GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WELCOME TO THE ASSEMBLY. PRIVACY
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
COMMITTEE HEARING, WE WILL BE
HEARING ONE BILL TODAY AND, FOR
ANYONE WHO'S NOT HERE, YOU CAN
PROVIDE TESTIMONY ONLINE, LET'S
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. BAUER-KAHAN
HERE. PATTERSON BRIAN. DIXON
HOOVER. IRWIN LOWENTHAL. ERIC
ORTEGA HERE. WARD. HERE. WICKS.
WILSON HERE. WE HAVE A QUORUM.
SENATOR WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANKS VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS IN 2022, I AUTHORED SB
301 AND SB 301. PURPOSE WELL, SB
301, JUST ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT WE
ALL KNOW, WHICH IS WHERE WE BUY
THINGS MOSTLY THESE DAYS IS
ONLINE. SO GONE ARE THE DAYS
WHERE IF YOU'RE SOMEBODY WHO
STEALS A LOT OF GOODS OR YOU'RE
AN ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT ENTITY
, OR YOU'RE NOT SELLING ON A
CORNER OR OUT OF THE TRUNK OF A
CAR, YOU'RE SELLING ONLINE. SO
GIVEN THAT YOU'RE USING VARIOUS
INTERNET MARKETPLACE PLACES TO
SELL ONLINE, THE PURPOSE OF SB
301 WAS TO GET THE MARKETPLACES
TO, VERIFY THAT THEIR HIGH
VOLUME SELLERS NOT JUST LIKE IF
I GO SELL SOMETHING ME AS AN
INDIVIDUAL, BUT THEY'RE HIGH
VOLUME SELLERS, MEANING, YOU
KNOW, MULTIPLE TRANSACTIONS IN A
YEAR OVER A CERTAIN DOLLAR
AMOUNT ARE LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES
. SO ASK THEM FOR INFORMATION
LIKE, EXCUSE ME, TAX ID NUMBERS,
VARIOUS THINGS LIKE THAT. SO
IT'S GREAT. IT'S BEEN WORKING
REALLY WELL. THE AG'S OFFICE AND
VARIOUS OF OUR, DA'S ACROSS THE
STATE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GO AFTER
ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT. SOME OF
YOU MAY HAVE REMEMBERED THE,
ARTICLE, LOTS OF ARTICLES ABOUT
THE VERY WEALTHY COUPLE IN SAN
DIEGO WHO WOULD TEXT. THEY WOULD
EMPLOY PEOPLE. NOW, I DOUBT THEY
PAID EMPLOYMENT TAXES, BUT STILL
THEY WERE PAYING PEOPLE TO STEAL
THINGS, AND THEY WERE TEXTING
THEM AND SAYING, HEY, THIS KIND
OF PERFUME IS REALLY POPULAR
THESE DAYS. WE NEED A WHOLE LOT
MORE OF THAT. GO TO ALL THE
SEPHORA, STEAL IT. RIGHT? SO SO
IF YOU'RE A PETTY THEFT AND
YOU'RE STEALING PERFUME, YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO MAKE MUCH MONEY OFF
IT. BUT IF YOU'RE WORKING FOR AN
ORGANIZED RETAIL ENTITY, WHO'S
GOING TO PAY YOU TO STEAL THAT
STUFF BECAUSE THEY THEN SELL IT
IN LARGE VOLUME ONLINE, THEN
YOU'RE MAKING A BIG YOU'VE GOT A
BIG BUSINESS RIGHT? SO WHAT'S
HAPPENED SINCE 301? MANY OF
THESE, ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT
ENTITIES ARE USING MARKETPLACES
WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS THÀNH THE
DOLLAR EXCHANGE DOESN'T HAPPEN
EXACTLY ON THE SITE, BUT THEY'RE
STILL SELLING HIGH VOLUMES OF
STOLEN GOODS. SO THE PURPOSE OF
THIS BILL IS TO GET THOSE
MARKETPLACES REYES TO GET THE
SAME INFORMATION FROM THOSE
RETAILERS. I CALL THEM RETAILERS
FOR THOSE, THIEVES SO THAT WE
CAN HAVE OUR BEST SHOT AT
VERIFYING IF THEY'RE A
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS AND IF
THEY'RE NOT A LEGITIMATE
BUSINESS. IT ENABLES OUR AG OR
DA OR WHOEVER TO THEN, BEGIN TO
PROSECUTE. SO THAT'S REALLY THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL. AND WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR FROM OUR
OPPOSITION VARIOUS THINGS, WHICH
I'LL WAIT AND LET YOU ASK ME
QUESTIONS ABOUT SO I CAN RESPOND
TO WHY IT'S NOT NECESSARILY
CREDIBLE. I WON'T GO INTO THAT
NOW. I'M JUST GOING TO LET MY
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT SPEAK.
AND, WE'LL PROCEED AND SO I HAVE
HERE CHRISTINE SOTO DEBERRY FROM
THE, PROSECUTOR'S ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA AND MARGARET
GLADSTEIN FROM THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. HAPPY TO BE HERE
TODAY. THE PROSECUTOR'S ALLIANCE
ACTION WORKS WITH PROSECUTORS,
VICTIM ADVOCATES, CRIME
SURVIVORS TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES
FOR SAFER COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT
OUR STATE. WE'RE A PROUD SPONSOR
OF SB 1144. AS PROSECUTORS, WE
UNDERSTAND OUR BEST WORK IS DONE
WHEN WE CAN PREVENT CRIME RATHER
THAN SIMPLY SHOWING UP AFTER THE
FACT WITH CONSEQUENCES. AND SB
1144 IS PRECISELY THIS KIND OF
MEASURE. IT'S A SMART SOLUTION
THAT ALLOWS US TO CURB RETAIL
THEFT BEFORE IT HAPPENS. AS YOU
HEARD SENATOR SKINNER INDICATE,
THERE IS A MASSIVE OPPORTUNITY
AND INCENTIVE AT THE MOMENT TO
STEAL ITEMS FROM BRICK AND
MORTAR STORES AND SELL THEM
ONLINE. THE COUPLE, REFERENCED
IN SAN DIEGO, MADE OVER $8
MILLION SELLING THOSE ITEMS
ONLINE, AN ENORMOUS PROFIT
MARGIN AND THE OPPORTUNITY IS
WHERE WE HAVE THE GREATEST
ABILITY TO CURTAIL THIS, CONDUCT
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN
2022, ONLY 6% OF THEFT CRIMES
WERE SOLVED. SINGLE DIGITS. AND
SO WHILE ENFORCEMENT IS AN
IMPORTANT STRATEGY, AND ONE
OBVIOUSLY IS PROSECUTORS THAT WE
SUPPORT, IT CANNOT BE THE SOLE
STRATEGY IN DEALING WITH RETAIL
THEFT AND FORTUNATELY, IN THIS
AREA, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
EMPLOY SMART REGULATIONS THAT
WILL HELP US SHRINK THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS KIND OF
CRIME. THIS MEASURE SIMPLY
REQUIRES THAT OF SELLERS THAT
MAKE OVER 200 TRANSACTIONS IN A
CALENDAR YEAR, THAT TOTALS MORE
THAN $5,000, HAVE ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY MUST
SUBMIT TO THE ONLINE PLATFORM
AMAZON. OFFER UP FACEBOOK
MARKETPLACE SO THAT IF LAW
ENFORCEMENT SUSPECTS CONDUCT
THAT IS ILLEGAL, THEY HAVE AN
ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCE
OF THOSE GOODS AND CONDUCT AN
INVESTIGATION. IT ALSO ALLOWS
CONSUMERS TO ENSURE THAT THE
PEOPLE THEY ARE PURCHASING ITEMS
FROM HAVE COMPLIED WITH THOSE
REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDES
OPPORTUNITIES FOR US AS
CONSUMERS TO SHARE WHAT WE THINK
MIGHT BE ACTIVITY OF STOLEN
GOODS. ALL OF THESE ARE AN
IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL
HELP US GET A HANDLE ON THE
ISSUES OF RETAIL THEFT IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE'RE
EXCITED TO BE A SPONSOR ON THIS
MEASURE. WE HAVE BEEN PROUD TO
WORK WITH SENATOR SKINNER. SHE
HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO MEET
WITH ALL OF THE IMPORTANT
STAKEHOLDERS OF THE ONLINE
MARKETPLACES THEMSELVES.
RETAILERS LAW ENFORCEMENT, ALL
IN SUPPORT. THIS WILL MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. WE URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MARGARET GLADSTEIN.
COUPLE ADVOCACY HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION. WE'RE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE. WE WERE
PLEASED TO WORK WITH SENATOR
SKINNER WHEN SHE CARRIED SB 301.
THAT WAS A VERY HELPFUL PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, AND WE'RE VERY
PLEASED THAT WE HAVE WORKED WITH
HER ON THIS BILL, WHICH WE THINK
CLOSES A FEW OF THE LOOPHOLES
THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN SB 301. SO
WE THINK THIS WILL BRING
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT AND WILL
AGAIN HELP STOP THE BACK END
PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE SEEING,
WHERE STOLEN GOODS OFTEN
SOMETIMES STORE BRANDED GOODS
ARE BEING SOLD ONLINE, NOT AT
THAT STORE. SO WE APPRECIATE ALL
OF THE BILLS THAT ARE GOING
THROUGH TO HELP STOP RETAIL
THEFT, INCLUDING THIS ONE. AND
WE ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE
IN THE ROOM IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE? GOOD AFTERNOON, TAMARA
SCOTT, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, DEVON
ANDERSON WITH POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS, ON BEHALF OF TARGET
AND THE HOME DEPOT AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JULIE
NAVAS, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. RYAN
MAUMENEE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN
SUPPORT, GLEN BACCHUS FOR ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AND SMART JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA,
IN SUPPORT. JAMIE MINOR, KIND OF
A TWEENER, ON BEHALF OF EBAY, WE
REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK
THAT'S GONE INTO IT AND THE
AMENDMENTS TAKEN BY THE AUTHOR.
WE WERE PLEASED TO SUPPORT SB
301 AS WELL, WE'RE MOVING
TOWARDS A NEUTRAL POSITION AND
APPRECIATE AGAIN ALL THE WORK.
THANKS. THANK YOU. SO DO WE HAVE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? OKAY. TECHNET, COME
ON UP.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. DYLAN HOFFMAN,
ON BEHALF OF TECHNET. AND WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO SB 1144.
AND WHILE WE DO REALLY
APPRECIATE THE RECENT AMENDMENTS
AND THE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SOME
OF OUR ONLINE MARKETPLACE
MEMBERS CONCERNS, THEY DON'T
IMPACT OUR MAIN CONCERN, WHICH
IS THAT THIS BILL AND THE
CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION OF
HIGH VOLUME SELLER, TAKES
CALIFORNIA OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH
THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, IN
TERMS OF THE INFORM ACT, THE WE
BELIEVE THIS BILL WILL CREATE
SOME SEPARATE AND BURDENSOME
REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, SMALL SELLERS AND
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LOOKING TO
SELL ONLINE IN CALIFORNIA, AND
FURTHERMORE, THERE'S NO
DIRECTION AS TO HOW CERTAIN
PLATFORMS CAN OR SHOULD TRACK IN
PERSON TRANSACTIONS. FOR THESE
COUNTS AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR
COMPLIANCE PURPOSES. SO TECHNET,
OUR OUR MARKETPLACE MEMBERS,
TAKE THE ISSUE OF ORGANIZED
RETAIL CRIME VERY SERIOUSLY,
WE'VE PARTICIPATED IN A THOROUGH
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS ORGANIZED BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. WE'VE
TESTIFIED AT INFORMATIONAL
HEARINGS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
ON OUR WORK IN THIS AREA, WE
WERE ALSO PART OF THE NATIONAL
NEGOTIATIONS IN 2022 ON THE
INFORM ACT, BOTH IN CONGRESS AND
ALSO HERE IN CALIFORNIA ON SB
301. WE ARE PARTNERS ON THAT. WE
REACHED A COMPROMISE. TECHNET
OURSELVES REMAINED NEUTRAL
THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. AND
BOTH OF THOSE LAWS WENT INTO
EFFECT DURING THE SUMMER OF LAST
YEAR. BUT SINCE THAT TIME, WE'RE
NOT AWARE OF ANY DATA OR
EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE CHANGES
IN THIS BILL TO THE DEFINITION
OF HIGH VOLUME SELLER. THAT
DEFINITION WAS THE SUBJECT OF
CAREFUL NEGOTIATIONS HERE AND IN
CONGRESS. IT WAS A DELIBERATE
POLICY CHOICE, NOT A LOOPHOLE TO
EXCLUDE OFF PLATFORM SELLERS
SALES. THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR CERTAIN ONLINE
MARKETPLACES TO KNOW IF AN ITEM
WAS ACTUALLY SOLD THROUGH THE
PLATFORM, IF IT DID NOT
FACILITATE THE PAYMENT OR THE
SHIPMENT. AS AN EXAMPLE, IF
YOU'VE EVER USED A PLATFORM LIKE
OFFERUP OR FACEBOOK MARKETPLACE,
USUALLY THE FIRST QUESTION THAT
EITHER A BUYER OR ASKS IF
THEY'RE REACHING OUT TO A SELLER
IS, IS THIS STILL AVAILABLE?
BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW.
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE LEAVE UP
THAT LISTING EVEN AFTER THE ITEM
HAS BEEN SOLD, OR THEY'VE
DECIDED NOT TO LIST IT ANYMORE,
AND THE PLATFORM ITSELF DOESN'T
KNOW WHETHER THAT TRANSACTION
HAS BEEN COMPLETED. OFTENTIMES
PEOPLE MEET UP IN PERSON. THEY
EITHER COMPLETE THE PAYMENT
THROUGH A DIFFERENT PAYMENT
PROCESSOR OR THROUGH CASH. AND
SO THERE'S NO WAY TO TRACK
WHETHER THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
AS FAR AS THE THRESHOLDS AND
HIGH VOLUME SELLER ARE
CONCERNED. AND SO WITHOUT THAT
EXCLUSION, MARKETPLACES WILL
HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL SELLERS AS
HIGH VOLUME SELLERS IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THIS LAW. TO DO
OTHERWISE COULD OPEN THEM UP TO
INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
CONSEQUENTLY, REQUIRING THESE
MARKETPLACES TO COLLECT, HOLD,
AND SOMETIMES DISCLOSE SENSITIVE
PERSONAL INFORMATION SUCH AS
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, BANK
ACCOUNT NUMBERS, FROM MANY
CALIFORNIANS WHO USE THESE
PLATFORMS TO ADVERTISE THESE
SALES, WE DON'T BELIEVE IS
WARRANTED. THIS BALANCE IN
CURRENT LAW WAS STRUCK TO
PROTECT SMALL SELLERS AND THEIR
PRIVATE INFORMATION. THE CURRENT
THRESHOLD AND THE DEFINITION
RECOGNIZES THAT WHEN SELLERS
REACH A THRESHOLD LEVEL OF
ACTIVITY OR SALES, THE PRIVACY
TRADE OFF IS WARRANTED. BUT
STRIKING THE OFF PLATFORM
EXEMPTION IS CONTRARY TO
CALIFORNIA'S PRINCIPLES FOR
PROTECTING CONSUMERS AND SELLERS
SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS, WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN THE ROOM IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS. JONATHAN
ARAMBULA, ON BEHALF OF OFFERUP.
ALSO IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
OKAY. SEEING NO ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE
MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
SECOND, MR. LOWENTHAL? YEAH
VICE. MR. VICE CHAIR. GREAT.
THANK YOU, IN THE EVENT, JUST A
QUESTION FOR OPPOSITION, IN THE
EVENT THAT, A PLATFORM HAS,
SUSPECTED STOLEN GOODS ON THEIR
PLATFORM, I'M SURE IT'S
DIFFERENT PER PLATFORM, BUT WHAT
SHOULD OCCUR? I THINK THAT'S A
REALLY GOOD QUESTION. AND AS YOU
NOTED, IT DOES DIFFER DEPENDING
ON THE PLATFORM. THEY HAVE
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CONTROL AND
SORT OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH EACH
SORT OF SELLER, SOME HAVE MUCH
CLOSER TO A CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP. MANY ARE SORT OF
FORMING THAT THROUGH TERMS OF
SERVICE. AND SO, I TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, ALL OF OUR MEMBER
COMPANIES HAVE POLICIES AGAINST
SELLING BOTH, COUNTERFEIT BUT
ALSO ILLEGAL GOODS ON THEIR
PLATFORMS, SO MANY ARE UTILIZING
THEIR INTERNAL REVIEW SYSTEMS TO
IDENTIFY AND REMOVE THOSE, THOSE
LISTINGS BAN THOSE TYPES OF
SELLERS SO THAT THAT WORK IS
ONGOING ON THE PLATFORM SIDE TO
TRY TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THIS
ISSUE THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I
MAY ADDRESS THAT, OF COURSE, AS
WE HEARD FROM OUR OPPOSITION,
THIS INDICATION OF, WELL, FIRST,
JUST, AFFIRMED THAT THEY ARE
DOING THEIR BEST TO TRY TO, NOT
HAVE STOLEN GOODS SOLD. HOWEVER
HOWEVER, IT IS WHAT THIS BILL
DOES IS ALLOW OUR DA'S AND OUR
AG TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT
ENFORCEMENT AND NOT PURELY TO
RELY ON, THE MARKETPLACE TO BE
THE POLICE OF THIS, AND, BUT
ADDITIONALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN
ISSUES RAISED THAT THE, THAT
THERE'S NO WAY SOME OF THESE
MARKETPLACES CAN, THEY DON'T
KNOW THESE THINGS ABOUT A
SELLER, BUT ANY OF US AND I HAD
MY STAFF DO THIS IS WE KNOW WHEN
WE WHEN WE USE ANY, SITE, WE'RE
OFTEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO
AGREE TO PERMISSIONS RIGHT
BEFORE WE CAN, GET ACCESS TO IT.
WE HAVE TO AGREE TO VARIOUS
THINGS. THESE ARE THE TERMS OF
THIS PARTICULAR SITE. WELL MANY
OF THESE MARKETPLACES, THEIR
TERMS ARE THAT YOU THAT THEY
WOULD BE ABLE TO REQUEST THAT
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT PRIVATE,
THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
REQUEST YOUR NAME, YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS, YOUR CONTACT
INFORMATION, YOUR LOCATION,
YOUR, BANK INFO, POTENTIALLY TAX
ID, VARIOUS OF THESE THINGS. SO
AS THE USER, YOU HAVE ALREADY
AGREED WHETHER THE MARKETPLACE
IS CURRENTLY COLLECTING THAT OR
NOT, I CAN'T VERIFY, BUT YOU'VE
CERTAINLY BY JUST BEING THE USER
OF IT, AGREED TO THAT. SO THAT
NUMBER ONE SHOWS US RIGHT AWAY
THAT THESE MARKETPLACES HAVE THE
ABILITY TO GET THAT INFORMATION
AND BE ABLE TO PROVIDE IT TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT IF NECESSARY. IF LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS SEEING A PATTERN
OF, OF, POTENTIAL STOLEN GOODS
FROM A PARTICULAR USER, BUT THE
OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THIS DOES
NOT COVER EVERY SINGLE USER OF
THESE MARKETPLACES. IT ONLY
COVERS HIGH VOLUME SELLERS. SO
IT IS A DISTINCT UNIVERSE, AND
THOSE HAVE TO BE 200 DISTINCT
TRANSACTIONS IN A YEAR. THANK
YOU. SENATOR YEAH. SO, I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY DEAD A LOT
IN THIS COMMITTEE WITH, VARIOUS
THINGS COMING THROUGH, ONE THING
THAT HAS BEEN OF INTEREST TO ME
JUST SINCE I GOT HERE IS, THE
SALE OF FENTANYL THAT OCCURS
ONLINE. WHETHER, YOU KNOW, I'VE
ALWAYS AGREED THAT NONE OF THE
PLATFORMS WANT IT TO HAPPEN. AND
THEY HAVE ROBUST TOOLS TO, YOU
KNOW, TRY TO TRACK IT DOWN AND
GET RID OF IT ON THE PLATFORM.
AND, THE, THE CRIMINALS ARE GOOD
AT EVADING THAT AS WELL,
CHANGING SORT OF THEIR
MECHANISMS ON HOW THEY SELL
FENTANYL. BUT I KIND OF FEEL
LIKE IF THE PLATFORM KNOWS THAT
THERE'S, STOLEN GOODS BEING SOLD
ON THE PLATFORM, JUST LIKE, AS
IF THEY KNEW THERE'S FENTANYL ON
THE PLATFORM, THAT THEY OUGHT TO
REPORT THAT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I CAN SEE SOME COMPLICATIONS
AROUND THE REPORTING MECHANISM
AND SORT OF WHO'S SITTING BEHIND
THE COMPUTER. AND YOU KNOW, HOW
THAT'S ALL GOING TO WORK IN
PRACTICE. BUT I THINK AS A
GENERAL RULE THAT THAT SHOULD BE
REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF I
DON'T THINK I MEAN, I HOPE THE
PLATFORMS DON'T DISAGREE WITH
THAT. IF THE PLATFORMS ARE BEING
FACILITATED, BEING THE
FACILITATOR OF SELLING STOLEN
GOODS. SO THAT'S WHERE I GET
KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE
OTHER OPTION, YOU KNOW, ON THIS.
AND SO I'M OPEN TO OTHER
OPTIONS. VOTED FOR IT LIKE TWO
HOURS AGO, BUT THAT WAS MY FIRST
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SO I DIDN'T
REALLY I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS. BUT
I'M JOKING. I ALREADY USED THAT
JOKE IN THAT COMMITTEE, BUT BUT,
YEAH, I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S
CERTAIN IF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S
ILLEGAL CONDUCT GOING ON, YOU
GOT TO REPORT IT. I MEAN, THAT'S
KIND OF WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON
THIS BILL, AND I'M ALWAYS OPEN
IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT.
BY THE WAY, I'D LOVE TO HEAR
HEAR IT. YEAH. NO, I THINK WE
ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT, NOT ONLY
ARE OUR PLATFORMS LOOKING FOR IT
TO TRY TO ROOT IT OUT AND REPORT
IT, BUT WHEN THEY DO FIND IT,
THEY ARE REPORTING IT. WE HAVE,
PRETTY ROBUST RELATIONSHIPS WITH
VARIOUS AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THAT. I THINK WHERE,
YOU KNOW, I WOULD SORT OF
CAUTION IS THE REQUIREMENT TO DO
SO. I THINK YOU START RUNNING
INTO FOURTH AMENDMENT PROBLEMS,
RELATED TO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES. WITH THAT
GUARDRAIL ASIDE, I THINK THERE
ARE WAYS TO, FOR PLATFORMS TO BE
MORE PROACTIVE AND WORK WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND THOSE ARE THE
TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS WE'VE
BEEN FACILITATING OVER THE LAST
FEW YEARS. I'M ALSO NOT A FAN OF
VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION, SO I
WOULD ENCOURAGE, OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS AND THE
GOVERNMENT TO NOT DO THAT IF
THIS BILL PASSES. SO I COULDN'T
AGREE MORE, THANK YOU. IF I MAY,
YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN EXPECTATION
OF PRIVACY AND AS THE SENATOR
POINTED OUT, THE TERMS OF
SERVICE EXPLICITLY SAY YOU DO
NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY,
WHICH WOULD PREEMPT THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT CLAIM, MR. WARD, THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FOR
US. I'M KIND OF THINKING ABOUT
THIS REALLY IN THREE PARTS,
THERE'S TWO. I HAVE NO PROBLEM
WITH AS WELL. THE EXPANSION AND
ABILITY FOR LOCAL PROSECUTORS TO
BE ABLE TO DO THIS, I THINK, CAN
BE VERY HELPFUL, A LOT QUICKER
TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE AND
RESOLVE AND PROSECUTE AN ISSUE,
AND I THINK TO THE MY
COLLEAGUE'S POINT AS WELL,
ANOTHER PROVISION IN THERE THAT
REALLY WOULD REQUIRE PLATFORMS
TO HAVE, A MECHANISM FOR
COMMUNICATION WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO REPORT STOLEN
GOODS. MY ONLY CURIOSITY THERE
IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ABOUT AN
ERRANT USER OR SOMEBODY THAT IS,
YOU KNOW, SORT OF, PROVIDING
DIFFICULTY THERE, MAYBE
MISCATEGORIZING SOMETHING AS, A
STOLEN GOOD. AND USING THIS AS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD ON A LOT
OF WILD GOOSE CHASES THAT ARE
REALLY LEGITIMATE OR LAW
FACTORS. SOMETHING TO THINK
ABOUT, BUT BUT I LIKE THE
MECHANISM THERE BECAUSE I THINK
IT WOULD SATISFY THE
COMMUNICATION LINK THERE. THE
CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE ABOUT
REPORTING STOLEN GOODS IS THE
ABILITY TO PROSECUTE THAT. BUT
BUT I BUT I DO HAVE CONCERN ON
ON THE FIRST PART. RIGHT. THIS
DEFINITIONAL CHANGE RIGHT NOW.
AND WHILE IT MAKES SENSE TO ME
ON ONE HAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
ARE LIMITING THIS HIGH VOLUME
USERS AS YOU'VE DEFINED IT, I
HAVE BEEN PROCESSING WHAT THE
OPPOSITION HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT
THE DEFINITION CHANGE MAYBE
BEING SO AMBIGUOUS OR SO
DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT IT
APPLIES TO THEM, THAT THEY ARE
RUNNING RISK OF THIS BILL OR
THIS TO BE THE WAY IT IS GOING
FORWARD. MAKING IT INFEASIBLE
FOR THEM TO OR TOO RISKY FOR
THEM TO MAYBE BE ABLE TO
IMPLEMENT. IN OTHER WORDS,
THINKING ABOUT MAYBE SOME OF THE
ACTIONS THAT CONGRESS HAS BEEN
VETTING ON TECHNOLOGY VÆ LAWS AS
RECENTLY AS WELL, TOO. AND THE
THREAT IS, YOU KNOW, WELL, WE
MAY JUST HAVE TO GO OUT, YOU
KNOW, GO OUT OF BUSINESS
ALTOGETHER. AND THESE ARE USEFUL
PLATFORMS FOR JUST A PEER TO
PEER TRANSACTION. RIGHT. IF
YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL YOUR
COUCH, IT'S HONEST AND IT'S
HELPFUL AND IT'S A GOOD THING
USERS LIKE IT, AND I'M TRYING TO
SORT OF THREAD THAT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS ISN'T A VEHICLE FOR,
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. RIGHT. BUT
THAT THE MECHANISM OF THE
PLATFORM IS STILL, FUNCTIONAL IN
A WAY THAT ALLOWS FOR THE GOOD
ACTIVITIES TO HAPPEN, BUT ISN'T
REQUIRING SOMETHING THAT IS SO
DIFFICULT FOR A TECHNOLOGY
COMPANY TO BE ABLE TO FULLY
ENCAPSULATE TO THE EXTENT THAT
WE ARE PRESCRIBING IN THIS BILL,
AND HOW WOULD WE HOW WOULD WE
THREAD THAT, WELL, THERE'S A
CHANGE IN DEFINITION. IT STILL
HAS. IT STILL HAS TO BE A LOT OF
TRANSACTIONS AND A LARGE DOLLAR
AMOUNT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU
SELL YOUR COUCH ON ONE OF THESE
SITES, YOU'RE NOT THE YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO FALL UNDER THIS. NOW
YES, IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT
SOMEBODY COULD STEAL 20 COUCHES
AND USE 20 DIFFERENT
MARKETPLACES. BUT THAT'S NOT
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE MUCH
MONEY ON THAT IN OTHER WORDS, IF
YOU'RE SOMEBODY LIKE THE COUPLE
IN SAN DIEGO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE A
BIG BUSINESS WHO IS UNLOADING
LARGE AMOUNTS OF GOODS ON
PROBABLY MAYBE ONE OR A COUPLE
OF SITES. RIGHT? YEAH. AND IF
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT ANY OF THESE
ARE INTERNET PLATFORMS, THEIR
BUSINESS IS COLLECTING DATA AND
THEY HAVE THE DATA AND THEY SO,
I WILL LET, ONE OF MY SPONSORS,
I'LL LET CHRISTINE ALSO ADD TO
THIS, FROM PROSECUTORS ALLIANCE,
BUT, I THINK THE, THE FEAR THAT
THIS IS GOING TO, TO PULL IN
THOSE OF US WHO YOU KNOW,
CASUALLY, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF
THE GARAGE SALE, DECIDE TO SELL
THINGS ONLINE, IT'S JUST NOT
GOING TO BE THAT LEVEL OF
INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS. BUT GO
AHEAD, CHRISTINE, WHY DON'T YOU
ADD TO THAT? THANK YOU. SENATOR.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD
QUESTION. AND WE'VE WE'VE GONE
THROUGH A LOT OF AMENDMENTS TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE AS TAILORED AS
WE CAN BE IN THIS APPROACH, ALL
OF THE ONLINE PLATFORMS THAT
WE'VE LOOKED AT, THE LARGE ONES
YOU ALL KNOW ABOUT, COLLECT
DOZENS OF FIELDS OF INFORMATION
ALREADY UPWARDS OF 22. WHAT WE
WOULD BE ASKING FOR THOSE THAT
CROSS OVER INTO THIS HIGH VOLUME
SELLER IS THAT THEY PROVIDE, FOR
EXAMPLE, WITH OFFER UP COLLECTS
22 FIELDS OF INFORMATION. WE'D
BE ASKING THEM FOR TWO
ADDITIONAL, WHICH WOULD BE A
GOVERNMENT ID, A BANK ACCOUNT OR
THEIR TAX ID. SO OPTIONS, NOT
NECESSARILY ALL OF THESE. THOSE
ARE THE THREE THAT ARE TRIGGERED
BY BEING A HIGH VOLUME SELLER.
OFFER UP ALREADY REQUIRES A
GOVERNMENT ID, SO IT WOULD JUST
BE THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THEIR
TAX ID. SO THIS IS A VERY SMALL
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT ON THOSE
SELLERS THAT CROSS OVER INTO THE
THRESHOLD. I THINK THAT EACH
PLATFORM, WILL DECIDE HOW THEY
WANT TO GO THROUGH THE VARIOUS
SELLERS THEY HAVE ON THEIR, IN
THEIR BUSINESS AND, AND APPLY
THIS. WE DIDN'T SEEK TO
PRESCRIBE THAT FOR THEM IN THE
SAME WAYS. WE DIDN'T SEEK TO
OVERREGULATE WHAT THAT
COMMUNICATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE WE KNOW WE
EXPECT THAT MOST OF THESE ARE
BUSINESSES THAT INDEED DON'T
WANT THAT ACTIVITY ON THEIR
PLATFORM AS WELL AND WILL BE
GOOD PARTNERS IN THIS. BUT IT IS
REALLY A MINUSCULE ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE SELLERS
THAT CROSS OVER. I AGREE, IF
THEY WERE AT THAT LEVEL, BUT
PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, IF YOU
WERE THE SEPHORA COUPLE AND YOU
CREATED AN ACCOUNT AND TRIED TO
SELL 100 OF THE 100 OF THOSE
ITEMS, YOU WOULDN'T MEET THE
DEFINITION. YOU WOULDN'T MAYBE
NEED TO REGISTER AS THIS, RIGHT?
BUT AS YOU CAN, YOU CAN LOG OUT
OF THAT. YOU CAN CREATE ANOTHER
ACCOUNT. I CAN CREATE 100 GMAIL
ACCOUNTS. RIGHT. AND SO YOU'RE
DOING THIS SORT OF, YOU KNOW, ON
A SINGULAR BASIS. AND NONE OF
THOSE ACCOUNTS THEN WOULD THEN
BE SUBJECT TO BECAUSE AS
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS, THEY'RE NOT
A HIGH VOLUME SELLER. YES BUT
YOU'RE OKAY. SO YOU USE THE
EMAIL AS AN EXAMPLE. BUT SINCE
YOU ALREADY, FOR MOST OF THESE
SITES ALREADY HAVE TO GIVE THE
ID INDEPENDENT OF AN EMAIL, ARE
YOU GOING TO HAVE TO OR ARE YOU
GOING TO GO AND CREATE 100 FAKE
IDS. RIGHT. ARE YOU GOING TO
HAVE 100? YOU KNOW, SO IT'S I
CAN IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, CRIMINALS
ARE CLEVER. THEY CAN POTENTIALLY
GAME IT. BUT IN GENERAL, WE'VE
TRIED TO DESIGN THIS SO THAT IT
DOES NOT CAPTURE THE INDIVIDUAL
SELLERS, BUT IN FACT CAPTURES
THE HIGH VOLUME SEVERAL YEARS
AGO, I YEARS AGO, WHEN I SIGNED
UP FOR A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT, I
DIDN'T UPLOAD AN ID. SO DOES
MARKETPLACE REQUIRE THAT NOW?
FACEBOOK MARKETPLACE DOES NOT
OFFER UP DOES SO IT VARIES
ACROSS THE PLATFORMS, BUT THEY
ALL COLLECT AT LEAST 17
DIFFERENT FIELDS OF INFORMATION,
UPWARDS OF 22. SO THEY'RE
ALREADY GATHERING A LOT OF
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PEOPLE
CONDUCTING TRANSACTIONS ON THEIR
SITES. IT IS JUST FOR THOSE THAT
CROSS OVER THESE ADDITIONAL
ITEMS. AND IS THE IS THE
PLATFORM THEN AT RISK OF
LIABILITY IF THERE'S A IF
THERE'S SOMEBODY, A USER I
GUESS, IN THE GRAY ZONE. IN
OTHER WORDS, IF THEY HAD NOT
BEEN REPORTING SUSPICIOUS
ACTIVITY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OR
SOMEBODY HAD CROSSED THE 200
ITEM THRESHOLD, SO, SO THE
STANDARD IN THE, IN THE LANGUAGE
NOW IS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN. RIGHT. SO IF THEY IF THE
PLATFORM CAN EXPLAIN TO THE
LOCAL PROSECUTOR EITHER THE CITY
ATTORNEY OR THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, AND THAT'S PURSUING
THE CASE, WE HAD NO WAY TO KNOW
BECAUSE THEY MASKED THEIR
IDENTITY THROUGH ALL THESE
DIFFERENT STRATEGIES. THEN A
PROSECUTOR, BEING ONE MYSELF,
WOULD SAY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT
SEEMS REASONABLE. BUT IF THEY
CAME FORWARD AND THEY WERE USING
ALL OF THE SAME IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION AND CHANGING ONE
VERY SMALL VARIABLE, THEN YOU
MAY LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY. SO
WE'VE CREATED A RELATIVELY HIGH
STANDARD FOR WHEN CIVIL
PENALTIES MIGHT APPLY FOR THE
PLATFORMS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL
JUST CLOSE AND SAY, YOU KNOW,
UNLESS, THE OPPOSITION HAD ANY
FURTHER DETAIL TO, TO KIND OF
PROVIDE ON THIS, THAT MY
CONFUSION THAT I'M INCLINED TO
SUPPORT TODAY. BUT I'M REALLY
NERVOUS THAT OF WHAT I'M READING
HERE THAT SOMEHOW WE MIGHT BE
PRESCRIBING SOMETHING SO, SO, SO
CLEARLY UNDER A DEFINITION ON
THAT IT IS GOING TO CAUSE A
CHAIN REACTION THAT'S GOING TO
MAKE SOME, YOU KNOW, CONVENIENT
PLATFORMS FEEL THAT IT'S
UNWORKABLE HERE, GIVEN THAT, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS, MATERIAL THAT'S
BEEN DEVELOPED THUS FAR, YOU
KNOW, REALLY THROUGH VERY GOOD
AND HELPFUL NEGOTIATION TO BE
ABLE TO GET DEFINITIONS RIGHT.
THAT'S THE SOURCE OF MY ANXIETY
HERE IS I DON'T WANT TO, YOU
KNOW, THROW OUT AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR 99 PLUS PERCENT OF USERS
THAT ARE DOING SOMETHING
CONVENIENTLY, LAWFULLY, BECAUSE
WE ARE WE ARE WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE
MESSING UP A DEFINITION HERE.
THANK YOU. AND I'M JUST I'M
RECONCILING. I, I THINK I IF I,
I APPRECIATE YOUR TERMINOLOGY OF
MESSING UP A DEFINITION. I THINK
THAT WE AS, MISTER SOTO POINTED
OUT, WE DID NOT MESS UP A
DEFINITION. WE WORKED VERY
CLOSELY WITH. OKAY, MANY OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS WITH THE AG'S
OFFICE, WITH RETAILERS, WITH
OTHERS TO CRAFT A DEFINITION
THÀNH THAT WOULD PROTECT SMALL
SELLERS, THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW
MARKETPLACES TO OPERATE. AND, OF
COURSE, I APPRECIATE THAT FOLKS
THAT DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO
EITHER COLLECT THIS INFORMATION
OR FALL UNDER THIS ARE GOING TO
IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SAY, THIS
COULD PUT US OUT, BUT I THINK IF
AGAIN, WE LOOK AT THE SIZE OF
CALIFORNIA AND, AND THE NUMBER
OF, OF, PEOPLE THAT MAY USE ANY
PLATFORM AGAIN IN THE WAY IT WAS
DESIGNED, IT IS NOT SO ONEROUS
AS TO ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT ALL
OF THESE SITES ALREADY COLLECT,
BUT THERE'S LITERALLY ONLY 1 OR
2 ADDITIONAL PIECES OF
INFORMATION ON ANY ONE OF THE,
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, SOME OF THESE
MARKETPLACES ALREADY COLLECT ALL
OF THIS, AND FOR SOME OF THEM,
IT'S JUST 1 OR 2 ADDITIONAL
PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT WE'RE
ASKING TO COLLECT. AND AGAIN,
ONLY FOR HIGH VOLUME SELLERS.
THANK YOU, MR. LOWENTHAL. YEAH.
FIRST OF ALL, JUST WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR. I THINK THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION. I'M
LISTENING VERY CLOSELY TO THE
OPPOSITION AND YOUR CONCERNS,
AND I JUST HAD A FEW FOLLOW UP
QUESTIONS, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND
INDULGING ME, THE FIRST HAS TO
DO WITH THE NOTION THAT THAT
MANY OF THE SELLERS EXCUSE ME,
THE PLATFORMS RIGHT NOW ARE
ALREADY CONTACTING LAW
ENFORCEMENT ON THEIR OWN, AND I
MAY BE A LITTLE UNFAIR OF ME TO
ASK QUESTION ABOUT EMPIRICAL
INFORMATION THAT YOU MAY NOT BE
PREPARED FOR, BUT, WHAT ELSE ARE
THEY DOING? ARE THEY SIMPLY
CONTACTING LAW ENFORCEMENT?
THAT'S IT. ARE THEY CONTACTING
THE MANUFACTURER OF THE GOODS OR
THE PRODUCER OF THE GOODS
THEMSELVES, THE BRANDS
THEMSELVES, AND PROVIDING THOSE
BRANDS WITH REQUISITE
INFORMATION SO THAT THEY CAN BE
CONTACTING THEM? AND DO YOU HAVE
ANY DATA POINTS WHATSOEVER?
BECAUSE CLEARLY, I THINK WHAT
EVERYBODY CAN AGREE IS THERE'S A
MASSIVE PROBLEM. AND THIS NOTION
OF SELF-REGULATION VERSUS, YOU
KNOW, STATE REGULATION, I THINK
IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION WE
SHOULD BE ASKING. BUT I'M NOT
HEARING ANY DATA POINTS OR ANY
PROCESSES OR THINGS THAT HELPS
ME WANT TO LEAN TOWARDS THIS
NOTION OF CONTINUED
SELF-REGULATION. SURE. AND AGAIN
, IT'LL DEPEND ON A PLATFORM BY
PLATFORM SORT OF BASED AS AS FAR
AS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY ARE
WORKING WITH AND COOPERATING
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, HOW MUCH
THEY'RE THEN REFERRING BACK TO
EITHER THE, THE ORIGINAL
MANUFACTURER WHO IS, YOU KNOW,
PRODUCTS WERE STOLEN OR
COORDINATING WITH THAT. THAT
SELLER, TO SORT OF BRING THESE
RINGS TO JUSTICE. BUT, YOU KNOW,
I MEAN, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS
BEEN BUSTING IN, ORGANIZED
RETAIL CRIME RINGS. OUR
PLATFORMS HAVE BEEN
PARTICIPATING VERY HEAVILY IN
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS, TURNING
OVER INFORMATION THÀNH
COOPERATING FULLY. AND SO I'D BE
HAPPY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION IN A FOLLOW UP. SOME
OF THAT DATA AS, AS YOU'RE
ASKING FOR, BECAUSE I THINK WE
SHOULD BE SORT OF DATA DRIVEN IN
THIS, IN THIS QUESTION. BUT, I
DON'T HAVE THOSE STATISTICS ON
HAND, BUT LIKE I SAID, HAPPY TO
FOLLOW UP. AND COORDINATION IS
GOING TO BE TO SUPPORT THE
LEGISLATION TODAY. BUT AS THIS,
YOU KNOW, CONTINUES FURTHER ON,
I THINK EMPIRICAL INFORMATION
ABOUT WHAT PRECISELY IS BEING
DONE AND THEN FOR THE DATA
CONTINUE FURTHER, WHAT ACTUALLY
HAPPENS AS A RESULT? WAS THERE
ARRESTS THAT WERE MADE? DID IT
STOP A RING? DID IT YOU KNOW,
WHAT HAPPENED, TO HAVE ANY FAITH
THAT THAT THIS IS A PATH TO
RESOLUTION, THAT WE DON'T NEED
THIS. I WOULD I WOULD REALLY
NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT
INFORMATION. ABSOLUTELY
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MR.
LOWENTHAL. I SEE ME GETTING UP
TO ANSWER THAT. ANYONE ELSE?
LOOKS LIKE NO OTHER QUESTIONS,
SO I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
ALSO FOR HER WORKING ON THIS. AS
WAS NOTED BY EBAY, THAT SORT OF
IN THE TWEENER MOVING OFF
OPPOSITION STAGE, AS WELL AS THE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THAT REMOVED
ITS OPPOSITION, IT'S CLEAR THAT
YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING TO
ENSURE THAT THIS WORKS
PERSONALLY, AS SOMEONE WHO
BELIEVES THAT PART OF WHAT WE
NEED TO DO TO SOLVE THE CLIMATE
CRISIS IS TO BUY USED GOODS. I'M
ACTUALLY SOMEONE WHO USES SOME
OF THESE MARKETPLACES FAIRLY
REGULARLY, AND I CAN TELL YOU
THAT 200 TRANSACTIONS IS A LOT
LIKE I CAN'T IMAGINE THERE'S AN
AVERAGE PERSON USING THESE,
MARKETPLACES THAT WOULD GET TO
200 TRANSACTIONS. AND ALSO AS A
USER OF THEM, I THINK THEY WOULD
FUNCTION BETTER IF THEY ASKED
YOU TO CHECK A BOX IF IT HAD
ALREADY BEEN SOLD. SO SO THAT'S
A FEATURE YOU MIGHT WANT TO
CONSIDER JUST FOR YOUR USERS,
BUT, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO SEND
THAT EMAIL. THIS IS, THIS IS
STILL AVAILABLE, WHICH IS SO
ANNOYING TO DO, SO I THINK THAT
THESE ARE PRETTY EASY PROBLEMS
TO SOLVE FOR. YOU KNOW, ANOTHER
THING THAT WAS CITED BY THE
OPPOSITION WAS NOT KNOWING IF
IT'S A RELISTING OF THE SAME
PRODUCT. ALSO PRETTY EASY TO DO
TECH WISE TO BE ABLE TO RE-UP A
LISTING. SO THE LISTING REMAINS
THE SAME. IF IT DOESN'T SELL IN
THE PERIOD OF TIME, SO I THINK
THESE ARE ALL FAIRLY EASY
PROBLEMS TO SOLVE FOR ON THE
TECH SIDE. AND ON THE BENEFIT OF
THIS BILL, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR
THAT WE HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH
ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT AND THAT
THE ABILITY TO SELL THINGS
ANONYMOUSLY AND SO IN SUCH A
WIDESPREAD WAY IS MAKING IT
WORSE. AND SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE SENATOR'S
CONTINUED EFFORT TO CRACK DOWN
ON THAT. AND TO MAKE SURE THAT
CALIFORNIA IS LEADING THE
NATION, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT
THIS BILL WILL DO IN ENSURING
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS THE
TOOLS THEY NEED TO GO AFTER THE
FOLKS THAT ARE REALLY PLAGUING
OUR SHOPPING DISTRICTS. YOU
KNOW, WE KNOW THAT WE'RE HEARING
FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT
PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO BE IN
STORES THAT ARE BEING RAIDED,
WHERE PEOPLE ARE PULLING THINGS
OFF THE SHELVES AND CRACKING
DOWN ON. THIS IS DEFINITELY A
PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. SO I WANT
TO THANK YOU. AND, WITH THAT, I
RECOMMEND AN AYE VOTE IF YOU'D
LIKE TO CLOSE. SENATOR, THANK
YOU. CHAIR. I THINK YOUR SUMMARY
WAS EXCELLENT. SO I WILL TAKE
THAT AS MY CLOSE AND I ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. OKAY. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S CALL
THE ROLL ON SB 1144. SKINNER THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. B¢O
BAUER-KAHAN I BAUER-KAHAN I.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. I BRIAN.
DIXON. DIXON. I HOOVER. HOOVER.
I IRWIN. IRWIN. I. LOWENTHAL.
LOWENTHAL. I. ORTEGA ORTEGA. I.
WARD. WARD I. WICKS I. WICKS, I
WILSON. WILSON. I ALL RIGHT.
GREAT, GREAT. THANK YOU. THE
BILL HAS TEN. IT IS OUT. BUT WE
DO NOT KNOW IF MR. BRYAN IS
COMING. OKAY, WE'LL LEAVE THE
ROLL OPEN FOR NOW IN CASE MR.
BRYAN IS JOINING US. THANK YOU
EVERYONE. YES. RIGHT, RIGHT,
RIGHT. GREAT TO SEE YOU TOO.
WE'LL OPEN THE ROLL ON SB 1144.
ON SB 1144. SKINNER. BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE THANK YOU, SIR. AND
WITH THAT, WE WILL ADJOURN.
FOR
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE BACK IN.
MOORLACH.
THANK YOU. GENERAL YEAH, I YES,
SIR. YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A FIGHT.
OH, YEAH. YES. SO I'M OKAY.
PERFECT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. WITH
THAT. SO. OKAY. IF YOU'RE OKAY,
I.
THANK YOU. ALL YELLOW.