California Assembly Bill AR117

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Caption

Relative to Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Summary

AR117 is a California Assembly resolution urging the United States Congress to reform Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. The resolution argues that Section 230, which was originally intended to protect online platforms from liability for third-party content and encourage voluntary moderation, has been interpreted too broadly and now shields large technology companies from accountability for harms associated with their own design choices, moderation practices, and algorithmic amplification. The measure frames the issue as one of restoring legal responsibility for platforms that facilitate harmful conduct online. The resolution specifically calls for Congress to begin with a bipartisan effort to sunset Section 230, citing concerns about harms such as harassment, stalking, sexual exploitation, scams, child sexual abuse material, illegal drug sales, terrorist recruitment, and other abuses. It also highlights the rise of generative artificial intelligence and the argument that chatbot outputs should not receive Section 230 protection. The resolution does not change California statutes directly; instead, it is a formal legislative appeal to Congress to amend federal law and restore what it describes as meaningful accountability for online companies.

Impact

Because AR117 is a resolution rather than a bill, it does not amend California law or create new state regulatory requirements. Its legal effect is limited to expressing the Assembly’s position and directing the Chief Clerk to transmit the resolution. The practical impact is political: it adds California’s voice to the national debate over Section 230 and supports federal reform efforts that could affect platform liability, consumer protection, civil rights, and litigation involving online services, including social media companies, search engines, dating apps, online marketplaces, and AI chatbots.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly critical of Section 230 as currently interpreted and strongly supportive of reform. The text presents the issue as a bipartisan concern and cites support from lawmakers across party lines, victim advocates, legal scholars, state attorneys general, and some technology industry leaders. The committee action also suggests favorable treatment in the Assembly, with the resolution adopted in committee by a 13-1 vote and ordered to third reading.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether Section 230 should remain a broad liability shield for online platforms or be narrowed to impose greater responsibility for platform design, moderation, and harmful content amplification. Supporters of the resolution argue that the current regime denies victims justice, weakens incentives for safety measures, and lets large tech companies avoid accountability for foreseeable harms. Opponents or skeptics, implied by the lone no vote and the broader policy debate, are likely concerned that weakening Section 230 could chill content moderation, increase litigation, and burden online services, especially smaller platforms. The resolution also raises a newer controversy over whether generative AI outputs should be treated like third-party content under Section 230.