GOOD AFTERNOON. ALL WE ARE
WAITING ON SENATE AUTHORS. IF
YOU WANT TO JUMP AHEAD. THERE'S
NOBODY HERE, SENATORS. WELL NOT
NOBODY HERE, BUT NO AUTHORS
HERE. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE
HERE. WELCOME, EVERYBODY, SO WE
ARE GOING TO CALL THE ASSEMBLY
PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
COMMITTEE HEARING TO ORDER.
WE'LL BE HAVING TWO WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION ON EACH
MEASURE, EACH WITNESS WILL BE
ALLOWED TWO MINUTES TO PRESENT
THEIR TESTIMONY, ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS. THOSE
IN OPPOSITION WILL BE INVITED UP
TO GIVE THEIR NAME, AFFILIATION
AND POSITION. FOR THE RECORD,
WE'LL DO THAT FOR ALL THE BILLS
EXCEPT THOSE ON CONSENT, AND
JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, OF
COURSE YOU CAN PROVIDE WRITTEN
TESTIMONY ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE. AND WE ALSO NEED A
QUORUM. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE
A QUORUM YET. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ARE INVITED TO JOIN US
HERE IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM. AS
WE GET STARTED, AND AS SOON AS
WE HAVE AN AUTHOR, WE WILL
BEGIN.
THANK YOU.
WIENER. YOU ARE HERE FIRST. SO
YOU ARE UP, SIR. WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN YOU SHOW UP PROMPTLY TO
COMMITTEE? SO WE WILL HEAR SB
1047 AS THE FIRST BILL. SENATOR
WIENER, WHEN YOU'RE READY. AND,
SENATOR WIENER, I MAY INTERRUPT
YOU TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. IF WE
GET ONE MORE MEMBER.
OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS AND I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT SENATE BILL
1047. FIRST, I WANT TO REALLY
THANK THE CHAIR AND HER AND YOUR
STAFF FOR WORKING VERY
INTENSIVELY ON THIS, BILL. SO I
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT. AND I
DO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, OUTLINED IN THE
ANALYSIS, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL
OF LIMITED DUTY EXEMPTION, THE
REMOVAL OF COVERED GUIDANCE, FM,
ACTUALLY, I WON'T EVEN STATE
THOSE THAT ARE STATED IN THE
ANALYSIS. AND I ALSO WANT TO,
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AS OUTLINED IN
THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE AGREED
TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON A FEW
AREAS AS OUTLINED. SO, AGAIN,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THE PURPOSE
OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TWOFOLD.
FIRST, TO SUPPORT COMPETITION
AND INNOVATION IN AI. AND I WANT
TO JUST BE VERY CLEAR THAT TO
ME, ESPECIALLY AS THE PERSON WHO
REPRESENTS, THE HEARTLAND OF AI
INNOVATION IN THE GREAT CITY OF
SAN FRANCISCO, THAT IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ME. AI
HAS SO MUCH PROMISE IN TERMS OF
MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE,
AND IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE FOSTER THAT INNOVATION,
INCLUDING IN THE OPEN SOURCE
SPACE, BUT WE ALSO, AS WITH ANY
POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY, AND I DON'T
WANT TO SAY NEW TECHNOLOGY
BECAUSE I MACHINE LEARNING HAS
BEEN AROUND FOR MANY, MANY
YEARS, BUT IT IS ACCELERATING,
AND FOR ANY POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY,
WE, WE NEED TO ALSO BE VERY REAL
IN ACKNOWLEDGING BOTH THE, THE
BENEFITS. BUT ALSO THE RISKS AND
THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO IS
TO TAKE ACTION, TO TRY TO REDUCE
THE RISKS, NOT ELIMINATE RISKS.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE WORLD
WORKS, BUT TO REDUCE THOSE RISKS
, AND WE KNOW THAT SOME OF THE
MOST RESPECTED VOICES IN THE AI
WORLD, INCLUDING SOME OF THE
INVENTORS OF WHAT WE NOW THINK
OF AS I, SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION AND SUPPORT THE
NOTION, OAN, THAT WE SHOULD BE
MINDFUL OF SAFETY, WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND CONGRESS
FAIRLY PARALYZED AROUND TECH
POLICY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
BANNING TIKTOK, CONGRESS HAS NOT
PASSED A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF
TECHNOLOGY LEGISLATION SINCE THE
1990S, AND SO IT IS IMPORTANT,
FOR CALIFORNIA TO, TO, TO LEAD
IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL,
FEDERAL ACTION, SB 1047 SETS OUT
CLEAR STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPERS
OF EXTREMELY POWERFUL AI
SYSTEMS. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR
THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT SMALLER
AI MODELS. THIS IS ABOUT
INCREDIBLY LARGE AND POWERFUL
MODELS THAT, AS FAR AS WE KNOW,
DO NOT EXIST TODAY. BUT WILL
EXIST IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND WE
HAVE BEEN CLEAR, IN THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE MADE BOTH
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE AND IN THE
COMMITTEE THAT WE ARE FOCUSED
ON, ONLY THE LARGEST OF THESE,
MODELS THAT COST AT LEAST $100
MILLION TO TRAIN, AND THAT IS
STAYING UNCHANGED IN THE BILL
AFTER, PER THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, IT'S $100 MILLION, AND
IT GOES UP BY INFLATION, SO
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED
ON, THESE LARGE, VERY POWERFUL
MODELS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT
REGULATING STARTUPS. THERE'S
BEEN I'LL JUST BE HONEST, SOME
INACCURATE INFORMATION AND SOME
SCARE TACTICS. ONLINE IN
PARTICULAR ABOUT HOW THIS IS
GOING TO SWEEP IN, YOU KNOW,
TINY STARTUPS. AND THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE. THIS IS
ABOUT REALLY THE LARGE LABS, AND
SO, SB 1047 WILL REQUIRE THAT,
BEFORE TRAINING AND THEN BEFORE
RELEASING, THESE INCREDIBLY
POWERFUL MODELS, THAT, THAT THE
DEVELOPERS SHOULD ENGAGE IN
BASIC SAFETY EVALUATION TO
IDENTIFY WHY IS THERE A RISK,
AND NOT A REMOTE OR THEORETICAL
RISK, BUT A CONCRETE RISK THAT
THIS MODEL COULD LEAD TO
CATASTROPHIC HARM, DEFINED AS
EITHER DEPLOYING, OR, LEADING TO
NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL
WEAPON OR HARM EXCEEDING $500
MILLION. AND IF SO, TO MITIGATE
THOSE RISKS, NOT TO ELIMINATE
THEM, BUT TO MITIGATE THEM. SO,
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE LARGE
LABS ALL SAY THAT THEY ARE DOING
OR INTEND TO DO, IT IS A STEP
THAT SEES US HAVE GONE TO
CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE.
COMPANIES HAVE GONE TO, TO, TO
SOUTH KOREA JUST A FEW WEEKS
AGO, SIGNING AND MAKING PUBLIC
STATEMENTS, AGREEING TO PERFORM
SAFETY EVALUATIONS ON THESE
LARGE MODELS, AND SO ANY NOTION
THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW, NOT
POSSIBLE OR SOMEHOW NOT REAL, I
JUST WANT TO JUST STRESS THAT
THEY ARE LITERALLY GOING AND
PUBLICLY SAYING THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO DO THIS, AND SO I THINK
GOOD POLICY MEANS NOT JUST
TRUSTING THAT THEY'LL DO IT,
BECAUSE EVEN IF ALL OF THE
COMPANIES ARE FULLY INTENDING TO
DO THAT TODAY, WE DON'T KNOW
WHO'S GOING TO BE RUNNING THESE
COMPANIES TOMORROW OR IN A YEAR
OR FIVE YEARS. AND WHAT THE
PRESSURE IS GOING TO BE AT THAT
MOMENT IN TIME, SB 1047, IN
ADDITION TO REQUIRING THESE
BASIC SAFETY EVALUATIONS, AND I
WANT TO BE CLEAR ALSO, WE'RE NOT
REQUIRING LICENSING OR ANY KIND
OF YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET
PERMISSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT,
TO RELEASE OR DEVELOP THESE
MODELS. IT'S ABOUT SAFETY
EVALUATION. BUT IN ADDITION TO
DOING THAT, WE ALSO HAVE SOME,
PRO-CONSUMER PRO-COMPETITION
ASPECTS OF THE BILL, INCLUDING,
PRICING TRANSPARENCY FOR COMPUTE
SO THAT THE STARTUPS CAN
ACTUALLY HAVE A SHOT AT ACTUALLY
ACCESSING, THIS COMPUTE. WE HAVE
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS, IN
THE BILL THAT'S BEEN IN THE BILL
SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING, AS
NOTED IN THE ANALYSIS, WE'RE
WORKING WITH JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ON SOME REFINEMENTS, TO THAT
ASPECT, WE HAVE A KNOW YOUR
CUSTOMER REQUIREMENT FOR CLOUD
PROVIDERS SO THAT IF SOMEONE IS
BUYING UP ENOUGH CLOUD SPACE TO
DEVELOP THESE MASSIVE MODELS,
THE CLOUD PROVIDERS SHOULD AT
LEAST KNOW, WHO'S ACTUALLY
MAKING THOSE PURCHASES, AND THEN
THE BILL CREATES SOMETHING
CALLED CAL COMPUTE, WHICH WILL
CONDUCT RESEARCH INTO SAFE AND
SECURE DEPLOYMENT OF LARGE SCALE
AI MODELS WHILE ALLOWING SMALLER
STARTUPS, RESEARCHERS AND
RESEARCHERS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS
, TO ACCESS THAT COMPUTE. SO
THIS WILL BE AN EQUALIZER IN
TERMS OF ACCESS TO THE ABILITY
TO INNOVATE, AS I SAID BEFORE,
SAU, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
HYPERBOLE AROUND THIS BILL, AND
YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT OF, I
THINK, HYPERBOLE TODAY ABOUT HOW
THIS IS SOMEHOW GOING TO DELAY
OR UNDERCUT INNOVATION.
RESPECTFULLY, THAT IS UTTERLY
UNTRUE. WE CAN INNOVATE
POWERFULLY IN AI WHILE ALSO
BEING MINDFUL OF IDENTIFYING AND
MITIGATING EXTREME SAFETY RISKS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY, FROM TWO OF OUR
SPONSORS IS SNEHA KAVANAUGH,
FROM THE FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT
OF ENCODE JUSTICE AND ARI KAGAN
WITH THE ECONOMIC SECURITY
PROJECT, WITH ME TODAY ALSO FOR
TECHNICAL, RESPONSES, IF
NECESSARY. AS CHRIS PAINTER,
POLICY DIRECTOR OF THE MODEL
EVALUATION AND THREAT RESEARCH
METER, WHICH HAS WORKED WITH
VARIOUS LABS, INCLUDING OPENAI
AND ANTHROPIC ON SAFETY TESTING,
ENDEAVORS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. SO WE'LL DO TWO MINUTES
EACH IN THE OPPOSITION. WE'LL
GET THE SAME. THANK YOU. PERFECT
CHAIR BAUER-KAHAN AND MEMBERS,
I'M HONORED TO TESTIFY HERE
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF SB 1047. MY
NAME IS SNEHA KAVANAUGH, AND I'M
THE 19 YEAR OLD LEADER OF ENCODE
JUSTICE, A GLOBAL YOUTH MOVEMENT
FOR SAFE, EQUITABLE AI. WE'RE
ONE OF THREE CO-SPONSORS OF THIS
CRITICAL LEGISLATION ON AI
CREATED ENCODE JUSTICE IN 2020.
AS A TEEN GROWING UP IN SAN JOSE
. SINCE THEN, THE MOVEMENT HAS
EXPANDED FAR BEYOND CALIFORNIA
TO. BUT OUR STATE, HOME TO THE
TOP TECH GIANTS, IS STILL FRONT
AND CENTER IN THE GLOBAL FIGHT
FOR AI GUARDRAILS. RIGHT NOW,
WE'RE WATCHING AS TRUST IN THE
LARGEST AI COMPANIES CRUMBLES.
THEY'RE RACING TO RELEASE
INCREASINGLY POWERFUL AI MODELS
WITHOUT REGARD FOR THE LARGE
SCALE RISKS THAT EMERGE WITH
EXPONENTIAL PROGRESS, RISKS THAT
ARE BEING BORNE BY CONSUMERS AND
THE PUBLIC. EVEN THOUGH WE'VE
BEEN ROBBED OF A SAY IN HOW THIS
TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY IS
DEVELOPED, HISTORY SHOWS US THAT
INDUSTRY CANNOT BE BLINDLY
TRUSTED TO SELF-REGULATE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CUTS INTO
COMPANIES BOTTOM LINE. AI IS NO
EXCEPTION. OAN WITHOUT OUR
KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT, A HANDFUL
OF AI COMPANIES ARE QUIETLY
SHAPING OUR FUTURE. THE FUTURE
THAT MY GENERATION WILL SOON
INHERIT AS CONGRESS STALLS THE
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OF AI
OVERSIGHT. NOW FALLS ON
CALIFORNIA. WE MUST URGENTLY
PASS SB 1047, WHICH WOULD SET
COMMON SENSE AI SAFETY STANDARDS
, CLARIFY THE DUTY OF CARE FOR
DEVELOPERS BY BUILDING UPON
EXISTING TORT LAW, AND ESTABLISH
A PUBLIC COMPUTING CLUSTER TO
DEMOCRATIZE TRANSFORMATIVE
INNOVATION. BIG TECH IS FIGHTING
HARD AGAINST THIS BILL THROUGH
DESTRUCTIVE FEAR MONGERING. BUT
IRONICALLY, THEY'VE ALREADY MADE
SIMILAR COMMITMENTS VOLUNTARILY.
NOW IT'S TIME TO CODIFY THOSE
INTO LAW. ALL EYES ARE ON
CALIFORNIA FOR OUR SAKE. I HOPE
LEADERS LIKE YOU WILL TAKE
NOTICE AND TAKE ACTION. MY
GENERATION WILL THANK YOU FOR
IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE'RE
GOING TO PAUSE BEFORE WE GO TO
YOUR NEXT WITNESS TO ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. ALL RIGHT. BAUER-KAHAN
HERE. BAUER-KAHAN HERE.
PATTERSON BRIAN. DIXON. DIXON,
HERE. HOOVER. HOOVER HERE. ERWIN
ERWIN. HERE. LOWENTHAL. HERE.
LOWENTHAL. HERE ORTEGA. WARD.
WARD. HERE. WIX WILSON. HAVE A
QUORUM. NOW, WHEN YOU LIKE TO
CONTINUE. IT'S MY HONOR TO
REPRESENT ECONOMIC SECURITY.
CALIFORNIA ACTION. AS ONE OF THE
SPONSORS OF THIS BILL. BUT I AM
ALSO COMING TO YOU AS A FOUNDER
OF AN AI STARTUP THAT USED
TECHNOLOGY TO HELP NONPROFITS
BUILD BETTER DONATION SOFTWARE
AND I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND THE
INCREDIBLE BENEFITS THAT THIS
TECHNOLOGY CAN PROVIDE AS
CONSUMER APPLICATIONS. I ALSO
BELIEVE THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN
GO EVEN FURTHER. AI HAS THE
POWER TO TRANSFORM OUR ENTIRE
SOCIETY, FOR BETTER OR FOR
WORSE. AND YOU, THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SHAPE THAT TRAJECTORY. THIS
BILL FOCUSES ON AN EXTREMELY
NARROW CATEGORY OF RISKS. THE
LARGEST SOCIETAL SCALE RISKS
COMING OUT OF AI, THE ABILITY TO
WIPE OUT THE ELECTRIC GRID OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE
ABILITY TO CAUSE ANOTHER GLOBAL
PANDEMIC RISKS THAT CURRENT
MODELS DO NOT POSE. BUT THE NEXT
GENERATION MAY A HANDFUL OF
COMPANIES ARE SPENDING BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS TRAINING TECHNOLOGY
THAT IS PUSHING FORWARD INTO THE
FRONTIER, INTO UNCHARTED
TERRITORY. OPPONENTS HAVE SAID
THAT WE SHOULD WAIT. WAIT UNTIL
WE HAVE ANOTHER AI DISASTER, OR
WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE AN AI
CHERNOBYL OR THREE MILE ISLAND.
WE BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT SIT BY
AND WAIT UNTIL THAT HAPPENS. WE
NEED TO TAKE PROACTIVE ACTION.
OTHER OPPONENTS HAVE SAID THAT
THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE, THAT WE
NEED TO HAVE A LIGHTER TOUCH
BILL THAT COMPANIES CANNOT
COMPLY. BUT AS THE SENATOR SAID,
MANY OF THESE COMPANIES HAVE
ALREADY INITIALLY TAKEN THESE
STEPS AND HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED
TO DOING SIMILAR THINGS.
COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE AND META
AND OPENAI HAVE ALREADY IN SEOUL
A MONTH AGO PROMISED TO TAKE
SIMILAR ACTION TO THIS BILL. BUT
WE CANNOT RELY ON VOLUNTARY
COMMITMENTS ALONE THAT WOULD
PUNISH RESPONSIBLE ACTORS WHO
WOULD LAG BEHIND IN A RACE. WE
NEED TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD
WITH LEGISLATION THAT ENCOURAGES
EVERYONE TO ACT RESPONSIBLY. I
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION AND HAVE CALIFORNIA
TAKE THE LEAD ON RESPONSIBLE AI
INNOVATION. THANK YOU. SO IF
ANYONE ELSE IS HERE IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL, WE ASK THAT YOU
JOIN US. THE MICROPHONE WITH
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
THANK YOU. HI THERE. GOOD
AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS LEANNE TROUGHTON WITH
TRATON PRICE REPRESENTING THE
CENTER FOR AI SAFETY ACTION
FUND, ONE OF THE CO-SPONSORS OF
SB 1049. THANK YOU. 1047 THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
TERI OLEY, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC
SECURITY, CALIFORNIA, OF COURSE,
ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
LENNON KLEIN WITH FUTURE OF LIFE
INSTITUTE AND SUPPORT. MANY, AND
NOW IF THE PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL WANT TO
JOIN US. SENATOR WIENER LOOKS
LIKE THERE ARE NO, NO, NO, THERE
ARE. IT'S OKAY. TAKE YOUR TIME.
FIRST TIME HERE. SO SHALL I SIT
HERE? THANK YOU. THAT'S YOUR
CHAIR. SO WE WILL DO THE SAME.
TWO MINUTES EACH. WHEN YOU ARE
READY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO
MUCH FOR HAVING ME HERE, MADAM
CHAIR. COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PLANNING.
D-DAY WAS ONE OF THE FIRST USERS
OF WEATHER FORECASTING. TODAY,
OUR SAN DIEGO COMPANY PROCESSES
MILLIONS OF WEATHER DATA POINTS
TO FORECAST THOUSANDS OF
MICROCLIMATE HELP FARMERS,
WINERIES, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
AND OTHER LANDOWNERS. WATER,
FERTILIZER, PESTICIDES AND
MANAGE THEIR CONTROL BURNS. SOME
CALL THAT A LINEAR ALGEBRA.
POWERS OF PREDICTION ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE, BUT I CALL IT
MATH. SO MIGHT ASK WHY DOES MY
SMALL COMPANY SUPPORT OR CARE
ABOUT THESE REGULATION OR COMING
INTO POLICY? BUT THE ANSWER IS
SIMPLE BECAUSE OVERREGULATING I
AT THE END, IT HURTS EVERYBODY
WHO BUILDS AND DEPLOYS. I A
SMALL COMPANIES DO NOT SIMPLY
USE OFF THE SHELF SOFTWARE BUILT
BY BIG COMPANIES. WE CUSTOMIZE
AND IMPROVE IT OUR NEEDS TO
TAILOR IT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
SETS DIFFERENT RULES FOR MORE
POWERFUL AI MODELS, THE EFFECTS
TRICKLE DOWN. THEY REDUCE
INVESTMENT, SLOW INNOVATION. BIG
COMPANIES ARE ALSO AFFECTED.
SMALL COMPANIES. TODAY OUR AIM
AI MODEL WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY
THIS BILL IN ALL HONESTY, BUT
VERY SMALL AI COMPANIES NEEDS TO
IMPROVE SPEED AND POWER SO WE
CAN PROCESS MORE DATA AT A LOWER
COST. IF, HOWEVER, THIS
INNOVATION WILL EVENTUALLY MAKE
US DEAL WITH THE SKYROCKETING
REGULATORY COSTS, IMPOSSIBLE
COMPLIANCE BURDENS AND HUGE
RISKS, THEN CALIFORNIA AI
INNOVATION WILL DRY UP. AI
MODELS BUILDERS CANNOT BE
REQUIRED TO PREDICT OR PREVENT
FUTURE HARMS TO KNOW HOW MODELS
WILL BE MISUSED OR BE LIABLE FOR
DOWNSTREAM MISUSES, AS SMALL
INNOVATORS CANNOT BUILD
COMPANIES. IF THERE IS A RISK
THAT THAT MIGHT. THE BIG AI
MODEL BUILT ON TOP OF COULD BE
SHUT DOWN IF SOME PEOPLE MISUSE
IT. GOVERNMENT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY
MAKE, YOU KNOW, HARMFUL USES OF
MATH AND SCIENCE AND AI ILLEGAL.
BUT BY DOING SO, WE SHOULD NOT
SACRIFICE THE OPPORTUNITY. I AND
MATH SCIENCE ALL REPRESENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOOD, BUT RISK
FOR MISUSE. WE CAN PROMOTE THE
FORMER WITHOUT IGNORING THE
LATTER. AND OUR POLICIES NEED TO
BE BALANCED. SO THAT'S MY POINT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
TECHNOLOGY FAILED ME TODAY. I
APOLOGIZE, I HAVE TO READ FROM
HERE. YOU NEEDED. I THANK YOU
CHAIR. ROANOKE, DEYLAMI WITH CAL
CHAMBER IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO
SB 1047. LET ME START BY SAYING
THAT WE ARE STILL REVIEWING THE
FULL AMENDMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE, AS THEY ARE QUITE
SUBSTANTIAL IN VOLUME, BUT WE DO
APPRECIATE THAT THE AMENDMENTS
REPRESENT THE MOST SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES TO THE BILL TO DATE.
REWORKING ITS STRUCTURE TO A
MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD LIST OF
REQUIREMENTS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE
IMPROVEMENTS DO VERY LITTLE TO
MITIGATE OUR FUNDAMENTAL
CONCERNS AROUND REGULATORY
UNCERTAINTY, UNWORKABLE
REQUIREMENTS AND NEGATIVE
IMPACTS UPON ECONOMIC AND
TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION. IN
CALIFORNIA, AS AMENDED, WE STILL
SEE ARBITRARY THRESHOLDS FOR
COVERED MODELS, DEVELOPER
LIABILITY FOR DOWNSTREAM MISUSE,
SEVERE PENALTIES PLACED ON
DEVELOPERS DESPITE THERE BEING
ONLY ONE, DESPITE THEM BEING
ONLY ONE POINT IN THE AI VALUE
CHAIN, AND POSSIBLE PRE-TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING FULL
SHUTDOWN REQUIREMENTS AND
UNWORKABLE POST TRAINING
OBLIGATIONS. THIS IS NOTHING TO
SAY OF OUR CONCERNS OF THE
FRONTIER MODEL DIVISION, WHICH
IS NOW GETTING GIVEN EXPANDED
AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE
THRESHOLD FOR A COVERED MODEL IN
TERMS OF PRE-TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS, DEVELOPERS ARE
STILL REQUIRED TO BUILD IN THE
CAPABILITY TO IMPLEMENT A FULL
SHUTDOWN OF A COVERED MODEL.
WHILE AMENDMENTS DO HELP CLARIFY
THE SCOPE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS,
FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS REMAIN. FOR
EXAMPLE, THERE ARE NO OTHER
LIMITING PRINCIPLES WITHIN THIS
REQUIREMENT, MEANING THAT
SHUTDOWN COULD STILL BE REQUIRED
FOR INTEGRATIONS OF A MODEL THAT
ARE NOT DANGEROUS. THIS IS NOT A
RISK BASED APPROACH WITH RESPECT
TO IMPACT ON INNOVATION AND OPEN
SOURCE DEVELOPMENT. PARTICULAR,
THE AMENDED BILL STILL MAKES IT
SIGNIFICANTLY RISKY TO DEVELOP
AI IN CALIFORNIA IF FOR NO OTHER
REASON THAN THE DOWNSTREAM
LIABILITY. SUCH EXTENSIVE AND
EXCLUSIVE LIABILITY ON
DEVELOPERS NOT ONLY IMPACTS THE
DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH OPEN SOURCE
AND CLOSED SOURCE SOURCE MODELS,
IT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES
INCENTIVES TO INNOVATE LARGE
MODELS. UNDERSTANDING, OF
COURSE, LIABILITY IS AN ISSUE
FOR JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. IT'S
STILL RELEVANT HERE BECAUSE YOU
CANNOT DIVORCE THOSE PROVISIONS
FROM THE DISCUSSION AROUND THE
EFFECT OF THESE REGULATIONS,
THEY GO HAND IN HAND. AS A
RESULT, WHAT IS PRESENTED AS A
SIMPLE ASSESSMENT IN FACT
OPERATES AS A ROUNDABOUT
REGULATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
ITSELF, WITH SEVERE CONSEQUENCES
FOR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION.
STARTUPS IN OUR ECONOMY. WITH
THAT, I WILL JUST SAY THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. AND I WILL
SAY I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS ON
LIABILITY. WE ARE DEFERRING TO
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THAT FOR
JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES, AND I
SIT ON THE COMMITTEE, SO I GUESS
WE'LL HAVE THIS CONVERSATION
TWICE, WITH THAT, ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION PLEASE COME UP. NAME,
POSITION. ORGANIZATION CHAIR.
MEMBERS. DEAN GRAFILO I'M WITH
CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LIFE SCIENCES. WE
ARE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED, AND
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS
THAT WE HAD WITH THE SENATOR'S
STAFF SPECIFIC TO AN EXEMPTION
FOR THE LIFE SCIENCES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
TIM TAYLOR WITH THE NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DYLAN HOFFMAN,
ON BEHALF OF TECHNET,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANKS
ABIGAIL. WITH WILL WILSON WITH
BSA, THE SOFTWARE ALLIANCE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. ALONZO
BENDIT. GOOD AFTERNOON, DANNY
KENDALL KAISER ON BEHALF OF THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,
WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF AMENDED AND
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION WITH
THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU. FOR ME
OFF THE ROOF. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. STEPHANIE
MORRELL HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION
AND THE CALIFORNIA FUELS AND
CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE, IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON,
PETER LAUREN MUNOZ WITH THE
SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. KARA
BINDER WITH THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. ROBERT SINGLETON
WITH CHAMBER OF PROGRESS, ALSO
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. GRACE
COPLAND, WITH BROWNSTEIN ON
BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA COUNCIL,
ALSO RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. CHRIS
NICHOLSON, MACHINE LEARNING
ENGINEERING LEADER. IN MY LAST
OPERATIONAL ROLE, I HELPED PLACE
NURSES IN NURSING HOMES DURING
COVID WITH AI TOOLS AND SAVED
LIVES IN CALIFORNIA. STRONGLY
OPPOSED. I SUPPORT KIMBERLY
ROSENBERGER WITH SEIU, JUST
TRYING TO BE IN TWO PLACES AT
ONCE. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE
THAT. NEVER TOO LATE. OKAY.
SEEING NO FURTHER OPPOSITION, WE
WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MISS
ERWIN? WELL, THIS IS, THIS IS
ALL WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT FOR
THE LAST SIX MONTHS. SO I JUST
WANT TO KNOW, YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE A LOT OF
OPPOSITION FROM PEOPLE WHO SAY
THAT THIS BILL IS PREMATURE.
BEFORE THE RISKS ARE, KNOWN.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THE HARM IS IN
WAITING? YEAH. I MEAN, IF YOU IF
YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF, TECH
REGULATION, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A
HABIT AND PART OF IT IS BECAUSE
INDUSTRY COMES FORWARD AND SAYS,
DON'T DO ANYTHING WHILE, YOU
KNOW, UNTIL AFTER ALL SORTS OF
HARM HAS HAPPENED, BECAUSE THEN
WE'LL KNOW WHAT THE HARM IS, AND
IN ADDITION TO SOMETIMES POLICY
MAKERS, I THINK FEELING A LITTLE
RETICENT AND UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT
REGULATING TECH, AND THEN WHAT
DOES THAT LEAVE US WITH? THE
DISASTER AROUND DATA PRIVACY,
COMPLETE DISASTER ON DATA
PRIVACY? BECAUSE NOTHING
HAPPENED, UNTIL AFTER ALL THE
HARMS HAPPENED. WE'VE SEEN
WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH SOCIAL
MEDIA, WHERE WE SAID, LET'S JUST
LET IT GO. LET IT RIDE. AND WE
ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY DEALING
WITH SOME OF THE REAL PROBLEMS,
AND IT'S ALWAYS A BALANCE.
RIGHT? YOU DON'T WANT TO. YOU
DON'T WANT TO BE HEAVY HANDED
TOO EARLY, WHERE YOU END UP
IMPACTING INNOVATION. BUT YOU
ALSO IT'S NOT I DON'T THINK IT'S
RIGHT TO DO NOTHING AND JUST
WE'LL FIGURE OUT AND SEE HOW IT
PLAYS OUT AND REACT LATER. AND
THIS BILL THREADS THAT NEEDLE
BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS
NOT HEAVY HANDED. THIS IS LIGHT
TOUCH REGULATION. AND I KEEP
SAYING THIS ABOUT THE HYPERBOLE
BECAUSE IT'S REAL. THERE'S A LOT
OF HYPERBOLE AROUND THIS BILL.
THIS IS NOT HEAVY HANDED. IT'S
ASKING FOR A SAFETY EVALUATION
THAT THEY ALREADY SAY THAT THEY
ARE DOING OR PLANNING TO DO.
THAT'S WHAT IT ASKS, AND THE
LIABILITY IN THE BILL IS VERY
NARROW. THERE'S NO PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION. ONLY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CAN FILE A LAWSUIT, AND
ONLY IF A CATASTROPHIC HARM HAS
HAPPENED. AND YOU DIDN'T DO THE
SAFETY, EVALUATION, AND SO WE'RE
WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO BE LIGHT
TOUCH HERE AND JUST SET A VERY,
VERY BASIC STANDARD, WHICH I
THINK IS THE RIGHT APPROACH, IN
TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE NOW ON THE
I CURVE OR HOWEVER YOU WOULD
DESCRIBE IT, SO I, YOU KNOW,
THIS IS NOT GOING TO IMPEDE
INNOVATION IN ANY WAY. AND, AND
I THINK JUST OBJECTING TO BEING
ASKED TO JUST LOOKING AT WHETHER
THERE SEEMS TO BE A SAFETY RISK,
I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT
THAT'S, HONESTLY, TO ME, NOT NOT
A REASONABLE POSITION. OKAY. AND
THEN I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED.
YOU YOU HAVE YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE FRONTIER MODEL
DIVISION. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD
IDEA. BUT IT HAS, IT'S TASKED
WITH, ISSUING GUIDANCE AND
STANDARDS, RECEIVING
CERTIFICATION, PUBLISHING SAFETY
INCIDENTS, REPORTS, ADVISING THE
GOVERNOR, YOU KNOW, I'VE WORKED
OBVIOUSLY A LOT IN
CYBERSECURITY, AND IT IS VERY,
VERY DIFFICULT TO HIRE, PEOPLE
WITH THAT TYPE OF TECHNICAL
EXPERTISE. IS THAT OF CONCERN
FOR YOU? YEAH. I MEAN, THIS IS
AN ISSUE IN GOVERNMENT IN, IN
GENERAL IN TERMS OF BUILDING OUT
THAT CAPACITY AROUND TECHNOLOGY
AND IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I
REFERRED EARLIER TO SOMETIMES
GOVERNMENT IS HESITANT TO GET
INVOLVED, IN TECHNOLOGY, EVEN
THOUGH IT IMPACTS OUR LIVES SO
PROFOUNDLY, AND SO WE DO HAVE TO
DO, BETTER, AT AND I THINK PART
OF IT IS WE NEED TO BE ABLE,
WILLING AND ABLE TO PAY THE
SALARIES, NEEDED TO ATTRACT
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CAPACITY IN
TERMS OF STAFFING THAT WE, THAT
WE NEED. BUT I ALSO WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT THAT THE FMD
RESPONSIBILITIES HERE, I THINK,
ARE QUITE DOABLE. AND WE
ACTUALLY ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WE'VE ACCEPTED FROM THE
COMMITTEE, IS TO, IN TERMS OF
THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THE
FMD, NOT TO NOT TO REQUIRE THE
DEVELOPERS OF AI MODELS TO BE,
TO COMPLY WITH THAT GUIDANCE,
BUT TO CONSIDER IT ALONG WITH
SOME OF, SOME OF THE FEDERAL
GUIDANCE, AND SO FORTH. SO WE'VE
TRIED TO BE LIGHT TOUCH WITH
THAT AS WELL. AND WITH FMD, I'M
CONFIDENT THAT I IMAGINE THAT
THERE WILL BE FURTHER CHANGES,
TO IT, AND WE'RE OPEN TO THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. YEAH. IT SEEMS
LIKE MAYBE YOU COULD CONSIDER
NARROWING THE LIST OF, YEAH,
FUNCTIONS OR, LOOK AT SOME OF
THE, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT LIKE THE
STANDARDS. IT MIGHT, MIGHT MAKE
IT MORE, DOABLE. SO WHEN YOU'RE,
WHEN YOU ARE, WHEN THESE
COMPANIES AND I'M NOT SURE WHO
MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER WHEN
THEY'RE TESTING FOR THESE
DANGERS IS, CATASTROPHIC EVENTS.
HOW LONG DOES THAT I MEAN, WHAT
DOES THAT INVOLVE? YEAH. SO IT,
AND PERHAPS, EXCEPT FOR CHRIS
OR. YEAH, I MIGHT ASK CHRIS
PAINTER TO COME UP TO ANSWER
THAT, WHO WITH? PETER. SO IF THE
CHAIR. IF THE CHAIR. YEAH. YEAH
HI. YES, MY NAME IS CHRIS
PAINTER. I'M LIKE THE SENATOR
SAID, I'M THE POLICY DIRECTOR AT
MODEL EVALUATION THREAT
RESEARCH, A 500 AND 1C3 THAT
DOES, RESEARCH ON MODEL
EVALUATIONS. WE DON'T TAKE A
POSITION ON LEGISLATION. SO, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE NOT A SPONSOR OF THE
BILL, IN PRACTICE, MY IMPRESSION
IS THAT THIS KIND OF SAFETY
TESTING TAKES SOMEWHERE ON THE
ORDER OF IT'S LIKE SINGLE DIGIT
WEEKS, AT LEAST FOR THE MODELS
THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TODAY,
BEFORE YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW,
EARLY EVIDENCE THAT FOR THE
HAZARDOUS CAPABILITIES THAT THE
BILL DESCRIBES, YOU SEE THE
ABSENCE OF A CAPABILITY, AND THE
COST IS THIS OBVIOUSLY, IT COULD
VARY BY FERM AND BY THE, YOU
KNOW, SPECIFICS OF A FIRM'S
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TESTS,
BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF
WAYS TO DO THE TESTS THAT ARE
EMERGING IN MANY DIFFERENT
APPROACHES, BUT IT'S ON THE
ORDER OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS TO, YOU KNOW, SINGLE
DIGIT MILLIONS, WHICH IN THE
CONTEXT OF A $100 MILLION
TRAINING RUN WOULD BE A SINGLE
DIGIT PERCENTAGE,
CONSERVATIVELY, OF THE MODEL
TRAINING COST. OKAY. THANK YOU.
AND THEN FOR THE, THE
OPPOSITION, I MEAN, WE HAVE
HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT
THIS WILL STIFLE INNOVATION IN
CALIFORNIA. VÀ, WHAT ARE WHAT
ARE THE RAMOS OPTIONS IF WE,
SLOW DEVELOPMENT, CLAIMING THIS
IS GOING TO SLOW DEVELOPMENT OF
THESE, ADVANCED MODELS. SO WHAT
ARE WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS?
OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM
THE PERSPECTIVE OF MY COMPANY,
WE DO WEATHER FORECASTING.
WEATHER FORECASTING TOUCHES MORE
THAN 72. USE CASES, THESE WILL
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IT
IS ALMOST PUNISHING THE CORE
TECHNOLOGY AS A WEATHER
FORECASTING COMPANY, I AM I
CANNOT THE SAME TECHNOLOGY THAT
I USE TO HELP FARM MANAGERS SAVE
WATER OR THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
TO PREVENT CATASTROPHIC FOREST
FIRES. THE SAME FORECAST COULD
BE USED TO SAY, OH, THIS DAY IS
DRIER. THIS DAY I SHOULD CREATE
A FOREST FIRE. I AM LIABLE FOR
THAT. AND I COULD EASILY. NOW
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE $100
MILLION IN LIMITS IN THE
TRAINING, BUT BUT TO FORECAST
WEATHER, IT REQUIRES A LOT OF
ENERGY, RESOURCES AND CAPITAL,
AND I CAN SEE THAT IN THE LIFE
OF MY COMPANY, I COULD SPEND
$100 MILLION IN TRAININGS TO
MAKE BETTER WEATHER FORECAST
MODELS. SO I SEE THAT THIS CAN
ALSO AFFECT THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM
IN A WHOLE. BECAUSE IF YOU LIMIT
FOUNDATION MODELS OR THE BIGGER
MODELS, THEN MANY COMPANIES
BUILD UPON THAT AND THEY TWEAK
IT. THEY TAILOR IT TO SPECIFIC
USE CASES. AND IF THEY IF THE
MAIN MODEL IS, LET'S SAY BANNED
OR STOPPED IN THE INNOVATION,
THEN IT'S A TRICKLE DOWN ON THE
ECONOMY, ON WHAT KIND OF
TECHNOLOGY WE WILL HAVE ACCESS
AS A SMALL COMPANIES. SO THAT'S,
MY PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. I
AGREE WITH THAT. I'LL JUST ADD
THE RAMIFICATIONS THAT WE SEE
ARE IF A BUSINESS IS LOOKING
WHERE TO DEVELOP AI AND IN
CALIFORNIA OR STATES NEXT DOOR
THAT DON'T HAVE THESE
REGULATIONS, WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT
THE IMPACT OF THIS BILL WILL
HAVE. THAT'S JUST FUNDAMENTALLY
A CONCERN. YEAH, I JUST ALSO
WANT TO NOTE THERE THAT, THAT
LIKE OTHER LIKE OUR PRIVACY LAW,
ETC, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHERE YOU
DEVELOP IT. IT'S WHETHER YOU'RE
DOING BUSINESS. AND SO THIS IS
NOT A SITUATION WHERE ONLY IF
YOU, YOU'RE ONLY COVERED BY THE
LAW, IF YOU, IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY
DEVELOPING THE MODEL PHYSICALLY
IN CALIFORNIA. SO I THINK THAT'S
A LITTLE BIT OF A RED HERRING.
OKAY. AND JUST ONE LAST
QUESTION, BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY
ASKED ENOUGH, BUT ONE MORE. THE,
YOU KNOW, OUR COLLEAGUE IN
CONGRESS IS WORKING ON SOME AI
LEGISLATION. OUR PREVIOUS
COLLEAGUE IS THERE IS ANYTHING
THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON SIMILAR
TO YOUR THIS BILL, MR. OBERNOLTE
OR. YES. YES AND I'VE ACTUALLY
SPOKEN WITH OUR FORMER
COLLEAGUE. ABOUT THE WORK THAT
THEY'RE DOING, I WILL NOTE THAT
THE, HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER,
STEVE SCALISE, ANNOUNCED A WEEK
AGO THAT HE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING
SIGNIFICANT MOVING, IN CONGRESS
ON AI. AND SO, THERE THEY'RE
LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
THINGS. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY
HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT
THEY'RE PUSHING AT THE MOMENT.
BUT AS I'VE SAID AND I SAID THIS
WHEN I AUTHORED CALIFORNIA'S NET
NEUTRALITY LAW IN 2018, THAT IF
CONGRESS WERE TO PASS A
REASONABLE LAW AND OCCUPY THE
FIELD, THAT'S A DECISION THAT
THEY CAN MAKE. AND PREEMPTION
SOMETIMES HAPPENS. AND I'VE AND
I'VE ALWAYS BEEN OF THE VIEW
THAT WHETHER IT'S AI
REGULATIONS, SOCIAL MEDIA
REGULATION, DATA PRIVACY, HAVING
A UNIFORM FEDERAL LAW, I AGREE
100% IS THE IDEAL APPROACH. BUT
WE'VE SEEN THAT THAT TYPICALLY
HAS NOT HAPPENED WITH CONGRESS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY CALIFORNIA
SHOULD, LEAD ON THIS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MISS ERWIN. ANYBODY
ELSE? YEAH MR. HOOVER. THANK
YOU. IF I MAY JUST ASK THE
OPPOSITION, YOU KNOW, YOU
OBVIOUSLY RAISED SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT ABOUT THE BALANCE THAT
THIS BILL STRIKES. WHAT IS A
BETTER BALANCE THAT CAN BE
STRUCK, YOU KNOW, IN YOUR
OPINION ON THE RISKS ASSOCIATED
WITH DIFFERENT USE CASES OF AI.
OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, YEAH. THANK
YOU. SO, I THINK THAT, FIRST OF
ALL, I'M A SCIENTIST. I WILL I
REFER TO POLICY MAKERS AND
LAWYERS TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE,
THE IMPLICATIONS. BUT FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THAT THIS
THE INTENT IS TO PUT EVERYBODY
UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA. AND YOU
ARE LIKE, BASICALLY PUTTING,
LIKE SOME LIMITATIONS ON LINEAR
ALGEBRA THAT YOU TEACH IN HIGH
SCHOOL, WE ARE LIKE PUTTING LIKE
A LIMITATION ON MATH, ON BASIC
SCIENCE, NOT ON THE WRONG USE OF
MATH FOR APPLICATIONS. YEAH. SO
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON,
LET'S SAY, IF WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT CYBER SECURITY, WE HAVE
CYBER SECURITY LAWS, WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT FRAUD. WE HAVE
LAWS AGAINST FRAUD,
IMPERSONATION, ALL OF THOSE
ONES. BUT NOT CORE SCIENCE.
BECAUSE AT THE END, THIS IS
LINEAR ALGEBRA. AND ARE WE
LIMITING OUR ADVANCEMENTS ON
MATH? THE NUMBERS ALMOST LOOK
LIKE RANDOM, BUT BUT AT THE END
THAT WILL HAVE A TRICKLE DOWN
EFFECT IF THE BIGGER COMPANIES
CANNOT INNOVATE TO MAKE LINEAR
ALGEBRA OPTIMIZATION BETTER,
THEN WE WILL ALL NOT BENEFIT
FROM THOSE INNOVATIONS. THANK
YOU. SO, SENATOR, AND I
APPRECIATE OBVIOUSLY, YOUR WORK
ON THIS. I THINK, WE PROBABLY
WOULD BOTH AGREE THAT, THERE'S
CERTAINLY SOME INHERENT RISKS
WITH AI THAT WE NEED TO TALK
ABOUT, ALSO SOME SOME BIG
BENEFITS, I THINK, TO AI AS
WELL, AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE
CAN SEE BECAUSE OF AI. SO KIND
OF I JUST LOVE TO HEAR YOUR
RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS
RAISED TODAY BY THE OPPOSITION
AND, AND WHY YOU KIND OF CHOSE
THIS, THIS APPROACH. YEAH AND I,
AND I'M, YOU KNOW, IN FULL
AGREEMENT WITH THE WORK THAT
YOU'RE DOING, THE WORK. THERE'S
A LOT OF REALLY EXCITING STUFF
HAPPENING. THERE WAS AI MODEL
THAT CAME UP WITH NEW
ANTIBIOTICS, RIGHT? I MEAN,
THERE'S LIKE THE SKY'S THE LIMIT
IN TERMS OF THE BENEFITS TO
SOCIETY, AND I SUPPORT THAT. AND
IN ADDITION TO OPEN SOURCING OF,
OF MODELS. SO THAT OTHERS CAN
USE THAT WORK AND BUILD ON IT, I
THINK IT'S REALLY EXCITING. AND
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE TOOK SUCH
A LIGHT TOUCH APPROACH THERE
WHEN WE WERE FORMULATING THIS
AI, AND WE'RE TALKING TO A LOT
OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE, THERE WERE
PEOPLE WHO WANTED US TO PUT
STRICT LIABILITY INTO THE LAW.
RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT, SOME OF
THE COMMENTS WE'VE HEARD SORT OF
ALMOST PRESUPPOSE THAT THERE'S
STRICT LIABILITY. AND FOR THOSE
WHO DON'T KNOW, STRICT LIABILITY
MEANS IF YOU, WERE TO PUT A
MODEL OUT AND A HARM CAUSE IS
CAUSED AS A RESULT, YOU'RE
AUTOMATICALLY LIABLE EVEN IF YOU
ACTED REASONABLY. WE REJECTED
THAT IN THE BILL. WE REJECTED,
REQUIRING A LICENSE FROM THE
GOVERNMENT. WE REJECTED, AS I
NOTED, THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION, SO I JUST FUNDAMENTALLY
DISPUTE THAT THIS WILL PREVENT
ANYONE FROM INNOVATING. I JUST
FUNDAMENTALLY DISPUTE THAT THE
SAFETY EVALUATIONS THAT ARE
BEING REQUIRED ARE ALREADY ONES
THAT THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE DOING
OR WILL DO THE LIABILITY IS
VERY, VERY LIMITED TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND IF YOU'VE
DONE THE EVALUATION, THEN YOU,
YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T YOU'RE
PROTECTED, AND SO WE REALLY
TRIED TO TAKE THAT LIGHT TOUCH
APPROACH PRECISELY BECAUSE THE
LAST THING I WOULD WANT TO DO IS
UNDERMINE, INNOVATION, AND I
ALSO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, YES,
THIS IS A LINEAR ALGEBRA AND
BASIC SCIENCE. I AGREE, BUT I
THINK THIS IS, ON A, ON A SCALE,
THESE THIS LINEAR ALGEBRA, IS,
IS BEING USED TO BUILD MODELS
THAT ARE UNBELIEV POWERFUL.
RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT JUST, YOU
KNOW, THE ALGEBRA THAT SOMEONE
DID IN THEIR, YOU KNOW, NINTH
GRADE OR EIGHTH GRADE, YOU KNOW,
HOMEWORK, IT IS, CREATING MODELS
THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD,
FRANKLY, HOPEFULLY IN
OVERWHELMINGLY GOOD WAYS. AND I
THINK THAT THAT IS THE CASE, BUT
WITH RISK, AND SO I THAT'S WHY
WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR A SAFETY
EVALUATION. THANK YOU, MR. VICE
CHAIR. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANKS,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS, BILL
TO US. AND YOU'VE NEVER BEEN AN
INDIVIDUAL TO BRING SMALL
SUBJECTS TO THE LEGISLATURE, SO
THAT KIND OF FITS IN THAT HAVE
SMALL ONES, TOO. YEAH. OKAY.
YEAH, I'VE JUST NEVER HEARD ANY
OF THOSE. SO SO, YOU KNOW,
YESTERDAY I WAS WALKING OUTSIDE
MY OFFICE IN THE FOURTH FLOOR,
AND, FOR THOSE OF US MOSTLY
REPUBLICANS WHOSE OFFICES ARE ON
THE FOURTH FLOOR, THAT SEEMS TO
BE THE MEETING SPACE. AND A LOT
OF PEOPLE WERE LOOKING OVER THE
AMENDMENTS, YOU KNOW, AND,
TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT, YOU
KNOW, WHAT EXACTLY WAS GOING ON.
AND SO THAT IS KIND OF ONE
CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS I'M VERY
INTERESTED TO KNOW, HAVE MORE
TIME TO DISCUSS THIS WITH ALL
THE STAKEHOLDERS BECAUSE, YOU
CHARACTERIZE IT AS A SMALL OR,
WHAT WHAT DID YOU SAY? LIGHT
TOUCH? LIGHT TOUCH. NOBODY ELSE
HAS DESCRIBED IT TO ME QUITE
THAT WAY. BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT SO
I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE, YOU
KNOW, THE FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO,
REALLY FOR ME TO HEAR FROM THE
PEOPLE WHO WILL BE IMPACTED IN
THE COMPANIES THAT WILL BE
IMPACTED BY THIS. BUT ALSO, I DO
KIND OF HAVE, WHEN THE WHEN AL
GORE CREATED THE INTERNET, WE I
ALWAYS THOUGHT IF WE, IF
CALIFORNIA WAS REGULATING THINGS
TO THE EXTENT THE TECHNOLOGIES,
THEN TO THE EXTENT THAT MAYBE WE
REGULATE NOW AND I KNOW THIS
ISN'T YOUR INTENT PER SE, BUT
MAYBE WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE SAME
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS THAT
WE HAVE ON THE WORLD WIDE WEBS
OR WHATNOT. AND ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE IS OBVIOUS. I MEAN,
IT'S WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE
IT'S GOING TO LEAD, WHICH IS
PART OF THE REASON FOR THE BILL.
BUT ALSO WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT
WE DON'T KNOW. RIGHT SO BUT I
THINK MY OVERALL CONCERN RIGHT
NOW IS AND I'M AND I'M NOT
SAYING I'M GOING TO OPPOSE THE
BILL AND FEEL FREE TO RESPOND TO
THIS, IS THAT I JUST I HAVEN'T
HAD THE TIME TO REALLY CONSUME
INFORMATION FROM ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING THE
PROPONENTS OF THE BILL, AT THIS
TIME. AND FEEL FREE TO OPINE ON
MY STATEMENT IF YOU'D LIKE. I'D
LOVE TO HEAR IT. YEAH AND I
AGAIN, I KNOW I'M PROBABLY
SOUNDING LIKE A BROKEN RECORD,
BUT IF I HAD COME IN HERE WITH A
BILL TO SAY YOU HAVE TO GET A
LICENSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT,
WE'RE GOING TO PUT STRICT
LIABILITY AND WE'RE GOING TO DO
ALL THESE THINGS, THINGS THAT I
REJECTED. PEOPLE WERE PUSHING
ME, WANTED ME TO, YOU KNOW, ADD
FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, FOLKS IN
THE AI SPACE, FRONT LINE
TECHNOLOGISTS WERE LIKE, NO, YOU
SHOULD REQUIRE IF YOU'RE GOING
TO BUILD SOMETHING THIS
POWERFUL, YOU SHOULD NEED
PERMISSION, A LICENSE FROM THE
GOVERNMENT AHEAD OF TIME. AND I
POLITELY SAID, NO, AND SAME WITH
STRICT LIABILITY, SAME WITH A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION, AND I
DID THOSE THINGS PRECISELY
BECAUSE BECAUSE I DIDN'T I
WANTED TO STRIKE THAT FINE
BALANCE WHERE WE WERE ASKING THE
COMPANIES THEMSELVES TO DO THE
THINGS THAT THEY ALREADY SAY
THEY WANT TO DO, TO CERTIFY THAT
THEY'VE DONE IT. AND THEN IN
TERMS OF LIABILITY, MAKE IT ONLY
ME, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHICH,
YOU KNOW, IS GOING TO BE THE
VERY EXTREME CASES. I WANT TO
ALSO BE CLEAR, AND I SHOULD HAVE
MENTIONED THIS EARLIER BECAUSE I
THINK THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT POINT, I THINK THAT
THE, THE, THE FUNDAMENTAL
OBJECTION REALLY BOILS DOWN TO
THE LIABILITY PIECE. I DON'T
EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE SOME
PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE TO DO A SAFETY
EVALUATION, AND AT THE SAME TIME
THAT THEY SIGN AGREEMENTS AND
SOUL SAYING THAT, THAT, THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, I THINK
THE CONCERN IS ABOUT LIABILITY.
THE LIABILITY IN SB 1047 IS
DRAMATICALLY NARROWER THAN
EXISTING LIABILITY TODAY, RIGHT
NOW, TODAY, IF I WERE TO
RELEASE, IF I WERE TO RELEASE A
LARGE OR ANY MODEL LARGE, SMALL,
ANY MODEL, AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE
TAKES THAT MODEL AND DOES
SOMETHING TERRIBLE WITH IT, I
CAN GET SUED TODAY. THE LAW IS
PROBABLY A LITTLE UNSETTLED AND
WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
COURTS, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHERE
THE COURTS UNDER COMMON LAW TORT
DOCTRINE WOULD GO WITH IT. BUT
THAT LAWSUIT, IN TERMS OF RISK
OF LITIGATION, THAT CAN HAPPEN
TODAY AND EXISTING TORT LAW IS
NOT LIMITED TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL. IT'S NOT LIMITED TO
HARMS OVER $500 MILLION. IT IS
IT IS MUCH BROADER, AS YOU KNOW.
AND SO YOU CAN GET SUED TODAY.
THAT RISK EXISTS TODAY. WHAT
WE'RE PROPOSING IS MUCH MORE
FOCUSED AND NARROW. Dð THE
SAFETY EVALUATION. AND IF
SOMETHING PROFOUNDLY
CATASTROPHIC HAPPENS AND YOU
DIDN'T DO THAT EVALUATION, THEN
ONE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO SUE
YOU. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. ARE
YOU OKAY? SO YOUR YOUR BILL
AFFIRMATIVELY STOPS THIS OTHER
LITIGATION. NO, NO IT DOES NOT
THAT BACKGROUND TORT LAW EXISTS
TODAY AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO
EXIST. AND SO THERE ARE I CAN'T
SAY THIS WITH CERTAINTY. I'M
CONFIDENT THAT THERE ARE
PROBABLY A CADRE OF LAWYERS WHO
ARE, GEARING UP WITH THAT
PRACTICE AREA OF SUING. I CAN'T
I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS. I'M
JUST ASSUMING BASED ON MY, MANY
YEARS AS A LAWYER, THAT THAT
WILL BECOME A THING. AND WHAT
WE'RE DOING IS JUST SO MUCH MORE
NARROW THAN THAN THAT. SO THAN
THAT POTENTIAL EXPOSURE. AND
THAT EXPOSURE EXISTS EVEN IF
THIS BILL WERE TO EVAPORATE,
JUST ONE COMMENT, SORT OF IN
RESPONSE TO, WHILE I THINK THE,
AMENDMENTS ARE, IT'S A LOT AND
WE'RE LOOKING FOR IT TO,
DISCUSSIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS
AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I
THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
THING FOR US TO GET RIGHT. BUT I
WILL SAY THE ANALYSIS I KNOW
THIS ISN'T NEW TO COMMITTEE, BUT
THE ANALYSIS IS QUITE EXTENSIVE.
AND I DO HAVE TO SAY GOOD JOB
FOR THE COMMITTEE. AT LEAST IT
WASN'T A SHORT READ, IT WAS
TOUGH FOR I ALMOST ASK CHATGPT
TO SUMMARIZE INTO AN IMAGE,
BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I READ IS
BOOKS, BUT IT IS A VERY VIDEO.
VIDEO RENDITION. IT IS A GOOD,
GOOD ANALYSIS, BUT I AM
PERSONALLY INTERESTED IN HEARING
MORE DISCUSSIONS FROM THE
STAKEHOLDERS BECAUSE IT IS A BIG
REWRITE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
WE'VE HAD A CONVERSATION ON IT.
I DON'T THINK WHAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO ACCOMPLISH IS CRAZY. I THINK
IT'S I THINK SOMETHING NEEDS TO
HAPPEN ON IN THIS FRONT. AND I
DON'T KNOW IF CONGRESS OR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS EVER GOING
TO GET AROUND TO IT, FRANKLY.
YEAH. AND I WILL. JUST ONE THING
I WANT TO SAY IS WE HAVE TRIED
TO HAVE AN OPEN DOOR ON THIS
BILL FROM THE BEGINNING. I
ACTUALLY I'VE NEVER DONE THIS
BEFORE, BUT I PUT THIS IN THE
PRINT AS AN OUTLINE INTENT BILL
LAST SEPTEMBER ON RIGHT BEFORE
THE LEGISLATURE RECESSED JUST AN
OUTLINE OF THE BILL, AND I DID
THAT WAS A DIFFERENT BILL
NUMBER, BUT I DID THAT, TO TRY
TO START ELICITING FEEDBACK, NOT
THAT MUCH FEEDBACK WAS ELICITED
FROM A, YOU KNOW, OUTLINE OF A
BILL. AND THEN ABOUT TWO MONTHS
AGO, THE HEAVY FEEDBACK
HAPPENED, WHICH I WAS REALLY
HAPPY ABOUT. AND WE'VE BEEN
MEETING OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS
EARLIER, BUT ESPECIALLY THE LAST
FEW MONTHS WITH ALL SORTS OF
STAKEHOLDERS, RANGING FROM
PEOPLE WHO DESPISE THE BILL, TO
PEOPLE WHO LOVE IT TO PEOPLE WHO
HAVE CONCERNS WITH LARGE TECH
COMPANIES, WITH SMALL TECH
COMPANIES, WITH VENTURE CAPITAL
FIRMS, WITH ACADEMICS, WITH
ADVOCATES. WE'RE AND THERE'S A
LOT OF GOOD FAITH, CONSTRUCTIVE
FEEDBACK WE'VE HAD WE'VE
RECEIVED, SOME OF WHICH HAS MADE
ITS WAY INTO THE BILL. AND SO
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO
THAT. I'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE AN
OPEN DOOR. MY GOAL HERE IS NOT
SIMPLY TO LIKE, PASS A BILL,
BECAUSE I POTENTIALLY CAN MÐI I
WANT TO GET THIS RIGHT, AND I
MET WITH SOMEONE EARLIER TODAY,
A GROUP THAT WAS NEVER GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL, AND I TOLD
THEM, I STILL WANT YOUR FEEDBACK
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO TAKE THAT
APPROACH. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE? OKAY, THEN IT'S MY TURN,
SO I WANT TO START ACTUALLY, BY
REITERATING, IN RESPONSE TO SOME
OF WHAT THE VICE CHAIR SAID, THE
WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE, WE'RE
NOW IN THE SECOND HOUSE. YOU
KNOW, IT WAS THIS COMMITTEE'S
PERSPECTIVE THAT WE NEED TO MOVE
A BILL FORWARD THAT IS CLEAR
THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY FOLLOW.
AND I KNOW THE OPPOSITION DIDN'T
NECESSARILY THINK IT MOVED IN
THE DIRECTION THEY WANTED IT TO,
BUT I'M HOPEFUL THAT EVERYONE
FEELS LIKE THIS AT LEAST IS A, A
BILL. NOW, THAT IS
UNDERSTANDABLE. AND ONE COULD
IMPLEMENT, WHICH IS ALWAYS
SOMETHING THAT I PRIORITIZE AS A
FORMER REGULATORY LAWYER. SO AND
I WANT TO SAY THAT I KNOW THAT
THE TIMELINE OF THAT WAS NOT
WHAT EVERYONE WOULD HAVE
DESIRED. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
THAT. I WILL SAY STAFF WAS
SENDING ME EMAILS LONG INTO THE
NIGHT. WE DO NOT PAY THEM ENOUGH
FOR THE HOURS THEY WERE WORKING,
AND YET THEY DID AN INCREDIBLE
JOB OF WRITING AN ANALYSIS OF
AMENDING THE BILL, I THINK, IN
WAYS THAT HOPEFULLY MOVE THE
BALL FORWARD AND SO, YOU KNOW, I
UNDERSTAND THE SHORT TIMELINE.
IT IS DOUBLE REFERRED. SO THERE
WILL BE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON
THE BILL, AND I KNOW THAT
COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY BEEN IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH THIS
COMMITTEE, SO THEY WILL NOT BE
SHOCKED BY WHAT THEY SAW, AND SO
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF
THIS. I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT
ONE THING THAT HAS NOT, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, AS THE CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE, BEEN AT ISSUE,
WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF
CRITICAL HARM. AND I THINK
THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT
TO MAKE, BECAUSE NOBODY, AS FAR
AS I'VE BEEN TOLD DIRECTLY, HAS
TAKEN ISSUE WITH HOW THE SENATOR
HAS TALKED ABOUT CHEMICAL,
BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL OR
NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN A MANNER THAT
RESULTS IN MASS CASUALTIES. THE
NUMBER OF $500 MILLION, EVEN
YOU, SIR, SAID THAT'S WHAT WE
SHOULD BE DOING. WE SHOULD BE
PUNISHING THOSE WHO CREATE THOSE
HARMS. MAYBE NOT ON THE FRONT
END, BUT I THINK THERE SEEMS TO
BE CONSENSUS THAT THESE ARE
THINGS WE DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN.
RIGHT. AND SO THIS QUESTION OF
YES, IT'S MATH. YES. THIS IS,
YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY IT'S NOT
ROCKET SCIENCE, BUT WE GOT TO
THE MOON BEFORE WE GOT TO WHERE
WE ARE IN AI. SO, PERHAPS IT IS
AS COMPLICATED AS ROCKET
SCIENCE, THE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS
A QUESTION AND IT IS A QUESTION
THAT WE NEED TO GRAPPLE WITH,
WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
REGULATION OF. DO WE WAIT UNTIL
THE HARM EXISTS, WHICH IS THE
CURRENT MODEL OF LAW, OR DO WE
SAY WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PREVENT HARMS THAT CAN HARM OUR
COMMUNITY IN WAYS THAT ARE SO
CATASTROPHIC THAT EVERY SINGLE
PERSON IN THIS ROOM SHOULD WANT
TO PREVENT? AND THE GOAL OF THE
AUTHOR HERE IS TO PREVENT THOSE
HARMS. AND THAT IS A GOAL THAT I
HOPE WE ALL SHARE. EVEN THE
OPPOSITION. AND SO WITH THAT
LENS, I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT WHAT THE
BILL DOES AND AGAIN AS AMENDED,
SO I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S NOT
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY ALL ON THE
SAME PAGE YET ABOUT WHAT IT
DOES, BUT I THINK THAT THE
SUMMARY AT THE BEGINNING ON PAGE
TWO, THE THIRD TO LAST PARAGRAPH
OF THE SUMMARY, REALLY LAYS OUT
WHAT THE BILL DOES. AND ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT I HAVE SAID
PUBLICLY ON MY BILL ABOUT RISK
ASSESSMENTS, THE SENATOR AND I
HAVE TALKED ABOUT IS MANY OF THE
FOLKS AT THE CHAMBER THAT ARE
REPRESENTED AT THE TABLE TODAY
DO RISK ASSESSMENTS. THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT IS NOVEL. WE ARE
NOT ASKING OF THEM, SOMETHING
MOST DO NOT DO. AND SO THE BILL
REQUIRING RISK ASSESSMENTS THAT,
BY THE WAY, ARE NOW ALIGNED WITH
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS, I GUESS I'M OF THE
OPINION THAT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO
ASK WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
CATASTROPHIC HARMS. I THINK
THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS OUT
THERE ABOUT LIABILITY. AND I
RESPECT YOU BRINGING IT UP
TODAY. BUT I THINK THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION WE NEED
TO HAVE IN JUDICIARY, AND
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BEING
RAISED. BUT I THINK
FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT IS BEING
MOVED FORWARD IS PROTECTIVE OF
OUR COMMUNITIES. AND THAT'S
REALLY I THINK WHAT IS MOST
CRITICAL HERE. ONE OF THE MAIN
CHANGES, I THINK, THAT WE MADE
THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I'M A
BIG BELIEVER, AND I'VE SAID IT
BEFORE, THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS
RISKS TO OPEN SOURCE MODELS.
IT'S ALSO REALLY IMPORTANT TO
THE COMPETITION IN THE
MARKETPLACE. AND SO THIS BILL
DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I
THINK MAYBE ONE OF THE MOST
AMAZING THINGS THIS BILL WILL DO
IS CAL COMPUTE. IT WILL CREATE
COMPETITION THAT WILL CREATE
SAFETY, AMONGST ALL PLAYERS. AND
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT MOVE THIS BILL MAKES.
AND THEN IN ADDITION, WE HAVE
ENSURED WE BELIEVE THAT THE
SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY, THE NEED TO
IMPLEMENT A SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY
IS ONLY OVER THOSE MODELS. YOU
CONTROL. AND THAT WAS SOMETHING
WE HEARD FROM THE OPEN SOURCE
COMMUNITY, THAT HOW CAN WE
CONTROL IT ONCE IT'S OUT OF OUR
HANDS, WE EXPECT YOU TO TEST IT
BEFORE YOU LEAVE. BUT WE
UNDERSTAND THAT ONCE IT'S OUT OF
YOUR HANDS, WHICH SHOULD PROTECT
THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY. AND
SO I THINK THIS BILL DOES A LOT.
BUT I THINK IT ALSO ASKS OF
COMPANIES WHAT THOSE WHO ARE
LEADING ON SAFETY AND
RESPONSIBILITY ARE ALREADY
DOING. AND SO THAT IS WHY I
THINK IT IS. I DON'T KNOW THAT
I'D USE THE WORD LIGHT TOUCH.
SENATOR BUT, YOU KNOW,
REASONABLE, SO, SO, BUT I WILL,
I GUESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I
WANT TO ASK IS, AS I READ THE
BILL, HAVING STUDIED THE UI ACT,
I BELIEVE THAT THESE COMPANIES
WILL HAVE TO GO SIGNIFICANTLY
FURTHER THAN YOU ARE PROPOSING
HERE TODAY TO COMPLY WITH
ANYTHING THAT IS AVAILABLE IN
THE EUROPEAN UNION. AND SO
THAT'S ONE OF THE PERPLEXING
THINGS TO ME ABOUT THE MAJOR
OPPOSITION ON THIS BILL IS THAT
I CAN'T IMAGINE AND MAYBE I'M
WRONG. I ASSUME YOUR COMPANY
OPERATES ACROSS INTERNATIONAL
BORDERS OR DESIRES TO. I DON'T
KNOW HOW BIG YOU ARE, BUT I
GUESS THAT'S WHAT I I'M TRYING
TO GRAPPLE WITH IS IF YOU ARE
GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE UI ACT,
WHICH IS DOES MANY OF THE THINGS
THAT THE SENATOR HAS SAID, HE IS
NOT GOING TO DO RIGHT IT
EVERYONE BELIEVES IT'S GOING TO
REQUIRE LICENSING FOR MODELS
THAT ARE THIS RISKY. YOU KNOW
WHY IS US ASKING FOR RISK
ASSESSMENTS FOR THOSE SOLD IN
CALIFORNIA? NOT A REASONABLE
ASK. AND I GUESS I WILL ASK THAT
OF I DON'T KNOW IF THE SENATOR
WANTS TO WEIGH IN AND THE
OPPOSITION. YEAH, I THINK I
WOULD SAY THAT WE STILL NEED TO
ANALYZE THIS BILL AND COMPARE IT
TO THE EU ACT. WE JUST HAVEN'T
HAD THAT KIND OF TIME, I WILL
SAY THAT IN VARIOUS ITERATIONS,
I HAVE BEEN TOLD AND I, YOU
KNOW, CAN'T ATTEST TO EXACTLY
WHAT IT IS, BUT I HAVE BEEN TOLD
THAT WE GO FURTHER THAN THE UI
ACT IN SOME ASPECTS, WE MAY EVEN
BE GOING FURTHER THAN WHAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS DOING. WE
KEEP HEARING TODAY THAT, YOU
KNOW, CONGRESS DOESN'T ACT, BUT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ACTING
IN THE SPACE. SO I'M NOT SURE
THAT THIS IS LESS THAN OR EVEN
ENLIGHTENMENT WITH THOSE OTHER
THINGS. WE JUST HAVE TO ANALYZE
IT. GIVEN THE AMENDMENTS. AND
THAT'S FAIR. I, I STARTED WITH
THAT WHOLE PREAMBLE. RIGHT, I
WILL SAY ONE THING. I MEAN, WHEN
YOU SAY WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS DOING, WHAT IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PURVIEW IS
ENFORCEABLE. SO THERE ARE NYSED
GUIDELINES, RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT
I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT IS
ENFORCEABLE THAT THIS WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH. SO I GUESS
I'M ASKING WHAT YOUR SURE. I
THINK MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS
WHAT WE'VE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR
IS TO SEE WHAT COMES OUT OF
THAT, AND THEN SEE IF WE NEED TO
BUILD UPON IT. THAT'S
ENFORCEMENT, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S
TOO EARLY FOR ME TO SAY
ANYTHING, CERTAINLY ON BEHALF OF
MY MEMBERS ON THAT. BUT THAT'S
JUST ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
ARE WORRIED ABOUT IS DIFFERING
STANDARDS. YEAH, YEAH. AND I
MEAN, THE REALITY IS, AS I THINK
YOU'VE IMPLIED, THERE IS NOTHING
ENFORCEABLE COMING OUT OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW.
THE PRESIDENT ISSUED AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND WE ACTUALLY
MODELED SOME ASPECTS OF THE BILL
ON THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER AND THEN
PROMPTLY GOT CRITICIZED FOR,
FOR, FOR DOING THAT, SO IT'S
LIKE, HEY, LOOK TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, AND THEN YOU LOOK TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THEN
YOU GET CRITICIZED FOR LOOKING
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SO
THERE'S AN EXECUTIVE ORDER. IT'S
NOT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE FORCE
OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE NIST
GUIDELINES, WE ACTUALLY ARE
REFERRED TO IN THIS BILL. WE ARE
WE WANT TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF
UNIFORMITY AND, OF COURSE, IF
CONGRESS ACTS AND PREEMPTS US,
THEN THAT'S THEN THAT'S THAT,
THIS BILL DOES NOT GO AS FAR,
NEARLY AS FAR AS WHERE THE EU
HAS, HAS GONE. YEAH. SO I MEAN,
I DO APPRECIATE AGAIN, I STARTED
WITH THIS WAS ALL VERY QUICK. SO
I, I'M HONORING THAT. I HOPE YOU
HEAR THAT, AND AGAIN, DEFINITELY
NOT THROWING SHADE TO MY AMAZING
STAFF, BUT I MEAN, I WILL BE
CURIOUS TO HEAR GOING FORWARD
WHERE YOU THINK IT'S
INCONSISTENT WITH THE UI ACT, I
DON'T BY ANY MEANS FEIGN TO BE
AN EXPERT IN THE UI ACT, BUT WE
HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK TO TRY
TO UNDERSTAND IT AND MAKE SURE
WE'RE ALIGNING, TO THE EXTENT
POSSIBLE, WE ARE A SEPARATE
JURISDICTION, SO WE WILL DO OUR
OWN THING. OBVIOUSLY, THE WAY
IT'S ENFORCED, I THINK,
INDEPENDENT, THAT PIECE IS
INDEPENDENT, BUT JUST THE
REQUIREMENTS, SO, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT LENS
FOR US TO TAKE WITH THIS IS THAT
WE ARE NOT THE FIRST TO ACT
INTERNATIONALLY. AND, AND I
IMAGINE MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THE
MODELS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
OVER $100 MILLION IN TRAINING,
WHICH TO THE SENATOR'S POINT,
STAYED FIXED, YOU KNOW, ARE
THINGS THAT WOULD BE USED ACROSS
JURISDICTIONS, SO WITH THAT,
WOULD YOU. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, NO. IT'S THE
SENATOR'S TIME TO CLOSE. THERE
WAS NO QUESTION ON THE TABLE. I
THINK WE'VE SAID IT ALL. SO I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION TODAY AND
APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME
TO COME UP HERE. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR, WE
HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A
SECOND, SECOND, SECOND. LET'S
CALL THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER FOR
SB 1047 BY SENATOR WIENER. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS, AS AMENDED
TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BY
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. KHN. AYE.
PATTERSON. BRIAN DIXON, DIXON.
NOT VOTING. IRWIN. IRWIN I
HOOVER. LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL. I.
ORTEGA ORTEGA. I WARD. WARD I.
WICKS WILSON. BILL HAS FIVE
VOTES, BUT WE'LL LEAVE IT ON
CALL FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU. AND THE SENATORS HAVE
GRACIOUSLY OFFERED FOR SENATOR
ASHBY TO GO NEXT. SO WE WILL
TAKE SENATOR ASHBY'S BILL, SB
1000, AND TAKE HER OUT OF FILE
ORDER. THANK YOU, SENATORS
ASHBY. WHEN YOU'RE READY. YES
THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES. ALL
RIGHT. I PROMISED THEM I'D BE
QUICK AS CAN BE. SO I'LL MAKE
THIS AS EASY FOR YOU AS I CAN.
THIS IS SB 1000, WHICH IS A PART
OF A PACKAGE OF FOUR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PREVENTION BILLS
BETWEEN MYSELF AND SENATOR SUSAN
RUBIO. SHE IS A PRINCIPAL
COAUTHOR TO THIS BILL, THIS IS
THE VICTIM'S DIGITAL SAFETY ACT.
THIS BILL ADDS A CRUCIAL LAYER
OF PROTECTION THÀNH FOR VICTIMS
BY REQUIRING TECH COMPANIES TO
SWIFTLY CUT OFF AN ABUSER'S
ACCESS TO INTERNET CONNECTED
DEVICES AND SHARED ACCOUNTS,
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERTS NOTE
THAT THE MISUSE OF MODERN
TECHNOLOGY SIGNIFICANTLY
CONTRIBUTES TO THE RISE OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES. VICTIMS
REPORT REPORT ESCALATING ISSUES
OF VIRTUAL ABUSE. THINK OF ALL
THE WAYS THAT TECH MAKES YOUR
LIFE EASIER FOR YOUR SIRI AT
HOME, OR YOUR RING DOORBELL, OR
PERHAPS YOUR EV VEHICLE FROM
YOUR PHONE. NOW THINK OF ALL THE
WAYS THAT AN ABUSER, IF THEY HAD
ACCESS TO THOSE APPS, COULD
MONITOR YOUR COMINGS AND GOINGS.
THIS BILL ADDRESSES THAT SB 1000
PREVENTS ABUSERS FROM
CONTROLLING AND REMOTELY
HARASSING VICTIMS. WHEN
INSTANCES OF ABUSE ARE REPORTED
BY THAT VICTIM, BY ENSURING THAT
CALIFORNIA LAW CONTINUES TO
PROTECT VICTIMS EVEN AS
TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, THIS BILL
IS AUTHOR SPONSORED. I DO NOT
HAVE ANY WITNESSES WITH ME. THIS
IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST TIME I
PRESENTED IT THAT IT HASN'T BEEN
ON CONSENT. SO I'M HAPPY TO
SPEAK OUT LOUD ABOUT IT. AND I
ASK YOU FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. SENATOR, DO WE HAVE ANYONE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL? MY
NAME IS FAITH WHITMORE. I'M
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER NETWORK,
27 CENTERS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
THAT ASSIST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
VICTIMS AND I REPRESENT ALLIANCE
FOR HOPE INTERNATIONAL IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. AARON WITH
CALIFORNIA ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF
SAN FRANCISCO SAFE HOUSE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, JOYCE BLUE,
I REPRESENT THE CALIFORNIA
VOICES SURVIVOR ADVOCACY NETWORK
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, DAVID KROPP, ON
BEHALF OF THE SACRAMENTO
REGIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER
AND THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER
ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? HI, I'M
KURT AUGUSTINE WITH THE ALLIANCE
FOR AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION. WE'RE
NOT OPPOSED THE BILL, BUT WE DO
HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT WE WANT
TO ADDRESS. AND WE'VE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND YOUR
YOUR STAFF AND APPRECIATE THAT,
AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AUTO
INDUSTRY, WE OUR CONCERNS WITH
THE BILL, ONE, WE HAVE GREAT
SYMPATHY FOR THE ISSUE AND WANT
TO GET A RESOLUTION ON ON THIS.
BUT THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGES OF
COMPLYING, THAT'S ONE ISSUE. AND
THE COMMITTEE IS ADDRESSING TO,
TO A DEGREE WITH THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS ALSO THE LEGAL
LIABILITY ISSUES, I THINK WE
PREFER THE APPROACH THAT'S BEEN
OFFERED IN SB 1394 THAT AS
OPPOSED TO WHAT'S BEING
CURRENTLY OFFERED, AND WE WOULD
LIKE TO SEEK SOME RESOLUTION.
WE'VE GOT THREE BILLS, AS YOU
KNOW, AND, WE'D LIKE TO, YOU
KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO GET SOME
CLOSURE ON TO FIGURE OUT HOW
WE'RE GOING. AND ON THE CUT OFF
TIME, THERE'S BEEN GREAT DEBATE
ABOUT THAT AMONG THE THREE
BILLS. WE ARE NOT OPINING ON
THAT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT'S
REALLY BEST, ADDRESSED BY THE
VICTIM ORGANIZATIONS ON WHAT
THEY THINK IS BEST FOR THEIR FOR
THOSE KINDS. SO WE'RE AS LONG AS
IT MEETS THE TECHNICAL AND LEGAL
ISSUES, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH
WHATEVER DATE IS BEST FOR THE
VICTIMS. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT, SEEING NO
FURTHER OPPOSITION, ONE
CLARIFICATION, YOU'LL BE
ACCEPTING COMMITTEE AMENDMENT.
SENATOR, WE ARE ACCEPTING
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AND YOUR
STAFF WAS AMAZING. HAD SOME
SUGGESTIONS WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
WITH US TO OUR NEXT COMMITTEE TO
ADDRESS. TWO. THERE WILL BE SOME
SYNCING UP OF THE THREE BILLS
THAT ARE SIMILAR. LARGE PART
THANKFUL TO YOUR STAFF. YES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE? THANK YOU. AND I
WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US,
AND I APPRECIATE THE AUTO
MANUFACTURERS BRINGING UP
CENTERING THE VOICES OF THE
SURVIVORS IN THIS, WHICH I KNOW
IS SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO
YOU, SENATOR. AND SO WE HAVE
DONE OUR OWN PHONE CALLS WITH
SURVIVOR ORGANIZATIONS TO MAKE
SURE WE UNDERSTOOD THE NEEDS OF
THE SURVIVORS. AND THAT IS
REALLY WHAT WE ARE CENTERING IN
ALL OF THESE BILLS AND
APPRECIATE YOUR WORKING WITH US
TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE
ABILITY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
WHEN THEY WHEN THEY NEED IT. AND
I DON'T KNOW, SOMEBODY IN A
PREVIOUS Ó, SENATOR WIENER
SAID, WHAT IF WE WENT BACK IN
TIME AND ON SOME OF THESE
DEVICES, I MISS MY OLD DUMB
DEVICES. SO I APPRECIATE THIS,
AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE A SECOND.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? JUST
APPRECIATE YOU TAKING TIME FOR
ME TODAY. I APPRECIATE MY
COLLEAGUES FOR ALLOWING ME TO
STEP IN FRONT OF THEM. I THANK
YOU, GRATEFUL URGE, AND I VOTE.
MADAM SECRETARY, LET'S CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER THREE, SB 1000
VÌ BY SENATOR ASHBY. THE MOTION
IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BY KHN BY
BAUER-KAHAN I. PATTERSON BRIAN.
DIXON. DIXON. I IRWIN. IRWIN I
HOOVER. LOWENTHAL. ORTEGA.
ORTEGA. I WARD. WICKS. WILSON I
BILL HAS FOUR VOTES. WE WILL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. IT'S A BUSY DAY. I
BELIEVE MR. PADILLA IS NEXT WITH
SB 764.
WHEN YOU'RE READY, SENATOR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO
BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND THANKING THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
MY STAFF AND I ON THIS BILL,
SENATE BILL 764 IS THE CHILD
CONTENT CREATOR RIGHTS ACT,
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE FAMILY
CONTENT CREATORS WHO ARE
COMPENSATED FOR FILMING THEIR
MINOR CHILDREN IN MORE THAN 30%
OF THEIR CONTENT, SET ASIDE A
PERCENTAGE OF THAT EARNINGS IN A
TRUST FOR THE MINOR THAT THEY
CAN ACCESS. AS AFTER THEY REACH
THE AGE OF MAJORITY. MANY OF YOU
KNOW THAT IN 1939, CALIFORNIA
ENACTED THE COOGAN ACT TO
PROTECT CHILDREN FROM FINANCIAL
ABUSE IN THE IN THE
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AFTER A
FAMOUS CHILD ACTOR, JACKIE
COOGAN, HAD HIS EARNINGS STOLEN
BY HIS GUARDIANS. THAT LAW
REQUIRED 15% OF THE MINOR
PERFORMER'S EARNINGS BE PLACED
IN A TRUST FOR THEM TO ACCESS
WHEN THEY REACHED 18, PROTECTING
THE FUNDS WHILE THE ACTOR WAS
STILL A CHILD. THESE PROTECTIONS
HAVE BEEN EXPANDED UPON OVER THE
YEARS, AND HAVE EVEN BECOME A
NATIONAL STANDARD FOR CHILD
PERFORMERS UNDER CONTRACT ACT.
HOWEVER, TO THAT POINT, COOGAN
ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE IN THE
FILM INDUSTRY AND SOCIAL MEDIA
WHO ARE IN FACT UNDER CONTRACT
AND THOSE THAT ARE PART OF THIS
EMERGING HOME CONTENT PROVIDER
INDUSTRY, WHICH IS NOW BECOME A
MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY,
DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE SAME
PROTECTIONS. ÓRDENES THIS SOME
OF THE REGULARLY INCLUDED
CONTENT INCLUDES FILMING
INTIMATE DETAILS OF THE PERSONAL
LIVES OF MINORS, FOR THEIR
AUDIENCE OF SOMETIMES MILLIONS
TO SEE. THIS RAISES OBVIOUS
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF
CHILDREN WHO ARE DRAFTED
ESSENTIALLY INTO THIS EMERGING
LANDSCAPE. VIDEOS THAT FOCUS ON
PEAK MOMENTS SUCH AS NEW HOMES,
PREGNANCY AND NEW BABIES GET
MORE VIEWS, WHICH THEN IN TURN
INCENTIVIZE FAMILIES TO POST
MORE VIDEOS OF THIS TYPE OF
CONTENT, WHICH I THINK YOU MIGHT
IMAGINE WILL HAVE SOME AMOUNT OF
IMPACT ON THEIR DEVELOPMENTAL
WELL-BEING AND PRESENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXTENSIVE
EXPLOITATION. SB 764 UPDATES
COOGAN TO ADD FINANCIAL
PROTECTIONS TO FIT THE MODERN
ENTERTAINMENT LANDSCAPE. LAST
YEAR, ILLINOIS ENACTED
LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE
FINANCIAL FUTURE OF YOUTH
CONTENT CREATORS. BUT CALIFORNIA
IS A WORLD LEADER IN THE
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. BECAUSE
WE LIKE TO BRAG ABOUT IS YET TO
DO SO. AS SOCIAL MEDIA BECOMES
EVEN MORE INTEGRATED INTO OUR
DAILY LIVES AND A GROWING SHARE
OF THE ENTERTAINMENT LANDSCAPE,
WE NEED TO UPDATE OUR HARD
FOUGHT LABOR PROTECTIONS TO
SAFEGUARD THE FINANCIAL FUTURE
OF THESE PERFORMERS. IT WOULD
RECOGNIZE THAT CHILDREN DESERVE
FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND
COMPENSATION FOR BEING FILMED.
THIS BILL HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
AS NØ OPPOSITION WITH ME TODAY,
I HAVE KIM STONE WITH THE
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE
AND NANCY WEI FROM UC MERCED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. TWO MINUTES
EACH WHEN YOU'RE READY. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS KIM
STONE OF STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW
SCHOOL. IN SUPPORT THIS BILL IS
A CRITICAL STEP IN EXTENDING
EXISTING AND UNCONSCIOUS RACIAL
PROTECTIONS TO CHILDREN WHO ARE
PERFORMING IN TRADITIONAL MEDIA,
TO CHILDREN WHO PERFORM IN
SOCIAL MEDIA AS WELL. FAMILY
VLOGGERS HAVE EXPLODED IN
POPULARITY AND MANY PROFIT BY
FILMING THE DAILY LIVES OF THEIR
CHILDREN. THIS BILL ACKNOWLEDGES
IT'S OBVIOUS THAT CHILDREN WHOSE
LIKENESS IS USED BY THEIR
PARENTS FOR PROFIT DESERVE
SIMILAR KINDS OF FINANCIAL
PROTECTIONS AND COMPENSATION AS
CHILDREN, ACTORS, OR CHILDREN
WHO PERFORM IN TRADITIONAL MEDIA
LIKE FILM AND TELEVISION, THE
BILL REQUIRES PARENTS OR
GUARDIANS WHO ARE COMPENSATED
FOR FEATURING MINORS IN AT LEAST
30% OF THEIR CONTENT TO SET
ASIDE A PROPORTIONATE PERCENTAGE
OF THOSE EARNINGS IN A TRUST
ACCOUNT UNTIL THE CHILDREN REACH
ADULTHOOD. WE SUPPORT THE BILL
AND URGE YOUR I VOTE THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, CHAIR
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS NANCY Â AND
I AM AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT AT
UC MERCED. MY RESEARCH FOCUSES
ON PROTECTING MINORS INVOLVED IN
SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT PLATFORMS.
I'M HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF SB 764. THROUGH MY RESEARCH,
I HAVE SEEN THE STRUGGLE AND
EXPLOITATION THAT MINORS ON
SOCIAL MEDIA ENDURE. CALIFORNIA
HAS A HIGH POPULATION OF MINOR
VLOGGERS, WHICH MAKE THIS
RELEVANT ISSUE THAT AFFECT OUR
SOCIETY TODAY. OTHER STATES HAVE
APPROVED SIMILAR LAW, AND IT'S
TIME FOR CALIFORNIA TO. GROWING
UP, IT'S HARD ENOUGH WITHOUT A
CAMERA IN YOUR FACE. MANY
PARENTS USE THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM AS A JOB, EXPECTING
THEIR CHILDREN TO CREATE CONTENT
THAT BRINGS INCOME AND FAME INTO
THE FAMILY. THAT IS A LOT OF
PRESSURE. SB 76 FOUR PROPOSED
THAT VLOGGERS MUST PAY MINORS
FOR THEIR WORK AND VLOGS. THIS
IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT HELPS
PREVENT CHILDREN FROM BEING
TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. MINORS ARE
OBJECT TO BE EXPLOITED FOR ARE
NOT OBJECT TO BE EXPLOITED FOR
PROFIT. LET KIDS BE KIDS. WE
MUST ADDRESS THE ISSUE NOW, AND
SB 764 IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. THIS IS NOT A STATE
ISSUE. THIS IS A MATTER OF
FAMILY TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW. LAW SHOULD BE
DESIGNED TO PROTECT CHILDREN.
THAT'S WHY I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE ON SB 764 AS
TIME ARE CHANGING SO SHOULD OUR
LAW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL? COME ON UP. NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
JASON SCHMELTZER HERE ON BEHALF
OF TECHNET AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. MADAM CHAIR, APOLOGIES
WE DIDN'T GET ON THE LETTER IN
TIME FOR THIS COMMITTEE, BUT WE
ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. LOVE HEARING YOUR
SUPPORT, ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL? I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BUT
LET ME MAKE SURE I LEAVE TIME.
OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE WILL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
BILL. MISS ORTEGA SECOND THE
BILL. BUT I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO
BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR. I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR TAKING
THIS ON AND REALLY PUTTING A
LIGHT ON, ON AN ISSUE THAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH A
LONG TIME AGO. BUT AS WE'VE
HEARD MANY TIMES IN THIS
COMMITTEE, WE'RE HAVING TO, YOU
KNOW, PLAY CATCH UP WITH THIS
TECHNOLOGY. SO I'M REALLY
EXCITED TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY
AND LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORT IT
IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU SIR.
THANK YOU, MISS ORTEGA. ANYBODY
ELSE? SEEING NONE I WANT TO
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR THIS
WORK. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE
RECENTLY IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
ABOUT CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS OR
GUARDIANS PUT THIS SOCIAL MEDIA,
THIS CONTENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA,
AND THAT ONE OF THE PRIMARY
USERS OF THE CONTENT ARE IN
LARGE PART CHILD PREDATORS. AND
THERE IS A GREAT EXPLOITATION OF
THESE CHILDREN IN ORDER TO MAKE
MONEY THAT IS JUST GROSS, TO BE
FRANK. AND SO I THINK THIS BILL
IS GREAT AND I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT IT. BUT I ACTUALLY WANT
TO SAY THAT I THINK WE NEED TO
DO MORE THAN THIS. SO IT'S A
GREAT FIRST STEP. AND I'M BY NO
MEANS, SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE
ABOUT YOUR BILL, BUT I JUST
THINK THAT THIS IS REALLY A
CONCERNING AREA THAT HAS COME TO
PASS THAT WE AS A LEGISLATURE,
NEED TO FOCUS ON TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN. WITH
THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH, BUT JUST, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS AND I WOULD
WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOUR
COMMENTS. THERE'S MUCH TO DO,
AND I HOPE THAT THIS IS A GOOD
STARTING POINT. THANK YOU, WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO
LET'S CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER
ONE, SB 764 BY SENATOR PADILLA.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS IS AMENDED
TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
BAUER-KAHAN I BAUER-KAHAN I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON I BRIAN
DIXON. DIXON I IRWIN I IRWIN I
HOOVER LOWENTHAL I LOWENTHAL I
ORTEGA I ORTEGA I WARD, WARD I
WICKS WILSON. THAT BILL HAS
SEVEN VOTES. IT'S OUT BUT WE'LL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. MR. BECKER.
YOU ARE UP WITH SB 942.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR BECKER. THANK
YOU, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT MY
CHILDREN ARE NOT SOCIAL MEDIA
INFLUENCERS, BUT, I DO HAVE SOME
WONDERFUL FASHION PROJECTS,
PRODUCTS AVAILABLE ON MY
INSTAGRAM. NO, I'M KIDDING. I
WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
ALLOWING ME HERE TO PRESENT SB
942. THE CALIFORNIA ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE TRANSPARENCY ACT, A
BILL THAT TAKES A FIRST STEP IN
ADDRESSING PROLIFERATION OF AI
GENERATED CONTENT. I WANT TO
THANK THE CHAIR WHO JUST STEPPED
OUT AND THE STAFF, PARTICULARLY
FOR THE WORK ON THIS BILL. WE'VE
HAD VERY PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TO
IMPROVE THIS BILL, AND I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TODAY, GIVEN THAT
IT'S ALREADY BEEN A LONG
HEARING, I WON'T TALK. AT LENGTH
ABOUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES
WE'VE ALREADY SEEN WITH DEEP
FAKES, BOTH IN POPULAR CULTURE,
ALREADY IN ELECTION MANIPULATION
, HOW FRAUDSTERS CAN EXPLOIT A
CHEN VÌ FOR SCAM CALLS MIMICKING
LOVED ONES VOICES TO DECEIVE
CALIFORNIANS. BUT I'LL JUST SAY
THAT CLEARLY TRANSPARENCY IS
NEEDED. THE EUROPEAN UNION HAS
TAKEN STEPS TO ADDRESS THESE
ISSUES THROUGH THE AI AI ACT,
WHICH MANDATES TRANSPARENCY
STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE
REQUIREMENT TO INFORM USERS WHEN
THEY'RE INTERACTING WITH AI
SYSTEM AND TO CLEARLY MARK
SYNTHETIC AUDIO, VIDEO, TEXT AND
IMAGES AS ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED
OR MANIPULATED, BOTH FOR USERS
AND IN A MACHINE READABLE
FORMAT. ALIGN WITH THIS SB 942
SERVES TO ADDRESS THE GROWING
UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING AI
GENERATED CONTENT BY REQUIRING
LARGE CHEN OR VÌ SYSTEM
PROVIDERS TO DO A FEW THINGS.
NUMBER ONE LABEL AI GENERATED
CONTENT WITH LATENT DISCLOSURES
TWO TO SUPPLY AN AI DETECTION
TOOL FOR USERS TO QUERY WHETHER
CONTENT WAS CREATED BY AI AND
THIRD, ENFORCE THIRD PARTY
LICENSES TO THE EXTENT
TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE TO PREVENT
UNDISCLOSED CONTENT PUBLICATION.
THIS BILL SERVES TO ADDRESS
AGAIN THE CHALLENGES POSED BY AI
GENERATED CONTENT, PROMOTE
TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND TRUST IN THE DIGITAL
LANDSCAPE. WE ARE ACTIVELY
COLLABORATING WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO ADDRESS THEIR
CONCERNS AND ENSURE THIS BILL
STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE IN
REGULATING GENERATIVE AI FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ALL CALIFORNIANS. AND
WITH ME, I HAVE JAY, THE
CO-FOUNDER OF TRANSPARENCY
COALITION AI. GREAT. THANK YOU.
WELL, TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU
EVERYBODY FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
MY NAME IS JAY JEZIMA. I'M
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF SENATE
BILL 942 AS A CO-FOUNDER OF
TRANSPARENCY COALITION. WE'RE A
SEATTLE BASED NONPROFIT WHICH
ADVOCATES FOR INCREASED
TRANSPARENCY IN GENERATIVE AI. I
HAVE A PHD IN WHICH I COMPLETED
IN 1996, AND WHAT WOULD BE
CALLED AI FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON, AND I'M CURRENTLY AN
AFFILIATE PROFESSOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IN THE
ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. FOR 30
YEARS, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN
DEVELOPING AI AND DIGITAL MEDIA
APPLICATIONS AT A VARIETY OF
SMALL AND LARGE ORGANIZATIONS.
IN MY CAPACITY AS A SCIENTIST,
TECHNICAL LEADER, CTO, AND CEO,
WE AT TRANSPARENCY COALITION ARE
FIRMLY SUPPORTIVE OF SB 942,
CHAMPIONED BY SENATOR BECKER. IT
WILL HELP BRING MUCH NEEDED
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS TO
GENERATIVE AI OUTPUTS, AND IT
WILL PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH
CRITICAL INSIGHT INTO WHICH
CONTENT WAS CREATED IN WHOLE OR
PART, BY GENERATIVE AI SYSTEM.
SOME OF THE KEY REQUIREMENTS
THAT WE'RE ESPECIALLY EXCITED
ABOUT ARE, AND WE THINK THEY'LL
REALLY HELP CALIFORNIA'S
SAFEGUARD ITS CITIZENS. ARE
MANIFEST DISCLOSURES. SO THESE
ARE HUMAN VISIBLE DISCLOSURES
POTENTIALLY EMBEDDED INTO THE
IMAGE OR VIDEO, LATENT
DISCLOSURES, WHICH, YOU KNOW,
CAN BE EMBEDDED INTO SOME PART
OF THE DATA ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONTENT AND WITHOUT PRESCRIBING
A SPECIFIC APPROACH,
REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE
VERIFICATION. SO IF YOU'RE WANT
TO UPLOAD THE CONTENT AND CHECK
IF IT'S GENERATED BY PROVIDER,
AND THEN THERE'S MEANINGFUL
PENALTIES, YOU KNOW, FOR
VIOLATION, WE DON'T BELIEVE
THESE ARE HEAVY HANDED
REQUIREMENTS. AND NOR DO WE
THINK THAT THEY'LL INHIBIT SMALL
BUSINESS INNOVATION, THE, THE,
YOU KNOW, TECHNOLOGY BEHIND IT
IS PROVEN EVEN OPEN AI IS
SUPPORTIVE OF COPPA AND HAS
ACTUALLY STARTED USING IT FOR
DALL-E, WHICH IS ONE OF THEIR
MODELS. NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT.
WE CANNOT REPEAT THE MISSTEPS
AND INACTION DURING THE NASCENT
STAGES OF SOCIAL MEDIA. THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN
A GLOBAL LEADER IN SAFEGUARDING
ITS CITIZENRY WHILE STILL
EMPOWERING THE TECH INDUSTRY TO
GROW AND THRIVE. I URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO PASS SB 942 AND
SEND IT TO THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR
WITH A STRONG RECOMMENDATION.
THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANY
PRIMARY OPPOSITION?
OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'LL HAVE TWO
MINUTES, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. APPRECIATE IT. DYLAN
HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF TECHNET,
WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO
SB 942, AS IN PRINT. HOWEVER IN
ANALYZING THE RECENT AMENDMENTS,
I THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT MOVES
THIS BILL IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION, I WE'RE LOOKING
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO ANALYZE
AND PROVIDE MORE SUBSTANTIVE
FEEDBACK. I THINK THERE'S SOME
ADDITIONAL TWEAKS THAT SHOULD BE
MADE, BUT GENERALLY LIKE THE
APPROACH OF THIS BILL, THAT IT
PROVIDES A BIT MORE OF A LESS
PRESCRIPTIVE, STANDARD. HOWEVER,
STILL SETS THAT STANDARD AND
SORT OF GOAL FOR THE INDUSTRY TO
START MOVING FORWARD ON
PROVIDING GREATER TRANSPARENCY
AND CERTAINTY AROUND SYNTHETIC
CONTENT, SO I APPRECIATE THE
WORK OF THE AUTHOR AND THIS
COMMITTEE ON THAT, IN
PARTICULAR, JUST TO SORT OF
HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS THAT HAVE
BEEN FLAGGED BY, BY MY MEMBERS
THAT WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION ON
OR JUST PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT
MORE CLARITY ON ON SOME OF THE,
THE DEFINITIONS, AND SORT OF
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SORT OF
WATERMARKING AND CONTENT
PROVENANCE, THEY HAVE VERY
TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS AND
OFTENTIMES SORT OF GET CONFLATED
. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE
ARE CLEARLY DELINEATED, IN THE
BILL. BUT AGAIN, APPRECIATE THE
WORK THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN DONE
AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? THANK YOU, YOUR
HONOR. WITH CALCHAMBER LINER
COMMENTS WITH TECHNET. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU. CARIBOU WITH THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION, ALIGNED WITH TECHNET
. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? ALL
RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION AND A
SECOND, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE
AMENDMENTS, THE DEFINITION OF
THIS TECHNOLOGY IS A IS A PERSON
IS AN INDIVIDUAL. NOW, IS THAT
WHAT I'M READING CORRECTLY ON
THE AMENDMENTS? YES. ON WHAT A
COVERED PROVIDER IS. IT DID
SLIGHTLY BROADEN THE DEFINITION
OF COVERED PROVIDER, PREVIOUSLY
USED THE CCPA DEFINITION OF
BUSINESS, BUT WE DO BELIEVE IT
COVERS A LOOP, CLOSES A
LOOPHOLE. I DON'T THINK THAT IS
A GREAT CHARACTER, PERFECT
CHARACTERIZATION, BUT DO YOU
HAVE ANY SENSE OF NØ? I THINK,
YEAH, I THINK THERE'S A LIMIT TO
THE NUMBER OF USERS, ABOVE A
CERTAIN LIMIT. IT WOULD COVER
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. SO GREAT.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? NOPE
ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION AND
A SECOND. AND, WE COULD Þ. YEAH.
CLOSING STATEMENT, RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. GREAT.
THANK YOU. AND, YOU KNOW, COMMIT
TO APPRECIATE THE COOPERATION
OF, INDUSTRY AND CONTINUING TO
WORK ALONGSIDE. YEAH. OKAY.
THANKS AND APPRECIATE ALSO THE
WORK. I WILL JUST SAY, I KNOW
THERE'S OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE WHO ALSO ARE WORKING
IN THIS AREA AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AS
WELL AS WE KIND OF, ULTIMATELY,
YOU KNOW, LAND ON A BILL AT THE
END OF THE END OF THE DAY. THANK
YOU. PLEASE, TAKE ROLL ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB 942 BY SENATOR
BECKER. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AS AMENDED, TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE BY BAUER-KAHAN
PATTERSON. THÀNH NOT VOTING.
PATTERSON NOT VOTING. BRIAN
DIXON. DIXON. NOT VOTING. IRWIN.
IRWIN I. HOOVER. LOWENTHAL.
LOWENTHAL. I. ORTEGA ORTEGA I
WARD. WARD I. WICKS WILSON.
THANKS. ALL RIGHT. IT'S FOUR.
NOTHING NEEDS SIX, SO WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR EVERYBODY TO
RETURN. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS
ALL RIGHT. AND WE HAVE, SENATOR
LAIRD, SB 1272.
I'M ASSUMING I'M SET TO GO HERE,
RIGHT? OH, YES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, YOU'RE READY TO GO? WE'RE
READY WHENEVER YOU ARE. THANK
YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT, SENATE BILL 1272, I
WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
WORKING WITH MY OFFICE AND
ACCEPT COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO
ADD ELECTRONIC GIFT CARDS TO THE
DEFINITION OF A GIFT
CERTIFICATE, THIS BILL WILL
RAISE THE REDEEMABLE DOLLAR
AMOUNT ON A GIFT CERTIFICATE
FROM THE CURRENT $9.99 MAXIMUM
TO $25, WITH AN ANNUAL
ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION ROUNDED
TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR AMOUNT, I
WAS IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY WHEN
THIS WAS FIRST ADOPTED IN, WHICH
IS ESSENTIALLY 16 YEARS AGO. IT
ALLOWED FOR THE, CONSUMERS TO
REDEEM THE REMAINING BALANCE OF
A GIFT CARD IF IT WAS BELOW $10,
THE BUYING POWER OF $10 IS MUCH
DIFFERENT TODAY THAN IT WAS AT
THE TIME. AND SO ALLOWING
CONSUMERS TO REDEEM A GREATER
AMOUNT OF MONEY, WILL PUT MONEY
BACK INTO CIRCULATION IN OUR
ECONOMY TO BE USED ON THE GOODS
AND SERVICES THAT IT WAS
INTENDED. AND ACCORDING TO THE
NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION, GIFT
CARDS WERE THE SECOND MOST
POPULAR GIFT OF THE 2023 HOLIDAY
SEASON. THEY REFERENCED A CNN
ARTICLE WHICH REPORTS AN
ESTIMATED $21 BILLION IS SITTING
UNUSED ON GIFT CARDS, JUST
BRIEFLY, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT,
THE HEARING HAS GONE ON FOR A
WHILE. THERE WERE CONCERNS THAT
CALIFORNIA WOULD HAVE THE
HIGHEST REDEEMABLE AMOUNT. IT
DOESN'T. MASSACHUSETTS. THERE
WAS CONCERN THAT BUSINESSES
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE MORE CASH ON
HAND. THEY WOULDN'T. THERE'S NO
PRESCRIPTION AS TO HOW THE, THE
RETURN IS DONE. THERE WERE SOME
LOOSE CLAIMS OF FRAUD THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE EVER SINCE THE BILL
WAS FIRST ENACTED AND AUTHORED
BY THEN SENATOR CORBETT, WE'VE
ASKED FOR ANY EVIDENCE. NONE HAS
BEEN PROVIDED TO US. SO WE
BELIEVE THIS IS GOOD PROGRESS
FOR THE CONSUMERS. THE BILL IS
SUPPORTED BY THE CALIFORNIA LOW
INCOME CONSUMER COALITION, THE
PUBLIC LAW CENTER, CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA AND THE
CONSUMER WATCHDOGS. IT PASSED
OFF THE SENATE FLOOR 30 TO 6, I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
IPHONE. THANK YOU. SENATOR, ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? I HAVE NO
PRINCIPAL WITNESS FOR SUPPORT.
THE BILL. OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION
AND A SECONDS. AND, ARE THERE
ANY NON-PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
VICE CHAIR MEMBERS ROBERT
HARRELL WITH THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA WE
PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED AREN'T ON
THE LIST FOR THIS ONE, BUT WE
SUPPORT THIS BILL. COMMON SENSE.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
VICE CHAIR JOSE TORRES.
CASILLAS. I WAS ASKED TO ME TO
IN SUPPORT OF ON BEHALF OF
BRENDA BASS CHAMBER WHO'S IN
BETWEEN HEARINGS. BUT THEY'RE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY, PRIMARY
WITNESSES IS IN OPPOSITION.
GREAT. THANK YOU. YOU'LL EACH
HAVE TWO MINUTES. GREAT. THANK
YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MARGARET GLADSTEIN
COUPLE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION, UNFORTUNATELY,
WE'VE BEEN UNABLE TO REACH AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE AUTHOR, WHICH
LEAVES US STRONGLY OPPOSED TO SB
1272. CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS A
VERY FRIENDLY CONSUMER GIFT CARD
WITH THE HIGHEST CASH BACK IN
THE COUNTRY. MASSACHUSETTS HAS A
10% OF FACE VALUE. THE AVERAGE
FACE VALUE OF GIFT CARDS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY IS $26, SO THEIR
AVERAGE CASH BACK IS GOING TO BE
$2.60, WHEREAS OURS IS 9.99 LESS
THAN $10. BASED ON THE LATEST
DATA, AVAILABLE DATA AVAILABLE.
THE AVERAGE GIFT CARD AMOUNT IS.
SORRY, IT'S 26, WE ALSO FIND THE
CPI INCREASE THAT'S IN THE BILL
COMPLETELY UNWORKABLE. ON
DECEMBER 31ST, A CUSTOMER WILL
BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE AMOUNT BACK,
AND THEN ON JANUARY FIRST, THE
CUSTOMER WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR
ANOTHER AMOUNT BACK. AND
RETAILERS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR TRAINING THEIR STAFFS TO
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE ON EACH DAY,
THIS WILL LEAD TO CONFUSION AND
PROBLEMS AND LIKELY LITIGATION.
CRA IS APPRECIATIVE OF THE
LEGISLATURE'S STRONG FOCUS ON
ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME THIS
YEAR. WHILE DOING THAT, IT MAKES
NO SENSE TO ADOPT A BILL THAT
WILL REQUIRE RETAILERS TO KEEP
CASH BACK, PARTICULARLY ON THE
DAYS FOLLOWING CHRISTMAS WHEN,
AS THE AUTHOR SAID, THAT IS,
GIFT CARDS ARE VERY COMMON.
CHRISTMAS GIFT CARD GIFT, AND
THEY'RE USED OFTEN THE DAYS
AFTER CHRISTMAS. FURTHER GIFT
CARDS ARE NOT GIVEN WITH THE
INTENTION OF BEING CASH
EQUIVALENTS, A PERSON GIVING A
GIFT CARD MAY NOT WANT THE
PERSON TO HAVE CASH. MANY
NONPROFITS TODAY, AND DRUG AND
ALCOHOL TREATMENT PROGRAMS GIVE
GIFT CARDS. SO PEOPLE HAVE
ACCESS TO RESTAURANTS OR TO
GROCERY STORES TO GET FOOD. THEY
DON'T NECESSARILY WANT THE
RECIPIENTS HAVING CASH. I WOULD
ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GIFT CARD
FRAUD. IT'S GROWING, WE HAVE
SHARED SOME OF THAT INFORMATION
WITH THE AUTHOR AND HAPPY TO
SHARE MORE. FTC FTC DATA SHOWS
THAT GIFT CARD SCAMS HAVE LED TO
A CONSUMER LOSS OF $148 MILLION.
WE BELIEVE THAT LOSS WILL
CONTINUE AND THE GROWTH WILL
CONTINUE HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
WHEN THE THIEVES CAN GET CASH
BACK UP TO THE LEVEL OF $25. SO
FOR ALL THESE REASONS, WE ASK
THAT YOU OPPOSE SB 1272. MR,
VICE CHAIR MEMBERS, JOHN WINGER
HERE FOR THE CALIFORNIA FUELS
AND CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE. SO WE
REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF GAS
STATIONS AND CONVENIENCE STORES
IN THE STATE. THE MAJORITY OF
WHICH ARE FAMILY OWNED, MINORITY
OWNED, SINGLE BUSINESS, SINGLE
STORE BUSINESSES. SO FROM A
SMALL BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE, WE
DO HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH
THE BILL. I THINK MISS GLADSTEIN
TOUCHED ON QUITE A FEW OF THE
CONCERNS. I THINK, WE DO HAVE
SOME COMPLIANCE CONCERNS. THE
MAIN FEEDBACK I'VE RECEIVED FROM
OUR MEMBERS IS THAT WE DO HAVE A
CONCERN WITH HAVING TO CARRY
MORE CASH. OUR STATIONS ARE
USUALLY, HIGHLY TARGETED FOR
THEFT. AND SO THE IDEA OF HAVING
TO CARRY MORE CASH ON HAND IS
SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT CONCERN WITH. I
THINK FOR THE SMALL STATION
OWNERS, THEY ALSO DO HAVE AN
ISSUE WITH THE CPI AND HAVING TO
ADJUST EVERY YEAR WITH THAT.
MOST OF THESE FOLKS DON'T HAVE
BACK OFFICE COMPLIANCE SUPPORT,
AND SO THEY DON'T EXACTLY KNOW
HOW THAT THAT WOULD WORK. EVERY
YEAR WE'VE BEEN FACING MORE AND
MORE COMPLICATIONS WITH RUNNING
A STATION, AND THEY'VE VIEWED
THIS BILL AS AS ANOTHER ONE THAT
WOULD ADD TO THE COMPLICATIONS
AS IT RELATES TO, GAS, GIFT
CARDS, WHICH ARE BECOMING MORE
POPULAR. AND SO WE ARE CURRENTLY
AND CONTINUE TO BE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
ANY OTHER ME? TWO WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. NAME AND
AFFILIATION, PLEASE. HI, THIS IS
BRENDA BASS WITH, CAL CHAMBER.
THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A
MISTAKE AS I WAS RUSHING OVER
HERE. WE ARE STILL IN AN OPPOSED
POSITION ON THE BILL, SO I JUST
WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP FOR
EVERYONE. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. APOLOGIES FOR GOING
OUT OF ORDER. WE ACTUALLY ARE IN
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS NICK ROMO, ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
THEATER OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
CHAIRPERSON. GOOD AFTERNOON,
DEVON ANDERSON WITH POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF TARGET IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
LARA WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
ANNALEE AUGUSTINE, ON BEHALF OF
THE FAMILY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ERWIN, I, I'VE
HEARD THE COMMENT ON, THE
COMPLICATIONS OF CPI. COULD YOU
COMMENT ON THAT IF, HOW
DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE FOR THE
EMPLOYEES TO FIGURE OUT, THE,
THE VALUE OF THE CARD IF THEY
HAVE TO INCLUDE WE BELIEVE IT
WOULD BE SIMPLE BECAUSE THEIR
UPDATES MADE FOR EVERY YEAR AND
FOR EVERYTHING THERE. YOU KNOW,
YOU HEAR IN OTHER BILLS THAT IT
WILL BE SOMETHING PLUS THE CPI,
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS.
WE HAVE OFFERED IF THE CPI IS SO
ONEROUS, IT'S BEEN A 50%
INCREASE IN VALUE, OR INFLATION
SINCE THIS WAS FIRST ENACTED.
AND, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO CATCH
UP. AND WE OFFERED IF, IF THE
CPI IS SUCH AN OPPOSITION TO
PICK A SMALL AMOUNT AND GO
PROSPECTIVE AND KNOW THAT WE
WOULDN'T USE THAT AND WE WOULD
COVER THIS FOR THE NEXT TEN
YEARS, THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO
COME. WE PROPOSED THAT AS AN
ALTERNATIVE IN TRYING TO SETTLE
THIS. THEN OKAY. AND YOU, YOU
SAID THIS WOULD NOT BE THE
HIGHEST RATE. HOW DID YOU.
THERE'S A DISPUTE. BUT BUT THERE
ARE PEOPLE IN MASSACHUSETTS THAT
WOULD BE GETTING MORE DEPENDING
ON THE FACE VALUE OF THE CAR.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWENTHAL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR FORWARD,
I REALLY, TRULY APPRECIATE
CONSUMER, FOCUSED LEGISLATION
LIKE THIS. AND I KNOW IT'S
COMING FROM A GREAT PLACE, AND I
INTEND TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS IN
ADVANCE, FIRST IS, I ALSO NOT TO
SPEAK AS LEGISLATOR, BUT AS A
RESTAURANT OWNER, WHO SELLS GIFT
CARDS, STORED VALUE CARDS, IT IS
A HORRIFIC TIME IN THE
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW.
SO MANY ARE CLOSING IN MY
COMMUNITY. I CAN TELL YOU, I, I
HAVE TWO THAT ARE OPERATING AT A
AT A PROFIT MARGIN, YOU KNOW,
WELL, UNDER 10% BREAKING EVEN IS
, IS ACTUALLY A GOOD OUTCOME TO
GET THROUGH. YOU KNOW, WHERE
WE'RE AT THESE DAYS. AND I WANT
TO KNOW, DID YOU HAVE ANY
CONSIDERATION OR WOULD YOU HAVE
ANY CONSIDERATION FROM THINKING
ABOUT ABOUT, SECTORS THAT ARE IN
PERIL RIGHT NOW, LIKE OUR
RESTAURANTS THAT THAT MAKE UP
10% OF THE WORKFORCE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA? WELL,
OBVIOUSLY, AT A VERY DESIRABLE,
REPRESENTING A VERY DESIRABLE
COASTAL DISTRICT. IT'S NOT AS IF
I DON'T HAVE MY OWN. AND AS A
MATTER OF FACT, I'M AWARE THAT
MISS GLADSTEIN HAS VISITED IT,
ON OCCASION, I THINK THAT THAT
ORIGINALLY YOU HOPED THAT
RESTAURANTS ARE WITH EVERYONE,
THAT THEY KEEP A FUND AND
THEY'RE NOT DIPPING INTO IT, AND
THEY'RE ABLE TO USE THAT. IF
THIS TURNS OUT TO BE SOMETHING
THAT REALLY, IS OF CONCERN AND
YOU COULD DO A DISCERNIBLE
THING, WE'D LOOK AT IT. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND, THE
NEXT QUESTION I HAVE ACTUALLY,
WHEN YOU AND I HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS
EARLIER, YOU KNOW, IS OF CONCERN
WITH ME AND I THE OPPOSITION
BROUGHT IT UP. SO I DO WANT TO
BRING IT UP IN COMMITTEE, WHICH
IS, MY HONOREE FOR NONPROFIT OF
THE YEAR. WAS THAT A WEEK AGO?
TWO WEEKS AGO, IN THE 150 DEGREE
WEATHER WE HAD HERE, WAS, MINE
WAS A MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR.
IF YOU STILL NEED TO DEAL WITH
IT IN SOME WAY, HE HE,
REPRESENTS AN ORGANIZATION
CALLED CARE CLOSET IN THE 69TH
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT. AND THEY'RE
DOING SUCH SPECIAL WORK, WHICH
IS ABOUT BEAUTIFYING THE
COMMUNITY. AND WORKING WITH THE
UNHOUSED POPULATION, WHICH IS
SORT OF A DOUBLE WIN. AND I
SPENT THE DAY WITH HIM, ON HIS
PROJECTS. AND PART OF WHAT THEY
DO IS THEY PROVIDE GIFT CARDS
FOR THE VOLUNTEERS. AND IT'S
VERY INTENTIONAL THAT THEY'RE
NOT UTILIZING CASH FOR THE VERY
REASON THAT THOSE GIFT CARDS GO
TOWARDS SUPPORTING THE NEEDS,
THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THAT
POPULATION THAT'S VOLUNTEERING.
AND, THEY'RE VEHEMENT ABOUT
THAT. WOULD YOU ALSO CONSIDER
WORKING AND FIGURING OUT WAYS TO
CARVE OUT SOMETHING FOR THAT
POPULATION? WE'D TAKE A LOOK AT
IT. YEAH WONDERFUL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, ANYTHING ELSE FROM
OTHERS? ALL RIGHT,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER DIXON, MR.
LOWENTHAL'S, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE OF GIFT
CARDS. MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS
THAT GIFT CARDS, THE PHYSICAL
GIFT CARD IS USED LESS AND LESS,
AND IT IS MORE ELECTRONIC. AND
AS A QR CODE OR A GIFT
CERTIFICATE. AND I'M THINKING, I
THINK, ARE WE TRYING TO FIX
SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW
SIGNIFICANT OF AN ISSUE IT IS,
JUST ADDRESSING GIFT CARDS WHEN
I THINK IT'S AN OLDER TECHNOLOGY
AND ALSO AS POINT NUMBER ONE,
POINT NUMBER TWO ON THE COST OF
LIVING. I'M SITTING HERE TRYING
TO COMPUTE ON A $25 GIFT CARD
THAT COST OF LIVING EVERY
JANUARY FIRST IS GOING TO BE
LIKE, WHAT, $0.20 LESS THAN A
DOLLAR? I JUST THINK TO THE
OPPOSITION'S POINT, ARE WE JUST
MAKING A LOT OF MAKE WORK FOR
AND TO JUST GIVE CASH AWAY? AND
WHEN RESTAURANTS AND OTHER SMALL
BUSINESSES AREN'T TRYING TO KEEP
LARGE CASH DRAWERS ON HAND, I
JUST WONDER WHAT WHAT'S DRIVING
THIS? I THINK WHAT'S DRIVING IT
IS TO HAVE THE VALUE KEEP UP
WITH IT IF THERE. BUT WE HAVE
BEEN OFFERING WAYS, THOUGH WE
MIGHT BE FLEXIBLE. IF IT IS THAT
YOU GET TO A TWO AND A HALF
DOLLAR INCREMENT, AND THAT'S
WHEN YOU TRIGGER THE INFLATION
OR SOMETHING, AND IT TAKES A FEW
YEARS TO GET THERE. WE'RE OPEN
TO THAT. WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE
THIS COMPLICATED, AND WE DO NOT
WANT IT TO LOSE VALUE. AND SO
THAT'S WHY WE OFFERED IF YOU
WANT TO NOT DO THE CPI, DO A
CASH AMOUNT THAT TAKES CARE OF
THE NEXT FIVE YEARS IF YOU WANT
TO DO IT SO IT TRIGGERS IN
CERTAIN INCREMENTS THAT ARE
EASIER FOR BUSINESSES. AND YOU
ARE DOING IT EVERY THREE YEARS
OR SOMETHING, SOMETHING WE'RE
OPEN TO UNDER STATE LAW CANNOT A
GIFT CARD CANNOT LOSE VALUE. THE
FACE VALUE OTHER THAN YOU'RE
YOU'RE PROPOSING AND SUGGESTING
AN INCREMENT. WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS THE ABILITY THAT YOU
CAN REDEEM WOULD LOSE VALUE THAT
THAT WOULD FALL FURTHER BEHIND
IN INFLATION. WELL ALL RIGHT, I
WOULD WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF
THE BILL. THE SUBJECT OF THE
BILL IS THE AMOUNT THAT YOU CAN
REDEEM. YEAH. OR IT COULD BE A
CREDIT FOR A PURCHASE AGAINST A
PURCHASE INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE
BURDEN ON SMALL BUSINESS TO HAVE
THE CASH ON HAND, JUST LET IT BE
A CREDIT. ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT
PUTTING THE BURDEN OF CASH ON
HAND. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT WAYS
THEY CAN DO THIS. THEY CAN DO IT
CREDIT. THEY CAN DO IT. PAY A
CHECK AND MAIL IT. THEY CAN DO
ANY OF A NUMBER OF THINGS. IT'S
NOT AN AUTOMATIC REQUIREMENT
THAT IT BE CASH ON HAND. ALL
RIGHT. THANKS THANK YOU. OH,
YEAH. MR. VICE CHAIR. GREAT.
THANKS, DESPITE MY YOUTHFUL
APPEARANCE AND GOOD LOOKS, I WAS
HERE ALSO, WHEN THAT BILL WAS
PRESENTED. BUT AS A STAFF PERSON
FOR A MEMBER WHO VOTED ON IT AT
THAT TIME. AND I REMEMBER A LOT
OF THE DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW
WHY I REMEMBER THIS BILL, BUT, I
DO REMEMBER A LOT OF THE
DISCUSSION REALLY HAD TO DO WITH
IF YOU HAD LIKE, SIX BUCKS LEFT
ON YOUR CARD, THEN YOU CAN
BASICALLY GET IT BACK BECAUSE
THERE'S NOTHING REALLY YOU CAN
BUY FOR SIX BUCKS, AND SO IT WAS
REALLY JUST MORE ABOUT REDEEMING
THE UNUSED VALUE RATHER THAN.
BECAUSE $25 IS NOT IN MOST
PLACES IS YOU'RE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO BUY SOMETHING WITH IT.
AND SO IT DOES THE BILL DOES
CHANGE. I THINK SORT OF WHAT THE
I THOUGHT THE INTENT WAS AT THE
TIME, BUT MY TWO MAIN CONCERNS
REALLY HAVE TO DO WITH AND, AND
I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO, BUT MY, MY TWO
CONCERNS ARE WHAT MR. LOWENTHAL,
I THINK WAS, WAS GETTING AT
WHICH IS, THE DISTRIBUTION OF
GIFT CARDS FOR AN INTENTIONAL
PURPOSE OF PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE ACTUALLY PURCHASING
SOMETHING, THAT IS OF VALUE TO
THEM, RATHER THAN GETTING THE
CASH AND BUYING SOMETHING THAT'S
NOT A VALUE OF THEM. BUT THE
OTHER ONE IS, I HAVE ACTUALLY
ASKED SOME FRANCHISE OWNERS IN
MY DISTRICT ABOUT THIS IN TERMS
OF, OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU'RE A
FRANCHISE OF A LARGE CORPORATION
AND THERE'S GIFT CARDS BEING
SOLD AT SOME OTHER PLACE, AND
THEN NOW THEY'RE BEING REDEEMED
AT YOUR LOCATION, IT'S SORT OF
UNFAIR FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL TO
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MAINTAINING
THE CASH, THIS COULD BE, YOU
KNOW, A MCDONALD'S OR A TACO
BELL OR SOMETHING THAT SELLS
FRANCHISES THAT HAS FRANCHISES,
BUT THEY'RE HAVING TO BEAR THE I
THINK THE BURDEN OF CASHING OUT
THESE THINGS. FOR SOMETHING
REALLY THAT I THINK IS SERVES A
BENEFIT, NOT NECESSARILY TO THEM
ALL THE WAY. AND IF YOU HAVE A
RESPONSE TO THAT, I'M HAPPY TO
HEAR IT, BUT. OH, I'M SORRY, I
THOUGHT, YEAH, YEAH, I WAS JUST
THINKING THAT IS A CONCERN I
HAVE BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS,
ESPECIALLY THE SMALLER FRANCHISE
OWNERS AND THINGS IN MY DISTRICT
THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE
CASHING THESE LARGER SUMS OUT
AND CARRY CASH FOR THOSE. WELL,
THE ONE THING IS, IS, IS I THINK
THE $25 AMOUNT IS TO START OF
NEGOTIATIONS. IF WE ACTUALLY
AGREE ON SOME WAY TO HANDLE WHAT
IS MORE PERSPECTIVE IN CPI,
WHICH CLEARLY IS NOT LIKED OR
SOME SMALL AMOUNT THAT TAKES
CARE OF THE NEXT INCREMENT OF
INFLATION, IT WOULD NOT BE $25.
WE WOULD PROBABLY BE ROLLING IT
BACK AND GETTING THERE. SO WE
REALLY WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE
AND SETTLE THIS. AND I THINK WE
HAVE GIVEN LOTS OF OPTIONS,
OPTIONS WITH THE UNDERLYING
THING THAT IT JUST KEEP VALUE
THAT THAT IS IT. SO, AND I THINK
THAT MIGHT RESOLVE SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT, THAT YOU RAISED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING
NOBODY ELSE, I WANT TO REITERATE
WHAT THE SENATOR HAS SAID. THIS
COMMITTEE TRIED TO BROKER A DEAL
AND WE FAILED. AND, BUT I DO
THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE.
AND SO IF PUTTING CONSUMERS
FIRST, I DO THINK WHAT THE
SENATOR IS DOING IS REALLY,
VALUABLE. I HAVE TO BE HONEST, I
DIDN'T EVEN KNOW I HAD THIS
RIGHT FOR $10 UNTIL THIS BILL
CAME BEFORE ME. AND SO WE ALL
LEARNED SOMETHING NEW THROUGH
YOUR WORK, SENATOR, AND ONE OF
THE THINGS, IN CASE YOU TRY TO
CASH FOR $10, IT'S $9.99 9999.
EXCUSE ME, MY KIDS GET REALLY
UPSET WHEN I ROUND, SO THEY'LL
APPRECIATE THAT YOU MADE THAT
CORRECTION, AND, YOU KNOW, I DO
THINK ONE OF MY CONCERNS WHEN
THIS FIRST BILL WAS WE WERE
DISCUSSING IT WAS MANY OF THE
BUSINESSES IN OAKLAND NOW DON'T
CARRY CASH INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE
OF RETAIL THEFT. AND SO TO ME,
IT WAS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT
WE'RE NOT DEMANDING THEY HAVE
CASH ON HAND BECAUSE OF THAT. IN
ADDITION TO THE PROBLEMS HAVE
BEEN RAISED HERE. BUT THE BILL
IS EXPLICIT THAT THEY DO NOT
HAVE TO REDEEM IT IN CASH. IT
ABSOLUTELY ALLOWS FOR, AS THE
SENATOR SAID, A CHECK. AND SO I
THINK SOME OF THE CONCERNS ARE
ADDRESSED IN THE BILL. I
UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION ABOUT
INFLATION BEING COMPLICATED,
WHICH I KNOW THE SENATOR HAS
BEEN OPEN TO IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
SO I, I HOPE THAT YOU THE SIDES
WILL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.
BUT I THINK FOR THE SAKE OF
CONSUMERS, WHAT IS BEING ASKED
HERE IS AN IMPORTANT THING. AND
SO WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE, I JUST THANK EVERYONE FOR
THE ROBUST DISCUSSION AND I WILL
TAKE YOUR COMMENTS AS MY CLOSE,
PERFECT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. SO LET'S CALL THE ROLL.
WE'VE GOT IT. BUT WE APPRECIATE
THE THIRD. OH YOU ARE THE MOTION
TWICE. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER
SIX SB 17 I'M SORRY 1272 BY
SENATOR LAIRD. THE MOTION IS Dð
PASS, AS AMENDED BY BAUER-KAHAN
I KHN I PATTERSON. PATTERSON.
NØ BRIAN. DIXON. DIXON. NÓ
IRWIN. IRWIN I HOOVER.
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL. I. ORTEGA
ORTEGA I WARD A WARD I WICKS.
WILSON BILL HAS FIVE VOTES.
WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL. THANK
YOU. FIVE, TWO FIVE VOTES TO NO
VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL
FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS, MR.
DODD, YOU ARE UP NEXT WITH SB Þ.
WE'RE GOING BEFORE. PLEASE SIT.
BUT WE'RE GONNA DO THE CONSENT
CALENDAR BEFORE WE ACTUALLY HAVE
YOU PRESENT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR? MOTION?
DO WE HAVE. SECOND, I'D CALL THE
ROLE AND CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. BAUER-KAHAN I
BAUER-KAHAN I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON I BRIAN DIXON. DIXON I
IRWIN. IRWIN I HOOVER. LOWENTHAL
LOWENTHAL. I ORTEGA. ORTEGA I
WARD. WARD I. WICKS. WILSON
CONSENT CALENDAR HAS SEVEN
VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE IT. IT IS
OUT, BUT WE WILL LEAVE IT OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. YOU REMINDED
ME BECAUSE WE JUST GOT YOUR
OTHER BILL OUT ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. SO THAT WAS FOR YOU,
MR. DODD, SB 1524. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING, MADAM CHAIR AND YOUR
STAFF, FOR THE HARD WORK AND
TIME NEGOTIATING AMENDMENTS TO
THIS BILL IN COLLABORATION WITH
CHAIR COLORADO. I'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS
DESCRIBED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. THESE AMENDMENTS
RESPOND TO CONCERNS FROM
CONSUMER GROUPS AROUND BROAD
APPLICABILITY AND STRENGTHENING
TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS IN ADVERTISING IN
THE FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY, AS
PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED, SB 1524
WOULD PROVIDE THAT MANDATORY
FEES FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE ITEMS
SOLD DIRECTLY TO A CUSTOMER IN A
RESTAURANT, BAR, FOOD,
CONCESSION CATERER, GROCERY
STORE, OR BY A GROCERY DELIVERY
SERVICE DOES NOT NEED TO INCLUDE
A MANDATORY FEE OR CHARGE IN
THEIR ALL IN ADVERTISE PRICE.
HOWEVER, ANY FEE WITH AN
EXPLANATION OF ITS PURPOSE MUST
CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY
DISCLOSE ON EVERY ADVERTISEMENT,
MENU OR OTHER DISPLAY THAT
CONTAINS THE PRICE OF A FOOD OR
BEVERAGE ITEM. SB 1524 IS BEFORE
YOU TODAY TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS
AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
SURROUNDING SB 478 LEGISLATION,
I AUTHORED TO ADDRESS THE
DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING PRACTICE
OF DRIP PRICING OR HIDDEN FEES.
SB 478 TARGETED BAIT AND SWITCH
PRACTICES, WHERE A BUSINESS
ADVERTISES A LOW UPFRONT PRICE
ONLY TO REVEAL MANDATORY FEES
LATE IN THE PAYMENT PROCESS OR
UPON RECEIVING THE FINAL BILL.
IN WORKING THROUGH
IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 478. AS IT
IS SET TO TAKE EFFECT JULY 1ST,
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS HAVE COME TO
LIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE, SERVICE
CHARGES FUND A VARIETY OF WORKER
BENEFITS BARGAINED THROUGH THEIR
UNION. THEY ARE USED TO
SUPPLEMENT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE,
PENSION PAYMENTS AND OTHER
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS. ELIMINATION
OF SERVICE CHARGES WOULD UPEND
THESE COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED
CONTRACTS, HURTING SERVICE
WORKERS. SB 1524 UPHOLDS THE
PRINCIPLE OF PROVIDING CONSUMERS
WITH UPFRONT PRICE TRANSPARENCY
WITHOUT INADVERTENTLY HARMING
FOOD SERVICE WORKERS OR SMALL
BUSINESS WITH ME TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS JOHN
ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION, AND SHANE GUZMAN ON
BEHALF OF UNITE HERE. THANK YOU.
TWO MINUTES EACH WHEN YOU'RE
READY. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON,
JOHN ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION, I JUST WANT TO, ADD
ADD TO THE SENATOR'S REMARKS
COMPLIMENTING YOUR STAFF ON THE
HARD WORK OVER THE COURSE OF THE
LAST SEVERAL DAYS. THIS HAS BEEN
A SPRINT TO GET THIS DONE BY
JULY 1ST. WE APPRECIATE THE
WORK, YOUR STAFF AND WE OFFER
OUR APOLOGIES TO THOSE OF YOU ON
THIS COMMITTEE WHO HAD TO HEAR
THIS BILL THIS MORNING AND ARE
NOW HEARING IT AGAIN. BUT, YOU
KNOW, SOMETIMES THAT'S THE LUCK
OF THE LUCK OF THE DRAW. I
GUESS, WHY ARE WE HERE? THE
PROBLEM IS THAT RECENT GUIDANCE
ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUGGESTED THAT RESTAURANT
SERVICE CHARGES ARE SUBJECT TO
SB 478. THE ANALYSIS DOES A GOOD
JOB OF DEBATING THAT LEGAL
QUESTION. WE DON'T NEED TO
RESOLVE THAT HERE TODAY, BECAUSE
WE'RE NOW CLEANING, CLEANING UP
THE LAW. BUT OF COURSE, IF WE
FELT LAST YEAR THAT THIS WAS
SUBJECT TO 478, WE WOULD HAVE
BEEN HERE, BEEN HERE THEN,
ALLOWING THE RULES OF SB 478 TO
APPLY TO RESTAURANTS WITH
SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPT WOULD HAVE
BECOME COMMON COMPENSATION AND
PRICING MODELS WITHIN
RESTAURANTS ACROSS THE STATE,
MANY, MANY USE SERVICE CHARGES
FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF
TRYING TO SMOOTH OUT INCOME
INEQUITIES WITHIN RESTAURANTS,
TO HELP BALANCE COMPENSATION
BETWEEN THE FRONT AND BACK OF
THE HOUSE, AND IT'S BEEN A
NECESSARY AND EFFECTIVE TOOL IN
THAT REGARD, THIS BILL CONTAINS
PROVISIONS TO CODIFY WHAT WE
BELIEVE TO BE THE BEST PRACTICES
IN THE INDUSTRY TODAY, TO
REQUIRE A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF
THE PURPOSE OF A, OF ANY CHARGE
THAT'S IMPOSED AND TO PROVIDE
CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS DISCLOSURE
OF THOSE CHARGES BEFORE SUCH
TIME AS, AS SOMEONE PLACES AN
ORDER AND IS THEN SUBJECT TO THE
CHARGE, I WOULD JUST NOTE
BECAUSE IT CAME UP THIS MORNING,
THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE BILL
THAT PROVIDES, FOR A CROSS
REFERENCE TO EXISTING CIVIL CODE
PROVISIONS THAT DEFINE WHAT
CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS IS. WE'RE
FINE WITH THAT, OUR ONLY REQUEST
HAD BEEN TO PROVIDE SOME TIME TO
MIGRATE TO THAT SPECIFIC
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. SO THE
RESTAURANTS WERE NOT RACING TO
TRY AND GET THEIR MENUS UPDATED
QUICKLY. THE CLEAR AND
CONSPICUOUS STANDARD APPLIES AS
OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
BILL, AND THEY'LL HAVE TO DO
THAT. BUT THE SPECIFIC FORMULA
THAT'S IN THE STATUTE, THEY'D
HAVE SOME TIME TO, TO MODIFY TO,
TO MEET. AND WITH THAT, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU MADAM. MADAM CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, SHANE
GUZMAN, ON BEHALF OF UNITE HERE,
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE BILL,
WE WOULD ECHO MR. ROSS'S
APPRECIATION FOR THE CHAIR AND
THE COMMITTEE STAFF WORKING
THROUGH THIS, AND GETTING THIS
DONE, TWO COMMITTEES IN ONE DAY,
VERY IMPRESSIVE, BUT IT'S
NECESSARY FOR OUR MEMBERS, OUR
UNION NEGOTIATES, AS SENATOR
DODD INDICATED, A VARIETY OF
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS THROUGH
SERVICE CHARGES AT RESTAURANTS,
BANQUETS, CATERING, CONCESSIONS
AND STADIUMS. YOU NAME IT.
WHEREVER WE REPRESENT MEMBERS IN
THE FOOD INDUSTRY, WE'RE
NEGOTIATING THOSE SERVICE
CHARGES TO HELP FACILITATE
HIGHER WAGES AND BETTER BENEFITS
. UNFORTUNATELY, THROUGH, I
THINK, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES,
THIS BILL ARE PREVIOUS BILL, SB
478 AND THE READING OF IT BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THROWN THE
INDUSTRY INTO, YOU KNOW, CHAOS.
AND WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY OUR
EMPLOYERS THAT THOSE CHARGES ARE
NOW GOING TO BE ILLEGAL AS OF
JULY 1ST, AND OUR MEMBERS WILL
GET CUTS AND BENEFITS AND CUTS
IN WAGES. SO THIS BILL IS VERY
NECESSARY FOR US. AND WE
APPRECIATE AND THANK SENATOR
DODD FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD AND
URGE YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL? COME ON UP. NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. MADAM
CHAIR CHRIS MCCAULEY, ON BEHALF
OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. CHRIS WALKER,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CRAFT BREWERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO. KELLY
MORRIS WITH EDELSTEIN, GILBERT,
ROBESON AND SMITH ON BEHALF OF
SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT. THE AIRPORT SUPPORTS
THIS BILL AS THEY BELIEVE IT
WILL PRESERVE THE RESTAURANT
WORKERS RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS.
NICK REMO, ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, SABRINA LOCKHART WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ATTRACTIONS AND
PARKS ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND CHAIR MEMBERS.
BEVERLY, YOU ON BEHALF OF
OPENTABLE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. AMELIA SAMANI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. ONORABLE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AMY HÌNH WITH UNITE HERE
LOCAL 11 AND THEIR 32,000
MEMBERS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OBED FRANCO HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA HOTEL
AND LODGING ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. GENESIS
GONZALEZ, ON BEHALF OF
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ELENI
KOUNALAKIS AS A PROUD CO-SPONSOR
IN SUPPORT, THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL? WE DO. COME ON UP.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. ROBERT HARRELL,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE AN OPPOSE.
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION ON THE
BILL, AND I'LL GET TO THE
DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENTS IN
JUST A SECOND, I AS YOU JUST
POINTED OUT ON THE LAST BILL,
MADAM CHAIR, PUTTING CONSUMERS
FIRST, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE'VE SEEN, GENERALLY SPEAKING,
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT JUNK AND
HIDDEN FEES, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE
POINT OF SENATOR DODD'S SB 478,
WHICH CFC SUPPORTED, I SHOULD
NOTE IS THAT CONSUMER DESERVE TO
KNOW UP FRONT WHAT SOMETHING IS
GOING TO COST, THAT COULD BE A
RENTAL CAR, A CONCERT TICKET,
SPORTING EVENT, NEW VEHICLE,
USED VEHICLE, MOTEL ROOM,
WHATEVER, AND THAT INCLUDES, IN
FAIRNESS, A RESTAURANT MEAL, I
REALIZE THAT THIS IS AN INDUSTRY
WHERE IT'S A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE
OTHERS, BUT IT'S NOTHING THAT,
UPON FIRST BLUSH, IN OUR
OPINION, MERITED A BROAD CARVE
OUT, WE THOUGHT THE LANGUAGE OF
THE BILL IN PRINT AS OF THIS
DAY, JUNE 5TH, WAS OVERLY BROAD.
WE WANT TO THANK, THOUGH WE WERE
NOT INVOLVED IN THE
NEGOTIATIONS, I WANT TO BE
CLEAR. WE WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR AND THE OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS. YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
YOUR COUNTERPART AT THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND YOUR
RESPECTIVE STAFFS FOR HELPING TO
SIGNIFICANTLY NARROW THAT OVERLY
BROAD LANGUAGE ON THAT SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE. AND, MR. PATTERSON,
I'VE BEEN PRACTICING THIS
BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO, I HAVE
TWO SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS. ONE IN
ROMAN NUMERAL TWO OF THE
LANGUAGE, WHERE IT SAYS A
MANDATORY FEE OR CHARGE UNDER
SUBPARAGRAPH ONE SHALL BE
CLEARLY AND CONSPICUOUS,
DISPLAYED WITH AN EXPLANATION OF
ITS PURPOSE ON ANY
ADVERTISEMENT, MENU OR OTHER
DISPLAY THAT CONTAINS THE PRICE
OF THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE ITEM.
WE WOULD SUGGEST ADDING BEFORE
THE WORD EXPLANATION, THE WORD
ACCURATE. AND THIS TIES INTO MY
SECOND POINT, MR. ROSS AND MR.
GUZMAN NOTED, PARTICULARLY MR.
ROSS, THAT THERE'S A CROSS
REFERENCE TO CLEAR AND
CONSPICUOUS. THAT'S KNOWN,
THAT'S BEEN LITIGATED. THERE'S
PLENTY OF CASE LAW ON THAT. THE
CROSS REFERENCE IS FINE. WE HAVE
NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. USUALLY IT
MEANS FONT OR JUST DIFFERENT
WAYS IN WHICH THE LEGISLATURE
CAN MAKE THINGS CLEARER AND MORE
CONSPICUOUS TO THE CONSUMER.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION ON THE FULL
EFFECT OF THAT. AND IT'S A YEAR
IT GOES TO JULY 1ST, 2025. SO
MR. PATTERSON, WHERE IT SAYS
1770. SEE, AS OF JULY 1ST, 2025,
ANY DISCLOSURE ADVERTISING OR
NOTICE THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE
CLEARLY OR CLEARLY AND
CONSPICUOUSLY MADE MUST HAVE
TEXT THAT IS CLEAR AND
CONSPICUOUS, AS DEFINED IN. AND
THERE'S THE CROSS REFERENCE TO
THE CIVIL CODE. WE BELIEVE THAT
JANUARY 1ST, 2025 SHOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TIME. AND I'LL TALK
ABOUT TWO SUBSETS WITHIN THE
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. THE LARGER
RESTAURANT CHAINS, CAN CHANGE
MENUS. THEY HAVE BIGGER
RESOURCES, SYSTEMS, TRAINING,
YOU NAME IT. SOME SMALLER
RESTAURANTS ACTUALLY CHANGE
THEIR MENU, SEASONALLY. SO
WHENEVER YOU CHANGE YOUR MENU,
ACTUALLY YOU OUGHT TO BE
UPDATING IT TO REFLECT THIS SO
THAT IT MEETS THE CLEAR AND
CONSPICUOUS TEST. SO WE THINK
THAT SIX MONTHS, BEYOND THE
PREVIOUS DELAY IS SUFFICIENT, WE
WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT WE DO THINK
THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL
HAD THE AG'S OFFICE COME OUT
WITH THEIR GUIDANCE EARLIER, BUT
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOTHING THAT
SENATOR DODD, NOR THE RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION, NOR LABOR, NOR CFC
HAD ANY CONTROL OVER. AND OUR
LETTER, WHICH WE APPRECIATE A
GOOD CHUNK OF IT BEING PUT IN
THE ANALYSIS, DOES MAKE THE NOTE
THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT,
WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE
COLLECTIVELY BARGAINING
SITUATION AND ORGANIZED LABOR,
THAT YOU RESPECT, THAT SOME OF
THESE CHARGES THAT ARE BEING PUT
BY RESTAURANTS ON THE BILLS ARE
NOT ACCURATE. THEY CREATE THE
FALSE IMPRESSION IN THE
CONSUMER'S MIND THAT IT'S GOING
TO GO TO THE WORKERS. SOME DO
NOT, OR ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE
OF THAT. TWO THINGS HAPPEN WHEN
A CONSUMER ENCOUNTERS THAT. ONE,
THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO REDUCE
THE OPTIONAL TIP WHICH STIFFS
THE WORKER, OR TWO, THEY'RE
GOING TO GET FRUSTRATED AT THAT
RESTAURANT AND THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO GO BACK, WHICH ALSO HARMS THE
WORKER IN THAT RESTAURANT. SO WE
APPRECIATE THE TIME AND THE
NARROWING. AND, BUT AS OF NOW,
WE HAVE BEEN ON AN OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED POSITION. WE'LL
REEVALUATE ONCE WE SEE WHAT
WINDS UP IN PRINT. YOU MUST HAVE
PRACTICED BECAUSE THAT WAS
EXACTLY YOUR TIME, OKAY. ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION? NOBODY
ELSE. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
DÍAS. YES. MR. VICE CHAIR. WELL,
I FEEL SO HONORED, SINCE WE MET
THIS MORNING, TO HAVE MY
COMMENTS REFLECTED IN YOURS
TWICE, GOTTA UP MY GAME. IT
SOUNDS LIKE YOUR CONCERNS,
THOUGH, AREN'T, A HURDLE THAT
CAN'T BE OVERCOME. AND JUST
PHILOSOPHICALLY, WE DON'T I
DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
DISAGREEMENT THAT THE
INFORMATION SHOULDN'T BE
ACCURATE OR CLEAR IF IT GOES TO
THE EMPLOYEE OR NOT. YEAH. WE
YOU'RE RIGHT, MR. VICE CHAIR. I
MEAN, COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS
VERSION OF THE BILL THAT IS
STILL TECHNICALLY IN PRINT RIGHT
NOW, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENT. WE DO THINK WE
DON'T WANT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT YOU ALL DON'T MISS THE
FOREST FOR THE TREES HERE, WHICH
IS THAT CONSUMERS LIKE TO KNOW
HOW MUCH SOMETHING IS GOING TO
COST. AND THE RENTAL CAR
INDUSTRY GOT CARVED OUT OF THE
BILL LAST YEAR. THE AUTO
INDUSTRY GOT CARVED OUT OF THE
BILL LAST YEAR. I THINK THOSE
ARE TWO AREAS ACTUALLY, WHERE
THERE'S A LOT OF ADD ONS THAT
REALLY UPSET CONSUMERS, AND
HOPEFULLY MR. ROSS WON'T SPEAK
ON BEHALF OF ONE OF HIS OTHER
CLIENTS AND COUNTER ME ON THAT.
BUT WE THINK THE BROAD POINT IS
CONSUMERS OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT
THEY'RE GETTING INTO BEFORE THEY
MAKE THAT PURCHASE DECISION. AS
I'VE MENTIONED IN OTHER
COMMITTEES, THIS IS SORT OF
SCIENCE. GO WE CALL IT FIVE
CLICK SYNDROME. GET TO THE
ALMOST THE END OF THE
TRANSACTION THÀNH AND THEN ADD
THE FEES. THEN BECAUSE THE
PERSON IS COMMITTED TO THAT
PRODUCT OR SERVICE A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT IN THE RESTAURANT
CONTEXT, THIS IS MUCH BETTER
THAN THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE. I
THINK THOSE TWO CHANGES AND IF
I, TO PRIORITIZE THEM, I THINK
ADDING ACCURATE IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT OF THOSE TWO CHANGES
BECAUSE YOU WANT SOMETHING CAN
BE CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS AND
ALSO INACCURATE AND MISLEADING
CONSUMERS, I'M, I WAS GOING TO
SAY ASK IF THE OPPOSITION. YEAH,
I WAS I WAS CURIOUS IF. WELL,
NO, THIS IS THE SORRY THE
SUPPORT IF THE AUTHOR SUPPORT
WANT TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION OF
ACCURATE. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT
I DON'T SEE HOW THE WORD
ACCURATE ADDS ANYTHING LEGALLY
THAT IS IN THERE ALREADY. IF THE
LAW COMPELS YOU TO PROVIDE AN
EXPLANATION AND YOU PROVIDE AN
INACCURATE EXPLANATION, I THINK
YOU VIOLATED THE SECTION. AND SO
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT
BUILDS ON THE CONCEPT THAT THIS
COMMITTEE ALREADY PUT IN, WHICH
REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION. THÀNH
ONE. OKAY, SO THAT DIDN'T ANSWER
THE QUESTION. SO I THINK THE
CONSENSUS OF WHETHER THE WORD
ACCURATE BEING ADDED IS OKAY OR
NOT, I THINK THE WORD ACCURATE
IS UNNECESSARY, AND THE STANDARD
I THINK OF A CLEAR AND
CONSPICUOUS EXPLANATION GETS YOU
THERE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT.
THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF
ACCURATE SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM
TO YOU. IF IT'S IF IT'S LEGAL,
IF IT'S LEGALLY THE SAME THING,
IT ISN'T. BUT I THINK HE'S
ASKING FOR IT BECAUSE HE THINKS
IT'S LEGALLY SOMETHING
DIFFERENT. I THINK HE WOULD
AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. BY THE
WAY, WHAT IS THE CAN I ASK THE
CHAIR? WHAT CAN I ASK THE CHAIR?
WHAT THE CHAIR THINKS IS THE
ONLY LAW PROFESSOR IN THE
AUDIENCE HERE. MY GOSH, WE'RE
NOW ASKING FOR THE LEGAL COUNSEL
OF THE CHAIR. THAT'S A FIRST,
BUT I APPRECIATE IT. MR. ROSS.
YEAH. MR. VICE CHAIR. YEAH, I, I
DO THINK, I MEAN INACCURATE
INFORMATION. I THINK ALL OF US
WOULD BE KIND OF BOTHERED BY
THAT, AS I'VE SAID IN JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, I'VE ACTUALLY THE
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY IS ONE OF
THE BEST IN THE IN JUST
DISCLOSING WHAT THE FEES AND ALL
THOSE EXTRA CHARGES AND THINGS
LIKE THAT ARE GOING TO BE UP
FRONT. THEY DO A REALLY GOOD JOB
RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M KIND OF
WORRIED TO ADD THE WORD
ACCURATE. I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT
I DO GET A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT
THAT. THAT I THINK WE'RE ALL
KIND OF GOOD WITH THE INTENT,
BUT THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT
LEGAL STANDARD THERE. SO,
BECAUSE WHAT IF IT'S A
PERCENTAGE AND, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S ALL SORTS OF THINGS. I
DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T REALLY
THOUGHT THROUGH THAT, BUT I
THINK WE JUST HAVE KEEP HAVING
THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND THEN
SEEING IF THERE'S SOME OTHER
WORD THAT CAN SUFFICE THERE. BUT
IF I MAY, BECAUSE I SOUGHT MY
LEGAL COUNSEL. ON PAGE TWO OF
THE ANALYSIS, BECAUSE THE
ANALYSIS IN THIS COMMITTEE IS SO
GOOD, THE FIRST SECTION
DISCUSSING EXISTING LAW LAYS OUT
THAT KLRA IN WHICH THIS IS
ESTABLISHED ALREADY PROHIBITS
DECEPTIVE ACTS. SO I GUESS TO
YOUR POINT, MR. ROSS, INACCURATE
INFORMATION WOULD BE VIOLATIVE
OF THE LAW UNDER WHICH IT
REQUIRES YOU TO NOT BE
DECEPTIVE. CORRECT? YOU, THE
RESTAURANTS. SO I, I GUESS I
DON'T I MEAN, I GIVEN THAT AGREE
THAT IT WOULD BE DUPLICATIVE,
BUT ALSO IF IT MAKES EVERYBODY
COME TOGETHER, THIS IS HOW THE
SAUSAGE IS MADE. SO OR IT'S HOW
THE SAUSAGE SHOULD BE MADE. JUST
SO WE'RE CLEAR, WE SHOULD BE
HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
LANGUAGE AND MOVING THEM FORWARD
. DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING?
NO OKAY. SORRY, SO I DON'T KNOW
IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN. NO.
OKAY, YES, MISS DIXON. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I TOO HEARD
THIS IN JUDICIARY. AND I'LL JUST
SAY IT AGAIN PUBLICLY. FOR THE
RECORD, I APPRECIATE THE, THE
EFFICIENCY AND EXPEDITIOUS. ONLY
HOW THE DECISIONS, HOW THIS WAS
HANDLED AND TO RESPOND TO AN
INDUSTRY GROUP AND THEN ALSO
JUST IN THE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE
LAST YEAR AND A HALF, THE
AWARENESS OF THE SERVICE CHARGE,
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE
ADMINISTRATION, THE PRESIDENT IS
DOING THE SAME KIND OF TALKING.
I THINK EVERYBODY'S FOCUSED ON
SERVICE CHARGES AND WHAT THAT
MEANS. AND I THINK IT'S TRAINING
THE CONSUMING PUBLIC TO MAKE
SURE THEY'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE
FINAL COST OF AN ITEM IS GOING
TO BE, WHETHER IT'S A HOTEL
ROOM, CAR RENTALS. I'VE JUST I
RENT CARS FREQUENTLY AND I SEE
THE TOTAL GASOLINE. YOU COULD
DENY INSURANCE AND CAR SEATS AND
EVERYTHING ELSE. I THINK, MAYBE
IT'S NOT UNIVERSAL, BUT IT'S
GETTING TO THAT POINT THAT
PEOPLE, CONSUMERS ARE SMARTER.
AND BECAUSE A LOT OF THE
PROBABLY THE GOOD WORK THAT YOU
DO TO MAKE CONSUMERS AWARE OF
WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE. BUT I
JUST THINK WE ARE DANCING ON THE
HEAD OF A PIN. I THINK THAT
ACCURATE. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY
THE LANGUAGE WOULDN'T BE
ACCURATE, AND SO I COMMEND THE
AUTHOR FOR RESPONDING TO THE
INDUSTRY AND GETTING THIS BILL
DONE. AND THE SECOND HEARING OF
THE TODAY, AND I SUPPORT MOVING
IT FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S A MOTION, BUT I WOULD
SUPPORT. I THINK YOU JUST MADE
THE MOTION. EXACTLY. THERE WE
GO. BIPARTISAN MOTION. AND
SECOND. MR. DODD, NICE WORK, ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE
HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, BUT WE
CAN. OKAY. WELL, I WANT TO THANK
, THE AUTHOR. YOU KNOW, THIS.
I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN THIS
PROCESS. THIS IS NO SURPRISE TO
ANYBODY IN THE ROOM. AND I THINK
THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE FAST
MOVING BILLS CONCERN ME. AND SO
ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD MOVING
THROUGH THIS PROCESS WAS THAT WE
TAKE CARE OF THE NARROW ISSUE
THAT HAS BEEN RAISED, NOT OPEN
OURSELVES UP TO UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES WITH A BROAD BILL
THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO
FULLY VET AND UNDERSTAND AND SO
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE
BEFORE US. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR WORKING
WITH THIS COMMITTEE TO GET IT TO
A PLACE WHERE WE FELT
COMFORTABLE, WE UNDERSTOOD THE
IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT WE WERE
DOING AND WERE ABLE TO SUPPORT
IT, AND I THINK TO MISS DIXON'S
POINT, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS ARE
REALLY HURTING AND AS SOMEONE
WHO DINES IN SAN FRANCISCO OFTEN
WHERE THIS FEE IS, THERE IS A
FEE THAT IS CHARGED TO SUPPORT
WORKERS, WE LOOKED IT UP AND IT
ACTUALLY DOES NOT HAVE
REQUIREMENTS AROUND WHAT THAT
CONSISTS OF. WE WERE CURIOUS
BECAUSE IN EVERY INSTANCE WHERE
I'VE ENCOUNTERED THAT FEE IN SAN
FRANCISCO, IT IS ON THE FRONT OF
THE MENU IN VERY LARGE LETTERS.
IT IS NOT BAKED INTO THE PRICES,
BUT YOU KNOW, AS A CONSUMER, YOU
CAN DO THAT MATH IN YOUR HEAD
BECAUSE IT IS CONSPICUOUSLY
DISPLAYED TO YOU. AND I THINK
THAT'S WORKING, BUT I, I THINK
THAT THAT IS A VERY SPECIFIC
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO
US, THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE
ADDRESSED IN THE BILL WAS
GROCERY STORE DELIVERIES, WHICH
I LEARNED ARE SOMETIMES
TRIGGERED BY THE PRICE OF YOUR
ORDER. SO IF IT'S A LARGER
ORDER, YOU PAY MORE. AND SO
SHOWING THAT UP FRONT WAS FAIRLY
IMPOSSIBLE, BUT AND THIS IS AN
ALL IN PRICE, BUT THAT YOU
SHOULD UP FRONT AGAIN
CONSPICUOUSLY DISPLAY THAT AT
$100 IT BECOMES X, WHATEVER THE
CASE MAY BE. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
TAKING A CONSUMER PROTECTIVE
LENS HERE, I THINK WE CAN
PROTECT BUSINESSES. BUT WHAT
WE'VE ALSO DONE IN THIS BILL, AS
NOTED BY THE ADDITION OF THE
CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS
CROSS-REFERENCE, IS ENSURE THE
CONSUMERS ARE GETTING THAT
INFORMATION. MAYBE IT'S IN A
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY, BUT THE
BILL STILL PROTECTS CONSUMERS.
AND I THINK SENATOR DODD'S BILL
FROM LAST YEAR, WHICH I
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTED IN
THIS COMMITTEE AND ON THE FLOOR,
IS REALLY IMPORTANT. CONSUMERS
DON'T LIKE THESE JUNK FEES. THEY
DON'T LIKE THOSE HOTEL RESORT
FEES. THEY SHOW UP NOT KNOWING
THEY'RE GOING TO PAY. AND NOW
IT'S $75 MORE A NIGHT. AGAIN,
NOTHING IN ANY OF THE LAW WE'VE
PASSED PROHIBITS THE PRACTICE OF
CHARGING THOSE FEES. IT MERELY
SAYS THEY HAVE TO BE DISPLAYED
TO THE CONSUMER UP FRONT. AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
CONTINUING TO DO IN THIS BILL.
SO WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, ONCE AGAIN TO THANK YOU
AND YOUR STAFF FOR THE GREAT
WORK AND THE WHOLE ASSEMBLY,
INSTITUTE FOR YOU KNOW, THIS WAS
IS A QUICK BILL TO GET IT DONE
BY JULY 1ST. THAT'S APPRECIATED
VERY, VERY MUCH. AND JUST SO WE
CAN THROW A BONE TO THE
OPPOSITION HERE AT THE TABLE, I
WOULD HOPE THAT MAYBE CRA AND
THE RESPECTIVE GROUPS COULD COME
OUT WITH A VOLUNTARY GUIDELINE
TO, HEY, WHEN YOU CHANGE YOUR
MENUS, LET'S GET IT DONE AS SOON
AS IS PRACTICABLE, EVEN THOUGH
THE LAW THAT PART OF IT DOESN'T
GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL JULY 1ST,
2025. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO
ME. I RESPECT FULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. LET'S CALL THE ROLL ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT SB 1524 BY SENATOR
DODD. THE MOTION IS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED BY BAUER-KAHAN I
BAUER-KAHAN I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON I BRIAN DIXON. DIXON I
IRWIN. IRWIN I HOOVER. HOOVER I
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL I ORTEGA.
ORTEGA I WARD. WARD. I WICKS.
WILSON. WILSON. I THAT BILL HAS
NINE VOTES. IT IS OUT, BUT WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS APPRECIATE IT. THANK
YOU. SENATOR. SENATOR DURAZZO,
WAITING SO PATIENTLY. COME ON UP
. WE WILL HEAR SB 1490. YES
THANK YOU FOR HAVING.
MY WHEN ARE YOU READY? YES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. GOOD
AFTERNOON. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M HERE TO PRESENT,
SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF
YOUR PREVIOUS. THIS, JUST FROM A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE, SB 1490 IS GOING TO
STRENGTHEN THE FAIR FOOD
DELIVERY ACT BY REQUIRING FOOD
DELIVERY PLATFORMS TO DISCLOSE
TO RESTAURANTS AND CUSTOMERS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR SERVICES.
I WANT TO THANK YOUR COMMITTEE
AND YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF. THANK
YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
YOUR WORK. I WILL ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE CLARIFYING AMENDMENT
ON PAGE SIX OF THE ANALYSIS S
AND JUST ALSO THAT WE HAVE MADE
SEVERAL AMENDMENTS PREVIOUSLY IN
THE ON THE SENATE SIDE AND THE
BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE
AND JUDICIARY. ANYWAY, SB 1490
WILL ALLOW RESTAURANTS TO
REQUEST REMOVAL FROM THE
DELIVERY PLATFORM IN A TIMELY
MANNER. SUBJECT TO ANY, OF
COURSE, PREEXISTING CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN A PLATFORM
AND THE FOOD FACILITY. IT
REQUIRES PLATFORMS TO PROVIDE
RESTAURANTS DETAIL FILES ON THE
PROCESS FOR DISPUTING ERRONEOUS
CHARGES, AND IT REQUIRES THE
FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORMS TO
PROVIDE TIMELY AND TRANSPARENT
COMMUNICATION OPTIONS BETWEEN
THE PLATFORMS, THE RESTAURANTS
AND THE CUSTOMERS. REGARDING
REGARDING THE STATUS OF THEIR
DELIVERY ORDERS, CUSTOMERS WANT
TO KNOW WHEN THEIR FOOD WILL
ARRIVE AND IF IT DOESN'T, WHO'S
RESPONSIBLE? THIS BILL ENSURES
TRANSPARENCY AND PROVIDES
ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
RESTAURANTS TO HAVE CLEAR
INFORMATION ABOUT FOOD DELIVERY.
PLATFORM PROCESSES. I LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE
CONVERSATION AND WORKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS TO STRIKE THE
BALANCE, THE BALANCE WHERE
NEEDED TO PROTECT RESTAURANTS.
AND WITH ME TODAY. SPEAKING OF
RESTAURANTS, I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES, FERDINANDO DE STEFANO
, CHEF AND OWNER OF THE GOOD
PIZZA RESTAURANT, AND ANNIE
MILLER, CHEF AND OWNER OF
CLEMENTINE RESTAURANT,
RESPECTFULLY, I VOTE WOULD I
DON'T KNOW, LADIES FIRST. OKAY
HI. THANK YOU TO MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR HAVING ME TODAY.
MY NAME IS ANNIE MILLER, AND I'M
THE CHEF AND OWNER OF CLEMENTINE
BAKERY CAFE IN LOS ANGELES,
WHICH HAS PROUDLY SERVED OUR
COMMUNITY FOR 24 YEARS,
INFORMING DIRECT RELATIONSHIPS
WITH OUR CUSTOMERS AND NEIGHBORS
HAS BEEN PROFOUNDLY REWARDING.
BRINGING JOY THROUGH FOOD AND
SERVICE IS AT THE HEART OF WHY I
BECAME A CHEF AND A RESTAURANT
OWNER, BUT THIRD PARTY DELIVERY
PLATFORMS HAVE DISTANCE US FROM
OUR COMMUNITY AND COMPROMISE THE
ESSENCE OF HOSPITALITY, WHILE
INCREASING COSTS FOR CONSUMERS
AND FOR RESTAURANTS TO COVER
THIS INCREASED COSTS,
RESTAURANTS CAN RAISE PRICES ON
THE PLATFORMS, BUT THAT MAKES IT
HARDER TO COMPETE, AND DOORDASH
HAS SAID PUBLICLY THAT
RESTAURANTS WHO MARK UP THEIR
PRICES WILL BE PENALIZED WITH
LOWER VISIBILITY. SO THERE'S
PRESSURE ON RESTAURANTS TO RAISE
PRICES ACROSS THE BOARD TO
CHARGE EVERYONE MORE. EVEN
CUSTOMERS COMING THROUGH THE
FRONT DOOR. IDEALLY, THIRD PARTY
DSPS WOULD OAN THE FACT THAT
GETTING YOUR FOOD BROUGHT TO
YOUR DOORSTEP HAS A COST.
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF THEY
COULD HAVE ENOUGH CONFIDENCE IN
THE VALUE OF THE SERVICE THEY
PROVIDE TO BE ABLE TO CHARGE THE
CUSTOMER IN THE RESTAURANT WITH
FULL TRANSPARENCY? INSTEAD,
THIRD PARTY DSPS ARE CONTINUING
INVENTING NEW WAYS TO OBSCURE
THE COST TO PRETEND THAT IT'S
ALL FREE AND EVERYONE IS
WINNING. I'M HERE TO TELL YOU
THAT RESTAURANTS ARE NOT
WINNING. CONSUMERS ARE NOT
WINNING. WORKERS ARE NOT
WINNING. MORE AND MORE, IT FEELS
LIKE SERVICE, HOSPITALITY AND
THE INDEPENDENT NEIGHBORHOOD
RESTAURANT WILL SOON BE IN THE
REAR VIEW MIRROR. SO WHILE WE
WAIT FOR THE BIG THIRD PARTY
DELIVERY APPS TO DEVELOP PRIDE
IN THEIR PRODUCT LIKE I HAVE IN
MIND, SB 1490 IS AT LEAST A STEP
TOWARD PROTECTING RESTAURANTS
LIKE MINE FROM THEIR UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND PROVIDE
CONSUMERS WITH MORE VISIBILITY
INTO THE FEES THAT ARE PAID AND
THE TRUE COST FOR DELIVERY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO SUPPORT
SB 1490. THANK YOU. ARE YOU
READY, MADAM CHAIR, AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. GOOD EVENING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR GIVING
US THIS OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS
NANDO DE STEFANO. FERDINANDO DE
STEPHAN. I AM THE OWNER AND CHEF
OF THE GOOD PIZZA AND ITALIAN
FAMILY RESTAURANT IN LOS
ANGELES. I HAVE DEDICATED 41
YEARS OF THE RESTAURANT AT THE
TO THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY,
BEGINNING AS AN EMPLOYEE FIRST
AND ULTIMATELY BECOMING AN OWNER
AND OPERATOR. OWNING A
RESTAURANT HAS BEEN IMMENSELY
REWARDING BOTH PERSONALLY AND
PROFESSIONALLY, AND HAS ALLOWED
ME TO PROVIDE FOR MY FAMILY AND
THE VIBRANT COMMUNITY OF
WESTCHESTER AND PLAYA DEL REY.
WHILE THIRD PARTY PLATFORMS MAY
HAVE STARTED WITH FAIR
INTENTIONS, THAT EXCESSIVE AND
OFTEN INEXPLICABLE FEES HAVE
SIGNIFICANTLY, SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPACTED THE BUSINESS, THIS I
COMMISSION AND ADDITIONAL
CHARGES FOR MARKETING, LISTING
AND PROCESSING HAVE
SIGNIFICANTLY CUT INTO THE
REVENUE OVER TIME. ALL LINE
ORDERS FROM THIRD PARTY DELIVERY
SERVICE MAKE UP ABOUT 25% OF THE
REVENUE. BUT I HAVE TO ADD
ANYTHING FROM 25 TO 30%
COMMISSION TO THE COST OF THE
MENU IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. THIS
MAKES ME LOOK LIKE I AM MAKING
MORE MONEY, FROM ONLINE ORDER
WHEN I AM TRYING TO DO IS
MAINTAIN A RAZOR THIN MARGIN.
THE MISLEAD THIS MISLEAD THE
CUSTOMERS INTO THINKING THAT I
AM PRICE GOUGING THEM. FOR
EXAMPLE, IF A CUSTOMERS ORDER MY
SUPREME PIZZA FROM OUR WEBSITE
IS $26, BUT ON THE LET'S SAY
THIS THIRD PARTY PLATFORM IS
ABOUT $33, THEY THINK THAT I'M
POCKETING THIS MONEY, BUT IN
REALITY, THE CUSTOMERS ARE
PAYING MORE. AND WHAT I'M DOING,
I'M MAKING EVEN LESS.
ADDITIONALLY, IF I DON'T USE THE
FULL SUITE OF THE SERVICE FROM
THE DELIVERY PLATFORM AND CHARGE
LESS ON THE PLATFORM, THEN THEY
TELL ME THAT I'LL BE
DEPRIORITIZED IN THEIR
ALGORITHM. THIS IS THE TYPE OF
POWER THEY HAVE. IF DELIVERY
PLATFORM DISCLOSED FEES TO
RESTAURANTS AND INFORMED US OF
FEES OF PRODUCT CHANGES,
ESPECIALLY IF I DON'T USE ALL
THE SERVICES, THIS WILL GIVE US
MORE VISIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
INTO MAKE THE BUSINESS
DECISIONS. ADDITIONALLY I HAVE A
LOT OF CUSTOMERS WITH NEGATIVE
DELIVERY EXPERIENCE AS
DELIVERIES ARE LATE, GO TO THE
WRONG ADDRESS OR THE PIZZA IS
COLD, OR SOMEONE DOESN'T GET THE
FOOD BECAUSE IT'S BETWEEN EATEN
BY SOMEONE. I HAVE NO WAY OF
KNOWING THE ORDER STATUS RIGHT
NOW. I KNEW IF I KNEW MORE
INFORMATION LIKE DELIVERY METHOD
, ANTICIPATE TIME OF DELIVERY
AND CONFIRMATION OF SUCCESSFUL
DELIVERY OR NOT. THIS WOULD HELP
ALLEVIATE SOME CUSTOMER SERVICES
BUSINESS. SB 1490 WOULD HELP
BALANCE THE POWER DYNAMIC AND
PROTECT LOCAL RESTAURANT AND
CONSUMER FROM HARMFUL BUSINESS
PRACTICES. THEREFORE, I ASK YOU
TO PLEASE SUPPORT THIS CRITICAL
MEASURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ANYONE HERE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL? HI, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, JOE
REINSTEIN FROM THE DIGITAL
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT OF 1490. GOOD AFTERNOON.
CHAIR MEMBERS MARLON LARA FROM
THE CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? CAN'T SAY. WE MUST
HAVE A PLATFORM HERE.
WHEN YOU'RE READY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, JOSE TORRES CASILLAS,
ON BEHALF OF TECHNET AND CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, WE WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL. WHILE
TECHNET AND CHAMBER ARE STILL
LISTED IN OPPOSITION, THE BILL
HAS MADE PROGRESS THROUGH THE
VARIOUS AMENDMENTS IN THE PAST
COMMITTEES AND IN THIS COMMITTEE
, WE ARE CONTINUING TO WORK ON
FINALIZING LANGUAGE WITH THE
SENATOR'S OFFICE. BUT WE DO
BELIEVE WE CAN MOVE TO A NEUTRAL
POSITION PRETTY SOON, THAT BEING
SAID, WE DO WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR AND HER STAFF AS THEY
HAVE ENGAGED WITH US ON THE BILL
OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS. BUT
OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE JUST
OPPOSED ON PAPER. THANK YOU.
THAT'S GREAT, GOOD JOB. SENATOR,
ANY OTHER OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM
? THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE DAIS. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
YEAH. SO, MEMBER DIXON, I JUST
WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE, I
GUESS, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN IN YOUR LETTER, YOU TALK
ABOUT YOU WERE SUPPORTIVE AND
THEN NOW YOU'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE,
THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT
LANGUAGE THAT'S GOING TO BE
ADDED. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY
THAT POINT. IF YOU MAY MAY
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. OF COURSE,
THANK YOU FOR THE FOR THE
QUESTION. SO WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE SENATOR, WE
HAVE ORIGINALLY WE HAVE BEEN
STARTED AS IN OPPOSITION BILL,
BUT WITH THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE
VARIOUS COMMITTEES, WE ARE
MOVING SLOWLY TOWARDS A MORE
NEUTRAL POSITION. BUT AS OF NOW,
WE'RE STILL TECHNICALLY OPPOSED.
OKAY JUST AS WE CONTINUE
FINALIZING THE LANGUAGE. OKAY.
THANK YOU. AND TO THE SENATOR, I
APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS ON THIS
BILL. I THINK WE'RE MANY OF US
HAVE BEEN USERS OF THE SYSTEM
WITH BOTH GOOD AND BAD
EXPERIENCES. AND I'M SORRY TO
HEAR THE RESTAURANTS. I HAVE A
FAVORITE RESTAURANT. IT'S ALSO
AN ITALIAN PIZZA PLACE IN MY
TOWN, MY HOMETOWN, AND I DECIDED
THAT IT WAS TOO MUCH TROUBLE TO
USE THE DELIVERY SERVICE. I JUST
GO PICK IT UP BECAUSE IT WAS
ADDING SO MUCH COST THAT I IT'S
EASIER FOR ME TO GO PICK IT UP.
WHEREAS HERE, I DON'T GET AROUND
AS EASILY. AND SO I DO USE THOSE
SERVICES AND I THINK THERE COULD
BE SOME I JUST, I DON'T LIKE
MORE REGULATIONS, HONESTLY.
YOU'LL HEAR THAT FROM ME MORE
AND MORE, BUT I THINK TO PROTECT
THE CONSUMER AND THE RESTAURANT
OWNER, I THINK THAT IS A DUAL
OBJECTIVE. AND I THINK THAT THAT
, THAT HELPS. SO THANK YOU,
SENATOR. THANK YOU. YEAH. MR.
VICE CHAIR, WELL, THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DIXON, FOR,
ASKING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I
HAD THIS THE OPPOSITION LETTER
HAS NARROWED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER
TIME, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. I
KIND OF CAME IN WITH A LOT MORE
CONCERNS. YOU KNOW, WHEN I ORDER
FROM MY LOCAL RESTAURANT, CGRTS,
I ACTUALLY, I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW
IF THAT'S THE AVERAGE
EXPERIENCE, BUT JUST FROM THE
LOCAL RESTAURANT, I ACTUALLY
IT'S AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT IN
MY, DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE
LIKE 20 BUCKS FOR SOMETHING,
RIGHT? IF YOU GO IN, BUT IT'S
24, 25 BUCKS ONLINE. I'VE ALWAYS
JUST KNOWN AND JUST ASSUMED THAT
THAT WAS FOR I WAS ACTUALLY JUST
PAYING FOR THE DELIVER FREE
SERVICE. AND I KNOW IF YOU WENT
INTO THE RESTAURANT AND ASKED
HER, YOU KNOW WHY YOU'RE
CHARGING MORE, I WOULD GET I
WOULD HAVE TIME TO HAVE A BEER
AT, AND LISTEN TO HER RESPONSE
TO THAT AS SHE EXPLAINED. SO BUT
ALSO SHE BENEFITS FROM THE
SERVICE AS WELL, BECAUSE I WOULD
ORDER FROM HER, YOU KNOW, AND I
WOULDN'T OTHERWISE. SO I THINK
WITH THE AMENDMENTS, AND NOT
ENTIRELY CLEAR, THE OPPOSITION
HÌNH I'D BE HAPPY TO IF YOU HAVE
A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THE
OPPOSITION, I ON YOUR LETTER, IT
TALKS ABOUT THE PENALTIES,
SOMETHING ABOUT SECRET
PENALTIES. DO YOU HAVE MORE
ELABORATION ON THAT OR IS IT,
YOU COULD HELP ME. I'M TRYING TO
MAYBE WORK MY WAY TO YOUR
POSITION, BUT I DON'T REALLY. I
WOULD LIKE IF IT WAS MORE CLEAR
THERE. YOU KNOW. OF COURSE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SO, WITH, WITH
OUR POSITION WITHIN, WITHIN THAT
LETTER. SO I WILL I WILL SAY
THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE
STILL WORKING WITH THE SENATOR
CURRENTLY WITH ON LANGUAGE. SO
THAT'S THE FINAL PIECE OF
LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE WORKING
WITH, TRYING TO MOVE INTO A
NEUTRAL POSITION, JUST IN TERMS
OF WHAT THAT NECESSARILY LOOKS
LIKE MOVING FORWARD, BUT AS FAR
AS THE AS FAR AS OUR POSITION
WAS AT THE LETTER, OR WHAT IS
DESCRIBED IN THE, IN THE LETTER,
IT'S, I WOULD SAY LACK OF A
BETTER WORDS, A MORE JUST
OUTDATED IN THE SENSE THAT
CURRENTLY THE DISCUSSIONS THAT
WE WERE HAVING WITH THE SENATOR,
HAVE BEEN FURTHER ALONG, THAN
WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE
ORIGINAL LETTER. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I'M, I THINK I'M, I WILL
JUST SAY THIS. I THINK THE
ONLINE PLATFORMS PROVIDE A VERY
IMPORTANT SERVICE, THE DELIVERY
PLATFORMS FOR THE BUSINESS AND
FOR THE CONSUMER ALIKE. AND TO
THE EXTENT THAT IT SEEMS LIKE
THE AMENDMENTS HAVE MADE A LOT
OF PROGRESS, AND I HOPE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS CONTINUE, IT LOOKS
LIKE I COMMEND YOU ACTUALLY,
IT'S GONE FROM A VERY LONG
LETTER TO A VERY SHORT LETTER.
MAYBE IT'LL BE NO LETTER BY THE
TIME IT GETS TO THE FLOOR. SO I
THINK I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. AND IF THERE'S CONCERNS
THAT THE OPPOSITION WANTS TO
BRING TO MY OFFICE BETWEEN NOW
AND HITS THE FLOOR, I COULD
ALWAYS CHANGE MY VOTE. BUT I
THINK I WANT TO SEE THIS MOVE
FORWARD IN THE CONVERSATION
DISCUSSING BECAUSE A LOCAL
RESTAURANTS HAVE EXPRESSED
CONCERN. BUT I AM A HUGE USER OF
THESE SERVICES, BLESSED TO BE
ABLE TO DO THAT AT THE SAME
TIME. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S
OTHER SPECIFIC CONCERNS, I WOULD
LOVE TO KNOW. AND THEN WE COULD
HAVE A CONVERSATION ON THOSE AS
WELL. BUT I THINK FOR NOW, I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. WAIT HOLD ON.
YES, SENATOR. NO, I'M JUST
SAYING, AT SOME POINT, IF ONE OF
OUR WITNESSES COULD RESPOND.
YES. SO MISS WILSON WAS GOING TO
ASK A QUESTION, AND THEN WE'LL
COME. THANK YOU. ACTUALLY WANTED
TO JUST MAKE A COMMENT. AND,
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT, AT THE END OF THE
DAY, ALTHOUGH I DEFINITELY USE,
AS I ALWAYS SAY, I'M A WOMAN OF
CONVENIENCE AND WILL PAY FOR IT,
BECAUSE LIFE IS FULL AND WE KNOW
THAT. AND SO I DEFINITELY USE
THESE SERVICES. BUT I ALSO
RECOGNIZE AT THE SAME TIME THESE
SERVICES IS REALLY A, IS FEEDING
OFF OF THE REAL PRODUCT, WHICH
IS THE FOOD, THE REAL PRODUCT,
WHICH IS THE PERSON WHO'S PUT
THEIR HEART AND SOUL INTO CREATE
FOOD FOR US, AND SO THAT WE HAVE
TO HAVE BALANCE. THERE BECAUSE
IT CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE THE
PERSON WHO'S ACTUALLY CREATING
THE TRUE VALUE, NOT THE
CONVENIENCE, BUT THE TRUE VALUE,
WHO, IS GETTING SQUEEZED AND
WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS, AND
THEN WHAT GOOD IS THE
CONVENIENCE? AND SO, I
DEFINITELY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
I'M SO GLAD MY COLLEAGUE MADE
THE MOTION, AND I GOT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SECOND, SO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR YOUR WORK IN THIS
SPACE AND YOUR CONTINUED WORK IN
THIS SPACE. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW, SO
I THOUGHT SHE WAS GONNA HAVE A
QUESTION, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
SENATOR, IF YOU WANT YOUR
SUPPORT TO SAY SOMETHING, IF YOU
WANT TO MAKE A SHORT. I JUST
WANTED TO ADD, BECAUSE I WANT TO
REASSURE ALL OF YOU AND MYSELF,
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CERTAINLY
THINGS THAT I MISS ABOUT THE
WORLD BEFORE THESE PLATFORMS,
BUT I ALSO USE THEM TOO. AND I
AGREE THAT THEY ARE VERY
VALUABLE AND ADD CONVENIENCE. SO
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HEAR
FROM A RESTAURANT THAT I, I, I
TOTALLY AGREE, AND MY POINT THAT
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT
THEY SIMPLY NEED TO OWN UP TO
THAT THEY'RE PART OF WHAT THEIR
PRODUCT IS, HAVE A PRICE FOR
THEIR PRODUCT. AND I CAN HAVE A
PRICE FOR MY PRODUCT THAT IS
CLEARLY REFLECTED THAT DOESN'T
HAVE TO CHARGE MY IN-STORE
CUSTOMERS MORE IN ORDER TO
SUBSIDIZE THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
CONVENIENCE. SO I DON'T THINK
WE'RE ASKING FOR THEM TO GO AWAY
BECAUSE WE DO BENEFIT FROM THEM.
SO I AGREE, BUT, THAT'S ALL I
WANT TO SAY. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. YEAH MR. LOWENTHAL, I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
FORWARD SUCH A GREAT BILL. I'M
ALSO THE OWNER OF BAKERY AND TWO
RESTAURANTS WE HAVE AVOIDED
COMPLETELY UTILIZING THE
PLATFORMS BECAUSE OF THE RISK TO
OUR BRAND. AND WHAT IT DOES TO
THE CUSTOMERS AND WHAT IT SAYS
ABOUT US IN THE COMMUNITY. AND I
REALLY, TRULY APPRECIATE A
MECHANISM HERE WHERE WE HAVE
GREATER LEVELS OF CONTROLS.
THANK YOU FOR THIS. BILL. 100.
THANK YOU, MR. LOWENTHAL. SEEING
NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT
TO HEAR FROM THE RESTAURANT
OWNERS. SO I WANT TO THANK THEM
FOR BEING HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE
THE HEART AND SOUL OF OUR
COMMUNITY. AND I TOLD ONE OF MY
LOCAL RESTAURANTS THAT MY SON
LOVES PUT ON THEIR WEBSITE WHAT
THEIR PREFERRED ORDERING APP
WAS. AND I ACTUALLY SAID THAT
WAS SO BRILLIANT BECAUSE I'M
HAPPY TO DO WHAT ONE OF MY
FAVORITE RESTAURANTS MAXIMIZES
BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES I CARE
ABOUT. AND SO THEY LIKED CLOVER
AND I WAS LIKE, OKAY, GREAT,
THEN I'LL USE THAT ONE, BECAUSE
OTHERWISE WE AS CONSUMERS HAVE
NO IDEA. RIGHT. AND SO I DO
THINK, YOU KNOW, IT IS
IMPORTANT, I'LL URGE ALL
RESTAURANTS THAT ARE PAYING
ATTENTION TO DO THAT, TO HELP
INFORM CONSUMERS IN THE WAY YOU
CAN OF WHAT HELPS YOU THE MOST.
AND SOMETIMES IT IS THESE
PLATFORMS, BUT I THINK THE
TRANSPARENCY THAT THIS BILL
BRINGS, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT
THIS BILL DOES, RIGHT? IT'S A
GOOD CONSUMER BILL THAT BRINGS
TRANSPARENCY IS SO CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT. BUT THE OTHER THING
THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT,
WHICH I THINK IS SO REFLECTIVE
OF WHAT MR. LOWENTHAL SAID, IS
THE PIECE OF REMOVING YOUR LOGO
WHEN REQUESTED, I THINK IS ALSO
A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS
BILL THAT WASN'T MENTIONED HERE
TODAY, BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF YOUR BRAND IN SOME
INSTANCES, AND YOU AND YOU
SHOULD CONTROL THAT. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, IF YOU WANT IT ON THERE,
GREAT. AND IF YOU WANT IT OFF,
YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO
CONTROL YOUR LOGO IN THAT WAY.
SO I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER
IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS THAT I
WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND
MENTION. AND WITH THAT, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I APPRECIATE
ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN
EXTREMELY HELPFUL. AND TO THE
WITNESSES WHO CAME ALL THE WAY
TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THEIR
STORIES WITH YOU, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND EVERY TIME I ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE, THANK YOU. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND AND WE
WILL CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER
NINE, SB 1490 BY SENATOR
DURAZZO. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
AS AMENDED BY BAUER-KAHAN. AYE
BAUER-KAHAN AYE. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. BRIAN DIXON.
DIXON. AYE. IRWIN. AYE IRWIN.
AYE. HOOVER. HOOVER. AYE.
LOWENTHAL LOWENTHAL. AYE. ORTEGA
ORTEGA. AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE.
WICKS WILSON. WILSON. AYE THAT
BILL IS OUT NINE ZERO. WE WILL
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU, SENATOR, AND
OUR LAST BILL OF THE DAY,
SENATOR STERN, SB 1504, WHEN
YOU'RE READY, I AM. THE MUSICAL
CHAIRS CONTINUE.
HI. YEAH, GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING YOU ON TV, SO
GOOD TO FINALLY SIT WITH YOU. I
KNOW RIGHT? WHEN YOU'RE READY.
OKAY. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
THANK YOU, MEMBERS, FOR BEING
HERE TODAY, HUMBLED TO BE
SITTING WITH, YOUNG LEADER AND
SURVIVOR OF CYBERBULLYING, BUT
THERE ARE MANY MORE, LIKE HER
AROUND THIS STATE. OVER HALF OF
TEENS, ACCORDING TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ARE BEING ATTACKED
RIGHT NOW ONLINE IN WAYS THAT
HAVE LED TO FAR WORSE OUTCOMES,
ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, RISING TEEN
SUICIDE RATES THAT SHOULD ALARM
ANY OF US. THIS BILL IS TRYING
TO TAKE OUR PLATFORMS ON THEIR
OWN TERMS AS THEY ARTICULATE,
POLICY OF CYBERBULLYING IN THEIR
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WHAT
KIND OF ACTIVITY IS AND ISN'T
ALLOWED ON THEIR PLATFORMS. WE'D
LIKE TO PUT SOME WEIGHT BEHIND
THOSE WORDS SO THAT, THOSE WHO
ARE GUARDIANS, NOT JUST, THE
PUBLIC AT LARGE IN ANYBODY BUT
PARENTS, TEACHERS, SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS SPECIFICALLY, SO
THAT THEY HAVE SOME POWER, TO
HELP REPORT THESE INCIDENTS
BEFORE THEY GET WORSE. AND THE
EXPECTATION OF SOME KIND OF
RESPONSE. RIGHT NOW, WHEN YOU
CLICK THAT BUTTON, YOU JUST KIND
OF GO OFF INTO THE ETHER AND YOU
DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. AND
OFTENTIMES, WHETHER IT'S A FIGHT
PAGE OR, A SERIES OF POSTS
SAYING TO GO KILL YOURSELF,
ATTACKS ON PEOPLE'S, BODY IMAGE,
PEOPLE TAKING PICTURES OF
STUDENTS ON CAMPUS USING THE
BATHROOM AND USING THAT AGAINST
THEM. THE LIST OF HORRIBLES GOES
ON AND ON. AND YET THOSE REPORTS
FALL ON DEAF EARS, SO WE'RE
REALLY HOPING TO GET A HANDLE ON
THAT. AND START TO TURN THE TIDE
HERE. WE DON'T THINK THIS WILL
SOLVE THE ENTIRE PROBLEM AROUND
SOCIAL MEDIA, IN SCHOOLS, AND
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. BUT WE HOPE AT
LEAST IT PROVIDES A LITTLE
WEIGHT TO THE WORDS THAT ARE
ALREADY ON THE PLATFORM OAN
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND GIVES
SOME TOOLS TO YOUNG PEOPLE AND
TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GIVEN A
DUTY TO CARE FOR THEM, TO
PROTECT THEM. SO HAVE SOME GREAT
LEAD WITNESSES HERE, AND WE CAN
GET INTO A FEW MORE DETAILS. I
KNOW THERE WILL BE SOME
DISCUSSION WITH NEW OPPOSITION
THAT WE RECEIVED, AND I DID WANT
TO SAY AT THE OUTSET, I'M
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THEM.
WE'VE ALREADY HAD SOME
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS. AND
SO, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
QUESTIONS AROUND TERM'S
DEFINITIONS THAT WERE WERE
HOPING TO, KEEP WORKING TO
CLARIFY AND IMPLEMENT AS
EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE, BUT
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I DO WANT
TO, TURN IT OVER TO EMILY AND,
AND THEN OUR OTHER LEAD EXPERT
HERE FOR TECHNICAL
CLARIFICATION, AS WELL AS KIM
STONE EDWARDS HERE WITH THE
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHEN
YOU'RE READY, GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
EMILY SARANG. I AM A SOPHOMORE
NOW AT RUTH ASAWA SOTA HIGH
SCHOOL IN SAN FRANCISCO. AND IS
SOMEONE WHO HAS DEALT WITH BEING
CYBER BULLIED AND SOMEONE WHO
HAS TRIED TO HELP MANY OF MY
FRIENDS WITH CYBER BULLYING. I
STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 154. IN
2021, WHEN I WAS 11, A GROUP OF
BOYS WHO HAD KNOWN ME IN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STARTED
STARTED HARASSING ME THROUGH A
SOCIAL MEDIA APP CALLED DISCORD.
FOR EXAMPLE, THEY GAVE ME A NAME
IN THE SERVER WHICH WAS I NEED
TO SUCK A. I WON'T SEE IT HERE,
BUT YOU KNOW, THEY ALSO SAID
THAT NOBODY COULD EVER LOVE ME
IN A ROMANTIC WAY, SAID THAT I
WAS WEAK BUT HURT AND URGED ME
TO COMMIT SUICIDE. THEY WERE
JUST PICKING ON EVERY DETAIL
THEY COULD FOR A REASON, PURELY
TO HARM MY SELF-ESTEEM. THAT I
ALREADY POINTED OUT, WASN'T IN A
GOOD PLACE. THEY MADE FUN OF MY
HEIGHT, AND WHEN AN OLDER FRIEND
OF MINE JOINED THE SERVER TO
DEFEND ME IN A RESPECTFUL
MANNER, THEY JUST WENT TO
TARGETING THAT PERSON TO. IT WAS
HARD TO FIND WHERE IN DISCORD TO
REPORT WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO ME.
IT ISN'T ON ITS HOME PAGE. WHEN
YOU CLICK ON THE SAFETY CENTER
HOME PAGE TAB LINK, IT ISN'T
THERE. EASY THERE EITHER, AND
IT'S NOT ON THE NEXT PAGE. AND
WHEN YOU CLICK ON THE SAFETY
LIBRARY TAB, IT STILL ISN'T
THERE. YOU HAVE TO CLICK ON
TOPICS AND THEN LOOK FOR HOW TO
REPORT CONTENT TO DISCORD, WHICH
APPEARS ON THE VERY BOTTOM OF
THE PAGE. WHEN I REPORTED THE
USERS HARASSING ME, I GOT NO
RESPONSE OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MY
REPORT. I STILL HAVEN'T. I'VE
ALSO EXPERIENCED THE WAY THAT
THESE PLATFORMS HANDLE REPORTS
WHEN I'VE TRIED TO HELP OTHERS
TAKE INSTAGRAM COUNTLESS TIMES,
I'VE COME ACROSS COMMENTS PEOPLE
WILL MAKE ON OTHERS BODIES,
MENTAL HEALTH, OR LIVES IN
GENERAL. WHEN I SENT REPORTS FOR
COMMENTS LIKE GO KILL YOURSELF
AND STOP EATING WHILE YOU'RE AT
IT ON NO SET TIMETABLE, I WOULD
GET A RESPONSE OF WE FOUND THE
CONTENT REPORTED DOESN'T GO
AGAINST OUR COMMUNITY
GUIDELINES, BUT THANK YOU FOR
HELPING TO KEEP THE INSTAGRAM
COMMUNITY SAFE WHEN OF COURSE,
THE CONTENT I REPORTED CLEARLY
VIOLATES ITS COMMUNITY
GUIDELINES. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THIS BILL IS JUST A CUSTOMER
SERVICE BILL BENEFITING
CHILDREN. THE RISK THAT NOT
HAVING AN ACCESSIBLE, TIMELY AND
EFFECTIVE CYBER BULLYING
REPORTING PROCESS POSES TO
MINORS IS EXTREME. IF I WAS IN
AN EVEN WORSE PLACE THAN I WAS
WHEN I WAS TOLD TO KILL MYSELF,
I MAY HAVE LISTENED TO THEM AND
DONE IT. AND THAT SCARES ME.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ON BEHALF OF
TEENS EVERYWHERE, PLEASE HELP
US. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS KIM STONE OF STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW
SCHOOL, IN SUPPORT, IN ADDITION
TO THE SURGEON GENERAL COMING
OUT YESTERDAY SUGGESTING THAT
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SHOULD
CARRY WARNING LABELS AND OUR OWN
GOVERNOR. YET TODAY, YESTERDAY,
ALSO EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT
CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH AND
SOCIAL MEDIA, I WANT TO READ
SOME COMMENTS THAT ONE OF OUR CO
SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
RECEIVED FROM SOME TEENS ABOUT
THIS VERY SUBJECT, THERE WAS A
VIDEO POSTED OF ME GETTING
ASSAULTED FROM FIVE YEARS AGO. I
REPORTED IT IMMEDIATELY FOR
HARASSMENT AND BULLYING, BUT
THEY DIDN'T RESPOND. HOW CAN I
GET THAT CONTENT TO BE TAKEN
DOWN ASAP? BECAUSE I'M HUGELY
EMBARRASSED AND I JUST WANT IT
GONE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I
DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO REPORT
ABUSE AND HARASSMENT ON FACEBOOK
. WHERE IS THE TOOL? WHAT DO YOU
DO? DOES IT EXIST? THERE IS AN
ACCOUNT THAT HAS SHARED PERSONAL
INFORMATION ABOUT ME AND IS
POSTED SEXUALIZED VIDEOS AND
SCREENSHOTS OF ME THAT HAVE
CAUSED GREAT PAIN IN MY LIFE. I
KEEP REPORTING IT, BUT IT KEEPS
SPREADING. I AM SO LOST. MY
FACEBOOK ACCOUNT WAS STOLEN AND
IS NOW BEING USED TO PRETEND TO
BE ME. I AM SCARED, I KEEP
REPORTING IT. I NEVER HEAR
ANYTHING. WHY SOMEONE IS
BLACKMAILING ME AND POSTING
NUDES. I REPORTED THE ACCOUNT
BUT HEARD NOTHING. I AM A VICTIM
OF SEXTORTION, A PERSON RECORDED
IN INTIMATE VIDEOS OF MINE AND
IS THREATENING TO SEND IT TO MY
CONTACTS ON INSTAGRAM VIA DM. I
REACHED OUT FACEBOOK AND
INSTAGRAM ARE DOING NOTHING. WHY
CAN'T THEY CONTROL ILLEGAL
VIDEOS AND PREVENT THEIR SHARING
? HOW DO I GO ABOUT HAVING MY
ADDRESS AND PHONE PHOTOS OF MY
HOME REMOVED FROM POSTS THAT A
BITTER EX HAS POSTED ON FACEBOOK
? SHE POSTED OUR ADDRESS TO
INCITE VIOLENCE AGAINST MY
FAMILY. I HAVE TRIED REPORTING
IT TO FACEBOOK BUT GET DENIED
EVERY TIME I FEAR FOR OUR
FAMILY'S SAFETY. PLEASE HELP ME.
THIS BILL MERELY REQUIRES A
PLATFORM TO RESPOND WHEN MINORS
OR THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS
REPORT CYBERBULLYING, IT DOES
NOT REQUIRE REMOVAL. THE
PLATFORM DECIDES WHETHER TO
REMOVE THE MATERIAL OR NOT.
CALIFORNIA CHILDREN NEED AND
DESERVE THIS PROTECTION. WE URGE
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL? NAME ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION, PLEASE? I'M ED HOWARD,
SENIOR COUNSEL OF THE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE. THIS PLEASED
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS STEPHANIE ROBERSON, WITH
STEPHANIE ROBERSON STRATEGIES ON
BEHALF OF THE BLACK YOUTH
LEADERSHIP PROJECT IN SUPPORT
AND JUST PERSONALLY, AS A MOM
WHO'S GONE THROUGH THIS AS WELL.
SO URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, PAMELA
GIBBS, REPRESENTING THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION. WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. AND THANK
THE WITNESSES FOR THEIR
TESTIMONY TODAY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. DOROTHY JOHNSON, ON
BEHALF OF AXA, THE ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS, PLEASED TO BE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NORALYNN. WITH CHILDREN NOW IN
SUPPORT. CRYSTAL STRAIT, ON
BEHALF OF COMMON SENSE MEDIA AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CHARLIE
DOLIN AND STONE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF RETHINK AND HALF THE
STORY IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MITCH
STEIGER, ON BEHALF OF CFT, A
UNION OF EDUCATORS AND
CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS ALSO IN
SUPPORT, THANKS CLIFF BERG ON
BEHALF OF THE JEWISH PUBLIC
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF CALIFORNIA,
REPRESENTING OVER 30 JEWISH
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL?
YEAH, I WOULDN'T WANT TO FOLLOW
THAT EITHER. YEAH, JUST KIND OF.
UP THERE OR WHATEVER. ARE YOU
READY? GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS KARA BINDER,
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO SB
1504. WHILE WE AGREE THAT
ADDRESSING CYBERBULLYING IS A
LAUDABLE GOAL, AND MANY DIGITAL
SERVICES OFFER READILY AVAILABLE
WAYS TO REPORT CONTENT, THIS
BILL MISSES THE MARK. JUST THIS
MORNING, I LOOKED THROUGH HOW I
MIGHT GO ABOUT REPORTING CONTENT
ON THREE SEPARATE SERVICES. ON
EACH, THERE WAS AN OPTION ON
EACH PIECE OF CONTENT THAT
PULLED UP A SHORT MENU OF
OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE OPTION TO
REPORT, FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL
MENU OPTIONS. TO DESCRIBE WHY I
WANTED TO REPORT THE CONTENT. WE
REMAIN COMMITTED TO ENGAGING
WITH THE AUTHORS AND THE
SPONSORS OFFICE REGARDING
AMENDMENTS AND POTENTIAL
SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE. WHOEVER HAS
WRITTEN THE BILL INCLUDES
POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS. IT REQUIRES A SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORM TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN CONFIRMATION TO A
REPORTING INDIVIDUAL THAT IT HAS
RECEIVED. THE REPORT, BUT
RESTRICTS A PLATFORM FROM USING
A COMMUNICATION METHOD THAT IS
WITHIN A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM'S
CONTROL. MANY ONLINE SERVICES
OFFER AN ARRAY OF PRODUCTS AS
PART OF THEIR NORMAL COURSE OF
BUSINESS, INCLUDING EMAIL,
MESSAGING, SOCIAL MEDIA, GAMING,
MUSIC, TELEVISION, AND FILM
STREAMING, AMONG OTHERS. THIS
BILL COULD UNNECESSARILY
CONSTRAIN SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
THAT RECEIVE A REPORT OF
CYBERBULLYING BY NOT ALLOWING
THE PLATFORM TO CONTACT A USER
VIA EMAIL, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THAT
SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY THE SAME
COMPANY. Kò COMPLIANCE
DEFINITIONS ALSO REMAIN
UNDEFINED AND SUBJECTIVE. WE ARE
ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS TO BROADEN THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION TO
INCLUDE A TEACHER OR
ADMINISTRATOR FROM A SCHOOL AT A
MINOR, ATTENDS. THIS WOULD BE
NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
OPERATIONALIZE AND VERIFY AS A
COVERED SERVICE WOULD HAVE NO
WAY OF KNOWING ABOUT THE TEACHER
OR ADMINISTRATOR RELATIONSHIP
WITH A PARTICULAR MINOR USER,
AND THIS IS ESPECIALLY
CONCERNING GIVEN THE TENFOLD
INCREASE IN POTENTIAL PENALTIES
AS COMPARED TO CURRENT LAW. FOR
THE ABOVE REASONS, WE URGE YOU
TO RESIST ADVANCING LEGISLATION
THAT FAILS TO PROVIDE A
MEANINGFUL COMPLIANCE ROADMAP
FOR COVERED SERVICES WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY NOT ADDRESSING
THE UNDERLYING PERVASIVE ISSUES
THAT ALLOW CYBERBULLYING TO
OCCUR IN THE FIRST PLACE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT.
HELLO AGAIN, JOSE TORRES
CASILLAS WITH TECHNET. WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO SB 1504.
WE AGREE WITH THE INTENT AND
AGAIN WANT TO NOTE THAT OUR
COMPANIES HAVE BEEN AT THE
FOREFRONT OF CREATING NEW
FEATURES AND TOOLS TO PROVIDE
PARENTS WITH GREATER CONTROL
OVER THEIR CHILD'S SOCIAL MEDIA
EXPERIENCE. OUR MEMBERS ALREADY
PROVIDE TOOLS AND OPTIONS LIKE
THE BILL CONTEMPLATES. WE ALIGN
OUR COMMENTS WITH OUR COLLEAGUES
HERE AT CTIA. IT'S AN INDUSTRY
BEST PRACTICE TO NOT ONLY
PROHIBIT CYBERBULLYING, BUT TO
ALLOW USERS TO REPORT CONTENT OR
ACCOUNTS THAT VIOLATE PLATFORMS
POLICIES. AS NOTED, THE
PRESCRIPTIVE NATURE OF THE NEW
REPORTING MECHANISM FOR JUST ONE
CATEGORY OF CONTENT
CYBERBULLYING, COMBINED WITH THE
MASSIVE INCREASE IN PENALTIES
AND ENFORCEMENT, CREATES A
STRONG INCENTIVE FOR PLATFORMS
TO DEPRIORITIZE THEIR RESPONSES
TO OTHER CATEGORIES OF CONTENT.
SINCE A PLATFORM CAN BE SUED BY
AN. SINCE A PLATFORM CAN BE SUED
BY ANY TEACHER OR SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATOR, NOT JUST THE
VICTIM OF CYBERBULLYING OR THE
PARENT WHO REPORTS AN INSTANCE
OF CYBERBULLYING. PLATFORMS HAVE
STRICT TIMELINES TO COMPLY WITH,
AND FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT
IN LIABILITY AND A FINANCIAL
PENALTY PER VIOLATION PER DAY.
PLATFORMS ARE STRONGLY
INCENTIVIZED TO PRIORITIZE
RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL TO
ENGINEERING AND STAFFING THEIR
CONCERNS, STAFFING THEIR
RESPONSES TO THIS MECHANISM,
RESOURCES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE
BE ALLOCATED TO OTHER CATEGORIES
OF CONTENT OR MODERATORS, ETC.
TECNA AND OUR MEMBER COMPANIES
HAVE HAVE BEEN HAVE ENGAGED WITH
THIS COMMITTEE ON SIMILAR BILLS
AIMED AT AIMED AT PROVIDING A
STANDARD FOR USER REPORTED
CONTENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS. WE ARE OPEN TO
WORKING ON A BILL THAT TREATS
CATEGORIES OF CONTENT AND THESE
REPORTING MECHANISMS
HOLISTICALLY, RATHER THAN AS
INDIVIDUAL OR SEPARATE ISSUES,
AND THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE
REALITIES OF MODERATING CONTENT
AT A TREMENDOUS SCALE. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED ANY OTHER OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. BECCA KRAMER MATTER ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE. YEAH.
GOOD AFTERNOON. DANAE KENDALL
KAISER, ON BEHALF OF THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION.
APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO
GET OUR LETTER IN ON TIME BY THE
DEADLINE, BUT WE APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE TO REMAIN
OPPOSED AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
ROANOKE DELORME WITH CALCHAMBER
ALSO RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
FURTHER OPPOSITION BEFORE I TURN
IT OVER TO MY COMMITTEE, I JUST
FIND IT SHAMEFUL. I'M GOING TO
BE HONEST WITH YOU THAT AS THE
FOLKS REPRESENTING SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS WOULD GET UP IN FRONT
OF US AND SAY THAT THEY DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH MODERATORS TO
PROTECT CHILDREN FROM TAKING
THEIR OWN LIVES, YOUR MARKET CAP
IS SO HIGH THAT THAT IS
EGREGIOUS AND BEYOND THE PALE
AND I'M JUST SHOCKED TO BE
TOTALLY FRANK WITH YOU, WE HAVE
THIS INCREDIBLE YOUNG WOMAN WHO
CAME TODAY. THANK YOU. AND THE
CHILDREN ARE HURTING AND YOU
DON'T CARE. BUT WE DO. I'LL TURN
IT OVER. MISS ORTEGA. THANK YOU.
I WAS INCREDIBLY MOVED BY YOUR
STATEMENT. AS I'VE SAID, MANY
TIMES BEFORE, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT
JUST A LEGISLATURE. I'M ALSO A
MOM AND A MOM OF A 17 YEAR OLD
WHO JUST WENT THROUGH THIS VERY
SAME THING. AND AND THE HARM
THAT IT'S CAUSING, BUT IT'S THAT
THAT IT'S CAUSING ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY, IN THIS NATION, TO THE
POINT WHERE WE'RE CALLING THIS A
PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS. AND TO
HAVE THESE PLATFORMS SITTING
HERE COME IN HERE IN THIS
COMMITTEE, AND I'M READING THE
OPPOSITION THÀNH THAT SAYS
NOTHING WOULD PREVENT A CYBER
BULLY FROM CONTINUING TO HARASS
OTHER INDIVIDUALS, WHETHER IT'S
THROUGH TEXT MESSAGES OR OTHER
MESSAGING SERVICES. SO WE SHOULD
JUST DO NOTHING. I WILL NOT
STAND HERE AND DO NOTHING. WE
HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, NOT JUST
FOR OUR BRAVE YOUNG WOMAN WHO IS
HERE TODAY, BUT FOR THE REST OF
OUR KIDS WHO DEPEND ON US TO
SUPPORT THEM, BUT MOST
IMPORTANTLY, TO PROTECT THEM.
AND IF NO ONE ELSE IS WILLING TO
DO THAT, I KNOW THAT THE CHAIR
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND MYSELF ARE
MORE THAN JUST COMMITTED. WE'RE
WILLING TO DO IT, AND WE'VE DONE
IT OVER AND OVER, AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO DO THIS NOT JUST
WITH THIS BILL, BUT OTHER BILLS,
BECAUSE YOU DESERVE THIS AND A
LOT MORE. AND THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MISS ORTEGA. I THINK
MISS MISS WILSON DID I DO RAISE
MY HAND? OKAY BRIAN ROSE. OH,
THEIR HANDS FIRST. OKAY I THINK
IT WAS BRIAN. MR. BRIAN OH, WE
ALL HAVE THOUGHTS. YEAH. NO, I
WOULD LIKE TO ALIGN MY, MY
COMMENTS WITH WITH THOSE OF THE
CHAIR, I'M NOT SURE WHO WROTE
THOSE TALKING POINTS, BUT I
WOULD CRUMPLE THEM UP AND THROW
THEM IN THE TRASH, BECAUSE THEY
WERE NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL, I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HIS
COMMITMENT TO THIS ISSUE. I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR COMING BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE, IT'S NOT AN EASY
THING TO COME IN HERE AND TO
TELL THE TRUTH AND TO INSPIRE US
TO DO THINGS, BUT THAT'S WHAT
YOU'VE DONE TODAY. I'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS AROUND THIS, IN
OTHER WAYS, TO APPROACH THIS
ISSUE WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM
LONG BEACH ALL YEAR LONG, AND
THERE ARE MANY, MANY WAYS WE CAN
DO THIS, THERE ARE MANY, MANY
WAYS WE HAVE TO EXPLORE. WE HAVE
TO DIALOG. WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT
, DECIDE WHAT, COULD MAKE A
MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE TO THE
POINTS MADE, BY MY COLLEAGUE
FROM THE BAY. WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING, AND THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT I THINK TAKES US IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION, AND I'M
GRATEFUL FOR THE CONVERSATIONS
THAT ARE HAPPENING, PARTICULARLY
WITH YOU AND THE ACLU AND
OTHERS. I HAVE NO, NO DOUBT IN
FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE AUTHOR,
TO LAND THIS PLANE WHERE
WHEREVER IT NEEDS TO BE, AND SO
IF THERE HASN'T BEEN A MOTION
YET, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THIS BILL.
I THINK MISS ORTEGA A SECOND.
OH, NO, I MOVED IT. OH, YOU
MOVED IT. SO MR. BRIAN SECONDS
IT. MR. LOWENTHAL, FIRST OF ALL,
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I CAN
SAY IS THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COURAGE. THANK YOU FOR TELLING
YOUR STORY. THANK YOU FOR COMING
UP HERE. YOU ARE SAVING LIVES.
THANK YOU. AND, AND ON BEHALF OF
THE FAMILIES THAT ARE SUFFERING
RIGHT NOW, IT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR FROM YOUR
GENERATION. YOU KNOW, THE WAY
THAT YOUNG PEOPLE COMMUNICATE
WITH EACH OTHER DIGITALLY IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY WE
COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER AS
ADULTS. THEY DO SO MUCH MORE IN
A GROUP CONTEXT. THE PLATFORMS
LIKE SNAP PROVIDING GROUP
MECHANISMS FOR KIDS TO
COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER,
WHICH IS WHERE SO MUCH
CYBERBULLYING IS TAKING PLACE
RIGHT NOW. IT'S SUCH A
DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT THING, YOU
KNOW, FOR WHATEVER REASON, I
DON'T KNOW WHY THIS HAPPENED,
BUT AROUND 20, 25 YEARS AGO, WE
ALL KIND OF MANAGED EXPECTATIONS
AMONGST OURSELVES THAT PRODUCTS
THAT ARE FREE DIDN'T HAVE TO
HAVE ANY CUSTOMER CARE
ASSOCIATED WITH IT. RIGHT NOW,
THERE'S NOBODY WHO CAN CALL
GOOGLE WITH A PROBLEM OR YOUTUBE
OR INSTAGRAM OR ANY OF THESE
PLATFORMS. IT DOESN'T EXIST.
THERE'S NO MECHANISM FOR US TO
ESCALATE THINGS IN THAT REGARD.
AND THE ESCALATION THAT THAT IS
OFFERED RIGHT NOW IS AUTOMATED.
IT'S NOT NUANCED. THERE'S NO
UNDERSTANDING. THERE'S NO HUMAN
ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT CAN MAKE
A CONNECTION ASSOCIATED WITH
THAT. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT,
THERE'S NO WAY FOR THESE
PLATFORMS TO DIFFERENTIATE
WHAT'S A SERIOUS CRISIS AND WHAT
ISN'T. AND THAT'S PROBLEMATIC
BECAUSE THE PLATFORMS NEED HELP.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS
FRUSTRATED AS I AM WITH YOUR
TESTIMONY TODAY TOO, I'D RATHER
GO THE OTHER WAY AND GIVE YOU
GUYS A HUG BECAUSE YOU'RE
FIGHTING AGAINST THE TIDE RIGHT
NOW AND YOU CAN HEAR OR YOU WILL
BE ABLE TO HEAR. THIS IS A
BIPARTISAN ISSUE, ALL FAMILIES
ARE SUFFERING FROM THIS,
INCLUDING OUR GOVERNORS. WHO'S
SPEAKING ABOUT THIS ALSO VERY
COURAGEOUSLY ABOUT THE IMPACTS
THAT ARE HAVING IN THAT FAMILY,
THE IN MY FAMILY AS WELL, BY THE
WAY, ALL THREE OF MY DAUGHTERS
HAVE EXPERIENCED CYBERBULLYING,
IT'S INCREDIBLY HEAVY. I SEE IT
TAKING A TOLL ON THEIR STUDIES.
HOW THEY WITHDRAW FROM FRIENDS,
HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR THEM TO
GO TO SCHOOL AND FACE THE ISSUES
THAT ARE HAPPENING OUT OF
SCHOOL. IT'S A CHALLENGE, THE
LAST THING I WANT TO SAY IS THIS
ISN'T JUST ANECDOTAL. THIS IS
EMPIRICAL. WHAT'S HAPPENING
SINCE 2011? THE SUICIDE RATE OF
OUR YOUTH IS UP 60, 60% SINCE
2011, EATING DISORDERS THE SAME
RATE. ANXIETY, DEPRESSION,
ESPECIALLY AMONGST GIRLS, IS OFF
THE CHARTS. THERE IS A PROBLEM.
THERE'S A TRUE PROBLEM. WE HAVE
TO FIND HUMANITY ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THESE TECH COMPANIES SO
THAT WE, AS PARENTS, CAN TRUST
OUR KIDS TO BE SPENDING MORE
TIME ONLINE. RIGHT NOW, OUR
INCENTIVES ARE ARE OPPOSED.
THEY'RE PERVERSE PARENTS ARE
WORRIED ABOUT SENDING THEIR KIDS
ONLINE BECAUSE WE HAVE NO
MECHANISM TO ESCALATE THINGS
AFTERWARDS. SO AS A RESULT, WE
WANT TO RESTRICT OUR KIDS FROM
SPENDING TIME ONLINE. ONE POINT
OF FACT IS, IF WE COULD GET OUR
INCENTIVES TO ALIGN, IF WE FELT
THAT THERE WERE BETTER
MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO ESCALATE
PROBLEMS AND REMEDY PROBLEMS, WE
WOULD WANT OUR CHILDREN TO BE
ONLINE MORE. WE WOULD FEEL THAT
LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE. AND SO I'M
REALLY SAD WHEN I HEAR TECHNET,
THE CHAMBER AND OTHERS NOT
THINKING HOLISTICALLY ABOUT WHAT
GREATER PROTECTIONS ARE GOING TO
BRING, BECAUSE THE MORE TIME
PEOPLE SPEND ONLINE, THAT'S ALL
MONETIZED. SO RIGHT NOW, WHEN
YOU'RE HEARING FROM OTHER
PARENTS UP HERE ON THE DAIS THAT
WE DON'T WANT OUR KIDS AND WE'LL
DO ANYTHING POSSIBLE TO STOP
THAT, IT'S ACTUALLY BAD FOR
BUSINESS, FOR THE INDUSTRY. SO
LET'S TRY LET'S LOOK AT THIS
BILL CLOSELY. YOU KNOW, LET'S
TRY TO SUPPORT EFFORTS WHERE WE
CAN TO TRY AND GET AN ALIGNMENT.
AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS BILL TODAY. MISS WILSON,
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. WE'VE
HAD, GOOD DISCUSSION. I BELIEVE
YOU KNOW, ON THIS. AND, THANK
YOU TO THE YOUNG LADY FOR
TESTIFYING AND SHARING YOUR
STORY AND BEING VULNERABLE,
WHICH CAN BE DIFFICULT TO DO IN
ANY SPACE, BUT LET ALONE IN A
PLACE WHERE FOREVER YOUR WORDS,
WILL BE MEMORIALIZED FOR OTHERS
TO HEAR. AND SO THANK YOU, FOR
THAT BRAVERY, MY COMMENTS ARE
GOING TO BE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
THAN MY COLLEAGUES, AND, SENATOR
AND I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE
THIS CONVERSATION ON, SIMILAR
BILL BROUGHT FORWARD BY OUR
COLLEAGUE THAT I DIDN'T SUPPORT,
BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY BROAD AND
I, ON THIS PARTICULAR, BILL, I
APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS THAT
HAVE BEEN TO NARROW IT AND
TAILOR IT, BECAUSE IT STILL IS
SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I
BELIEVE THAT OUR SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS ARE A PUBLIC SQUARE.
IN ESSENCE, THAT'S WHAT THE
COURTS HAVE DETERMINED THEM TO
BE. SOMEONE IS, MAKING MONEY OFF
THAT PUBLIC SQUARE, AND THEY
CREATED IT, BUT IT HAS THE
CONNOTATION TO IT. AND THERE IS
AN ABILITY TO CURATE, AND I ALSO
THINK ABOUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF
WHAT DO WE DO IN THE REAL WORLD,
AND SHOULD THOSE TRANSLATE TO A
VIRTUAL SPACE? AND I BELIEVE WE
DON'T YET HAVE THE MECHANISMS IN
PLACE, TO REGULATE LIKE WE DO IN
THE REAL WORLD. AND WE NEED
THOSE MECHANISMS IN PLACE. AND I
KNOW THERE'S A FIGHT ABOUT THAT,
TOO, ABOUT DIGITAL PRESENCE ID
THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE
REAL WORLD ABOUT, DIGITAL
POLICING. AND WHO DOES THAT? YOU
KNOW, I, WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, I REALLY FEEL STRONGLY
THAT IT SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT
PERSON, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU
NOTIFY THAT HAS AUTHORITY, NOT
NECESSARILY. YOU KNOW, THE,
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES, BUT
BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION, AND
YOUR WILLINGNESS THROUGH OUR,
YOU KNOW, TEXT EXCHANGE THAT YOU
ARE CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS,
I AM GOING TO SUPPORT, THE BILL
TODAY, BUT I THINK WE, HAVE TO
REALIZE AND THIS IS TO MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE DAIS WHO ARE
PARENTS. I'M A PARENT, TOO, BUT
MY KID'S OLDER, RIGHT. AND I'M
AND I GOT TO I HAD THE PLEASURE.
I'M GOING TO CALL IT A PLEASURE
AND PRIVILEGE OF RAISING
CHILDREN. THÀNH. WHILE THIS WAS
STILL NEW AND NOVEL AND NOT SO
CRAZY THAT IT IS TODAY, BUT
THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A ROLE OF A
PARENT IN THE SENSE THAT WE
WOULDN'T, IN THE REAL WORLD, PUT
OUR CHILDREN IN HARM'S WAY. WE
WOULDN'T IN THE REAL WORLD. LET
THEM DO THINGS BY THEMSELVES.
BUT WE DO THAT IN SOCIAL MEDIA.
WE DO IT WITHOUT MONITORING, AND
WE PUT THEM AND EXPOSE THEM TO
ALL KINDS OF THINGS. WHEN MY
CHILDREN WERE YOUNG, THEY
WOULDN'T GO TO A PARTY WHERE
THERE WERE 30 YEAR OLDS AND 40
YEAR OLDS, BUT WE NOW PUT OUR
KIDS IN SPACES AND VIRTUAL WORLD
WHERE THEY'RE AROUND 30 AND 40
YEAR OLDS, PEOPLE OUTSIDE THEIR
AGE, EVEN A 12 YEAR OLD FROM A
17 YEAR OLD IS VERY DIFFERENT,
AND WE EXPOSE THEM TO THIS. SO
WE DO. THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY
ON THE PART AND THERE'S AN
ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO KEEP OUR CHILDREN
SAFE AND TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATION OR LAWS IN PLACE
THAT ALLOW TO DO THAT AND THE
APPROPRIATE ACCOUNTABILITY. SOME
OF THE STUFF I THINK IS A LITTLE
WONKY AND COULD BE TIGHTENED UP.
AND I THINK YOU, YOU, YOU SHOULD
AND YOUR GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO DO
THAT EVEN IN ADVANCE OF BRINGING
IT TO THIS HOUSE, YOU'RE GOING
TO EFFORT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THINGS I SAID AT THE PREVIOUS
COMMITTEE AND INCORPORATE, ARE
ALL, THINGS THAT SHOW ME THAT,
YOU KNOW, I'LL VOTE IN SUPPORT
FOR THIS TODAY, BUT I DO WANT US
TO KEEP IN MIND, THAT WE CAN'T
VILLAINIZE EVERYBODY. WE CAN'T
VILLAINIZE PEOPLE, FOR PROVIDING
A SERVICE. AND WE HAVE SOME
RESPONSIBILITY AS INDIVIDUALS,
AS PARENTS OF INDIVIDUALS TO,
TO, TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND
THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T ALWAYS DO
THAT AND BE THAT BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T DO IT IN REAL LIFE, BUT
THERE IS A ROLE OF GOVERNMENT,
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
PARENTS, TAKE THAT
RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY. AND
I'M SO APPRECIATIVE THAT THERE'S
NOW GOING TO BE A WARNING LABEL
ON SOCIAL MEDIA. CONGRESS HAS
SAID THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY GOING
TO DO THE WARNING LABEL. SO JUST
WARNING THAT MAY NEVER COME TO
PASS. I JUST SUPPORT IT. THAT'S
ALL I'M SAYING. I DO SUPPORT THE
WARNING LABEL. THAT'S GOOD, MR.
HOOVER, THANK YOU, YOU KNOW,
SENATOR, I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL APPROACH
ON THIS BILL. I UNDERSTAND YOU
KNOW, THE OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS,
OF COURSE, BUT I THINK, YOU
KNOW, IF YOU, LOOK AT ACTUALLY
THE STORY THAT CAME OUT TODAY ON
AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM LONG BEACH
MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE
GOVERNOR'S, SUPPORT NOW OF
LIMITING ACCESS TO SMARTPHONES.
I THERE'S REALLY NOT ANOTHER
ISSUE I KNOW OF AT LEAST, AT
LEAST ONE OF THIS MAGNITUDE
WHERE REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS,
INDEPENDENTS ALL COME TOGETHER
AND REALLY WORK TOGETHER ON
THIS. AND I THINK, IT REALLY
UNDERLINES HOW BIG OF AN ISSUE
THIS IS, ESPECIALLY FOR ALL OF
ALL OF US WHO ARE PARENTS IN, IN
THIS ROOM AND IN THIS BUILDING,
AND SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU
KNOW, I KNOW YOU'RE STILL
TWEAKING SOME THINGS AND WORKING
ON SOME THINGS I APPRECIATE YOU
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION, BUT I THINK THAT, I
JUST REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
TAKING ON THIS FIGHT. AND I
THINK THAT WE HAVE TO DO MORE AS
A STATE TO GET AT THIS ISSUE,
BECAUSE AND I WON'T GO THROUGH
ALL OF THE MANY REASONS, BUT AS
HAS ALREADY BEEN OUTLINED, YOU
KNOW, OUR KIDS MENTAL HEALTH IS
THAT IMPORTANT. OUR KIDS SAFETY
IS THAT IMPORTANT. AND, YOU
KNOW, I OBVIOUSLY I HAVE KIDS,
BUT WE'VE ALSO LOST KIDS IN OUR
COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, AS A RESULT
OF CYBERBULLYING AND THESE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ALLOW
BULLYING TO HAPPEN IN A WAY THAT
WE'VE NEVER BEFORE IMAGINED,
LIKE BULLYING HAS ALWAYS EXISTED
, OF COURSE, AND WILL CONTINUE
TO EXIST IN SOME WAY. BUT SOCIAL
MEDIA HAS AMPLIFIED IT, I THINK,
IN A WAY THAT IS INCREASINGLY
AND INCREDIBLY HARMFUL. AND SO,
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY, AND JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT
FORWARD. THANK YOU, MR. VICE
CHAIR. THANK YOU. A COUPLE
COMMENTS HERE. I LISTENED TO
WHAT MY COLLEAGUE, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON SAID, AND I'VE,
I'VE MENTIONED I DON'T DISAGREE
WITH WITH WHAT SHE'S SAYING IN
TERMS OF PARENTS HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY, JUST TODAY, FOR
EXAMPLE, MY KIDS HAD DOWNLOADED
AN APP OR SOMETHING. I HAVE TO
APPROVE THEM TO DOWNLOAD
EVERYTHING. NOW, ONCE THEY GET
THAT APP, MY ABILITY TO CONTROL
WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON THAT APP
IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED. AND IT'S
DIFFERENT PER APP, RIGHT? SO,
YOU KNOW, WE MAKE SOME
DECISIONS, BUT THERE MIGHT BE A
NEED. FOR EXAMPLE, I HATE NAMING
PLATFORMS, BUT FOR THEM TO HAVE
ONE APP, THERE MIGHT BE A
LEGITIMATE REASON FOR IT, BUT
THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER
THINGS THAT COME OUT OF THAT,
AND I'LL THAT COULD COME OUT OF
THAT. ACTUALLY, I CAUGHT ONE OF
MY KIDS FOR A WHILE. HE STARTED
A KIND OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, BE
GRUMPY AND JUST HAVING SOME,
LIKE, NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HIS
MENTAL HEALTH, I COULD TELL. AND
THEN AT ONE NIGHT, I WALKED INTO
HIS ROOM REALLY EARLY, AND HE
WAS UP WATCHING SOMETHING ON THE
INTERNET THROUGH SOME THROUGH,
ACTUALLY, A SCHOOL APP. AND,
ANYWAYS, WE RECTIFIED THAT.
ACTUALLY, THE PARTICULAR THE
CHROMEBOOK ALLOWED PRETTY GOOD
CONTROLS OVER WHAT HE COULD DO,
BUT I THINK KIDS ARE GOING TO BE
KIDS SOMETIMES AND DO THINGS
THAT WE CAN'T CONTROL. AND I
WOULD SAY IF I CAN LAY KIND OF
GOOD GROUNDWORK FOR THAT, YOU
KNOW, GOOD ROAD FOR THEM, THEN
HOPEFULLY THEY'LL MAKE GOOD
DECISIONS. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO
MAKE SOME BAD ONES, HOPEFULLY
NOT REALLY BAD ONES. AND SO IT'S
IT IS TOUGH TO PARENT AT ANY
TIME. AND I THINK ESPECIALLY IN
THIS AND I HAVE FOUR KIDS THAT
HOPEFULLY I JUST, YOU KNOW, GET
A C AT THE END OF THE AT THE END
OF THE DAY. BUT ALSO I DO HAVE A
BILL ON SEXTORTION, JUST TO
MENTION, IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE
SENATE FLOOR ON CONSENT. IF
ANYBODY WANTED TO PULL IT OFF ON
CONSENT AND, AND IT REQUIRES
THE, INTO THE HEALTH CURRICULA
TO INCLUDE, TO CONSIDER ADDING
SEXTORTION INTO THE HEALTH
FRAMEWORK. NOW IT SAYS RECOMMEND
THEY DO IT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE
MANDATE. BUT YOU KNOW HOW THIS
BUILDING CAN WORK ON BILLS
SOMETIMES. SO BUT IF ANYBODY
WANTS TO PULL IT OFF AND DO
HOSTILE AMENDMENTS ON MY BILL,
NO PROBLEM, BUT, THANKS TO YOUR
WITNESS FOR COMING IN, BY THE
WAY, AND SHARING THESE THINGS. I
DO THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY,
WHAT I'M. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
BILLS HAVE COME THROUGH THIS
THAT I'VE SUPPORTED, SOME THAT I
HAVE NOT SUPPORTED OR SOME THAT
I'VE OPPOSED, I THINK WHAT WE'RE
HEARING FROM THE LEGISLATURE ON
A BIPARTISAN BASIS IS I DON'T
THINK ENOUGH IS HAPPENING TO
RECTIFY THESE ISSUES THAT ARE
OCCURRING ONLINE. WE KNOW IT'S
HAPPENING, WHETHER IT'S KIDS
GETTING ACCESS TO FENTANYL
DEATHS AND BY THE WAY, KIDS
SPEAK A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE
ONLINE, I CAN'T I'M GOING TO
HOPEFULLY CHATGPT CAN TEACH ME
WHAT MY KIDS ARE SAYING ONLINE,
BUT I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT.
AND SO I DO RECOGNIZE THERE ARE
SOME CHALLENGES FOR THE
PLATFORMS TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK
THAT LANGUAGE AS WELL, IT
CHANGES DAILY, YOU KNOW, BUT
THESE ISSUES ARE OCCURRING
ONLINE WHEN KIDS ARE ACCESSING
FENTANYL ONLINE, OAN AND DYING.
AS A RESULT, KIDS ARE BEING
EXTORTED ONLINE AND HAVING
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES AS A
RESULT OF THAT SEXTORTION. AND
SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS
WHERE'S THE RESPONSIBILITY?
LOOK, I AGREE IT IS PARENTS DO
HAVE RESPONSIBILITY IN THAT. BUT
THE TOOLS HAVE TO BE THERE FOR
US TO BE ABLE TO REPORT IT AND
ACTUALLY MAKE SURE THAT THAT
CONTENT ISN'T THERE ANYMORE. AND
THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THE BILL. I
THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES WITH
TERMINOLOGY AND THINGS THAT
HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO
FIGURE OUT BY, YOU KNOW, IN THE
NEXT CRAZY SIX WEEKS OR SO, IT
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE COMMITTED TO
TRYING TO WORK ON THAT, BUT IF
NOT, I'M HAPPY WITH THE BILL AS
IS, BUT I THINK GLOBALLY, WE I
DON'T LOOK, I DON'T, I DON'T
HAVE I MAYBE SOME OF YOU HOPE
THE GOVERNOR IS GOING TO BE ABLE
TO COME UP WITH SOME, YOU KNOW,
REAL BIG SOLUTION TO THIS, BUT I
THINK THE PLATFORMS NEED TO DO
IT. I THINK THEY, YOU KNOW, WE
HAVE TO HAVE THE COLLECTIVE
SOLUTION ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY FOR THESE
LARGER COMPANIES, TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THIS, THAT WE ALL KNOW
IT IS EMPIRICAL. IT'S NOT
ANECDOTAL, IT IS EMPIRICAL. SO
ANYWAYS, WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S
EVERYBODY, SO I MEAN, I WANT TO
SAY ALSO I'M A FORMER REGULATORY
LAWYER, I REPRESENT COMPANIES I
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE COMPANY'S
JOB WAS TO HIT THE BOTTOM LINE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD
FROM THE OPPOSITION TODAY. AND I
ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS
GOVERNMENT'S ROLE TO DECIDE WHAT
A RESPONSIBLE CORPORATION WAS,
NO MATTER WHAT THAT MEANT,
WHETHER IT WAS PROTECTING OUR
ENVIRONMENT, PROTECTING OUR
CHILDREN, PROTECTING OUR
COMMUNITIES, OUR ROLE AS THE
GOVERNMENT IS TO SET THE
PARAMETERS THAT PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES. I THINK PART OF THE
FRUSTRATION THAT WE ARE
EXPRESSING UP HERE TODAY IS A
COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO DO WHAT THEY NEED
TO DO. I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
BEING IN A ROOM WITH SOMEONE
RECENTLY WHO WAS IN THE ROOM
WHEN SECTION 230 WAS NEGOTIATED,
AND SHE SAID, IT IS HER BIGGEST
REGRET IN HER LIFE, AND THAT IS
BECAUSE SHE KNOWS THAT PEOPLE
ARE DYING AS A RESULT OF THE
GOVERNMENT FAILING TO PUT ANY
PARAMETERS ON THIS. AND AS A
RESULT, WE'VE FOR SOME REASON
CREATED THESE ENTITIES THAT
BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT OUR FAULT,
THAT ALL THIS HARM IS HAPPENING
ON OUR PLATFORMS. AND WHAT
AMAZES ME ABOUT THAT IS SOMEONE
WHO LIVES IN THE BAY AREA, WHO
HAS DEAR, DEAR FRIENDS WHO HAVE
WORKED AT THESE COMPANIES FOR
DECADES, WHO ARE PARENTS. AND
WHEN I SAY TO THEM, HOW DO YOU
LOOK YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR
EVERY MORNING? I ASK THEM THAT
BECAUSE I EARNESTLY WANT TO
UNDERSTAND IT, BECAUSE HOW CAN
YOU, AS A PARENT KNOW YOU ARE AT
A COMPANY? THAT IS. YES. THE LAW
HAS ALLOWED YOU TO ABDICATE YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY. BUT WHY? WHY
WOULD YOU DO THAT WHEN THESE
BEAUTIFUL YOUNG CHILDREN NEED
YOU TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND
DO WHAT'S RIGHT, AND THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO, THAT HAS BECOME
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO EVERYBODY IN
THIS ROOM. AND SO I GUESS I, I
SOUND LIKE I'M, YOU KNOW, SAYING
IT FOR THE 17TH MILLIONTH TIME,
BUT I REALLY HOPE CONGRESS WILL
DO SOMETHING ON SECTION 230.
THEY WILL REMOVE PREEMPTION,
THAT THEY WILL ACT, THAT THEY
WILL PROTECT CHILDREN. WE KEEP
HEARING IT'S BIPARTISAN, BUT
THERE'S NO MOVEMENT. AND OUR
KIDS DESERVE BETTER. AND I'M A
MOM AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOT
ALLOWED MY KIDS ON ANY OF THESE
PLATFORMS. AND I UNDERSTAND MY
OWN RESPONSIBILITY HERE. BUT I
SIT HERE TODAY, NOT JUST FOR MY
OWN CHILDREN, BUT FOR EVERY
CHILD IN CALIFORNIA. AND TO
ALLOW A COMPANY TO HARM OUR
CHILDREN TO THE DEGREE THAT WE
ARE, IS NOT US DOING OUR JOB.
I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY
IT AGAIN HE'S THE VICE CHAIR I
THINK HAS QUOTED ME. I THINK OUR
NUMBER ONE RESPONSIBILITY HERE
IS TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES
AND PRIMARILY THE MOST
VULNERABLE, AND THAT IS OUR
CHILDREN. AND I THINK THAT'S
WHAT YOU'RE DOING, SENATOR. AND
SO I YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE
BILL. I THINK IT IS ASKING SO
LITTLE BECAUSE IT'S ALL WE CAN
ASK UNDER SECTION 230, BUT THEY
SHOULD BE WILLING TO DO IT. BUT
IF THEY WON'T DO IT VOLUNTARILY,
I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THEM DO
IT WITH THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YES AND IF I MAY, AT THE
CHAIR'S DISCRETION, SHARE JUST
10S OF MY CLOSE WITH EMILY. SHE
WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT BACK.
YES, PLEASE. PLEASE YOU CAN EVEN
HAVE MORE THAN THAT. GOOD I'M
NOT A PARENT, BUT I DO TAKE CARE
OF CHILDREN, AND I WORK WITH
THEM A LOT, AND I CARE FOR THEM
VERY DEEPLY, I CAN'T IMAGINE
WHAT THEY WOULD BE GOING
THROUGH. AND WHAT I KNOW THEY'RE
GOING THROUGH IS SOMEONE WHO
ALSO LISTENS TO THE THINGS THAT
HAVE BEEN SAID TO THEM. BUT AS A
PARENT, LIKE, SORRY, NOT LIKE AS
A PARENT, BUT AS SOMEONE WHO
KNOWS, LIKE HOW MY PARENTS FEEL
WHEN THEY SEE ME NOT DOING WELL,
I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW A PARENT
WOULD FEEL KNOWING THAT THEIR
CHILD IS GOING THROUGH SOMETHING
SO SEVERELY THAT IT'S AFFECTING
THEIR EVERYDAY LIFE, AND JUST
NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTROL THAT.
BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT IT FEELS
LIKE TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT YOU
FEAR YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE.
BECAUSE AT THE AGE OF 11, I HAD
FRIENDS WHO FELT LIKE THIS, AND
I COULDN'T HELP THEM, BUT I
TRIED TO AND AS A FRIEND, I HAD
TO GO TO THEIR PARENTS. I HAD TO
TELL THEM THAT THEY WERE GOING
THROUGH THIS SO SEVERELY THAT I
WAS AFRAID FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY.
AND IT'S SCARY BEING ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF A PHONE AND NOT
BEING ABLE TO CONTROL WHETHER OR
NOT THEY'RE GOING TO DO
SOMETHING BECAUSE I CARE FOR
THEM, TOO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT
SAFETY THINGS ON THESE SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS, WHEN YOU CAN
REPORT SOMETHING, IT'S NOT JUST
ABOUT THE REPORT, IT'S ABOUT
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER YOU REPORT IT
. IT'S ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER
YOU EMAIL IT. I'VE EMAILED
INSTAGRAM ABOUT PEDOPHILIA THAT
I'VE SEEN WHERE OLD MEN ARE
TARGETING YOUNG GIRLS. I'VE HAD
NO RESPONSE. I DIDN'T EXPECT
THEM TO BECAUSE I'VE BEEN LET
DOWN SO MANY TIMES. I DIDN'T
EXPECT THEM TO RESPOND. I DIDN'T
EXPECT ANY OF THESE GUIDELINES
TO WORK, BUT THEY CLAIMED TO BE
SAFE FOR KIDS AND IT ISN'T. AND
WHEN THINGS ARE 13 PLUS AND
THERE'S GOING TO BE KIDS ON
THESE PLATFORMS, THERE SHOULD BE
THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPEN
AFTER REPORTS TO PREVENT THINGS
YOU CAN'T TAKE DOWN AND PREVENT
BULLYING IN REAL LIFE. BUT WHEN
SOMETHING IS REPORTED, SHOULDN'T
THERE BE SOME FOLLOW THROUGH?
THERE'S SO MUCH REVENUE COMING
THROUGH, YOU WOULD THINK THAT,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE HAVING ALL
THESE LIKE INFLUENCER PARTIES
AND CELEBRATIONS AND, YOU KNOW,
THESE PLATFORMS WOULD BE ABLE TO
ADD SOME OF THAT REVENUE INTO
LIKE HOW THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF
CHILDREN ONLINE. THANK YOU. I
WOULD TAKE THAT AS YOUR CLOSE,
BUT I'M SORRY. DO NOT APOLOGIZE
TO ME. JUST TAKE THE MIC. I I'M
WITH EMILY RESPECTFUL AS BROUGH.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
LET'S CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER
TEN SB 1504 BY SENATOR STERN.
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BY
BAUER-KAHAN I KHN I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON I BRIAN. BRIAN I DIXON
. DIXON I IRWIN. HOOVER I HOOVER
I LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL I ORTEGA.
ORTEGA I WARD WICKS I WICKS I
WILSON WILSON I. THE BILL HAS
NINE VOTES. IT IS OUT. YES. WE
WILL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS AND WE WILL.
YEAH. WE WILL CALL THE ROLL ON
THE ITEMS FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS
. AT ALL, ORTEGA GOT IT. ALL
RIGHT. ORTEGA'S GOOD. YEP. YOU
MISSED ONE, DIXON IS GOOD. I AM
SAYING, OKAY, SO JUST START.
START CONSENT CALENDAR, THE VOTE
IS SEVEN ZERO. BRIAN ON THAT.
SORRY. WE'RE CALLING THE ROLL
GUYS. CONSENT CALENDAR. BRIAN.
BRIAN, I HOOVER ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. CONSENT CALENDAR. I
SORRY, WICKS. WICKS, I WILSON I
WILSON I OKAY, THIS IS THE
CONSENT. YOU'RE GOOD 11 ZERO 11
ITEM NUMBER ONE SB 764 BY
SENATOR PADILLA. THE MOTION DO
PASS IS AMENDED TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. THE VOTE IS SEVEN
ZERO. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. BRIAN BRIAN I HOOVER
I HOOVER I WICKS, WICKS I WILSON
WILSON I 11 ZERO. ITEM NUMBER
TWO SB 942 BY SENATOR BECKER.
THE VOTE IS FOUR ZERO, THE VICE
CHAIR NOT VOTING BAUER-KAHAN I
BARRETT KHN I BRIAN BRIAN I
HOOVER. HOOVER NOT VOTING. WICKS
WICKS I WILSON WILSON I. 8080
YOU'RE DOING GREAT OKAY. ITEM
NUMBER THREE SB 1000 BY SENATOR
ASHBY. THE VOTE IS FOUR ZERO.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. BRIAN BRIAN.
AYE. HOOVER. HOOVER. AYE
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL. AYE. WARD
DODD. WICKS. WICKS AYE. WILSON.
THIS IS SB 1000. ITEM NUMBER
THREE. SENATOR ASHBY. WILSON I.
TEN VOTE IS TEN ZERO. ITEM
NUMBER FOUR, SB 1047 BY SENATOR
WIENER. THE VOTE IS FIVE ZERO
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
PATTERSON DID YOU SLEEP? NOT
VOTING. NOT VOTING. PATTERSON.
NOT VOTING. OH, HE SAID IT DID
HE SAY. OKAY, SO YOU DID HEAR.
OKAY, BRIAN. BRIAN, I HOOVER
HOOVER NOT VOTING. WICKS I WICKS
I WILSON WILSON I. 880. YOU'RE
DOING GREAT. LET ME SEE. ITEM
NUMBER SIX, SB 1272 BY SENATOR
LAIRD. THE VOTE IS FIVE TWO.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING NO. BRIAN. BRIAN, I
HOOVER. NO. HOOVER, NO. WICKS
HI. WICKS I WILSON. WILSON. NOT
VOTING. THE VOTE IS SEVEN TWO.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SB 1524 BY
SENATOR DODD. THE VOTE IS NINE
ZERO. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE, BRIAN. BRIAN. AYE
WICKS. AYE. WICKS. AYE. IT'S 11
ZERO. ITEM NUMBER NINE, SB 1490
BY SENATOR DURAZO. THE VOTE IS
NINE ZERO WITH A CHAIR AND THE
VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE. WICKS WICKS. AYE.
THAT'S 11 ZERO. ITEM NUMBER TEN,
SB. SO ERWIN IS NOT. YES. SO WE
DON'T. BUT I'M WAITING ON, MIMI,
I THINK THAT ITEM SIX WAS
ACTUALLY SEVEN THREE. I THINK
ALL THE REPUBLICANS WERE NOW.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, THERE'S A
CORRECTION. THE VOTE IS SEVEN
THREE.
WE WILL OPEN THE ROLL FOR MR.
WARD ON THE TWO BILLS. HE
MISSED. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS SB
1000 BY SENATOR ASHBY. THE VOTE
IS TEN ZERO WITH THE CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. WARD A,
WARD I IT'S 11 ZERO. ITEM NUMBER
TEN SB 1504 BY SENATOR STERN.
THE VOTE IS NINE ZERO, CHAIR AND
VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. WARD A
WARD A TEN ZERO. THAT IS. THOSE
BILLS ARE OUT. THANK YOU, MR.
WARDEN. WE WILL ADJOURN.