUT A
TWO ONE TWO ONE FIVE AB TWENTY
SIX THIRTY TWO CENTS IAGO PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS. HE'S
OUR VOTE IT SO WHERE ARE WE
GOING TO.
IT SAID ON EVERYTHING ELSE GREAT
SO WHERE ARE WE GET.
WHERE DO WE DON'T?
S. TEKKEN.
YEAH.
MAKE IT.
MEETINGS A JOURNAL