Transcript Highlights:

• It requires a reasonable belief of up.
• </c><00:17:09.520><c> Parents</c><00:17:10.480><c> should</c> safeguard would be this.
• Parents should safeguard would be this.
• And so, for that reason, I do support this bill. >> Mr.
• And so, for that reason, I I do life.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• That is a responsible safeguard that will protect both young people and adults involved. Thank you.
• /c><00:07:09.280><c> protect</c> responsible safeguard that will protect responsible safeguard that will
• And for that reason, that's probably the reason for the exemption.
• the And for that reason, that's probably the reason<00:13:48.440><c> for</c><00:13:48.600><c> the</c
• And I don't reason for the exemption.

Transcript Highlights:

• My goal is to make sure that those going forward have much better tools, much more safeguards around
• </c><00:08:18.240><c> to</c><00:08:18.479><c> ensure</c> is that just another safeguard to ensure is
• The reason President Trump is throwing racial slurs out, the reason he's throwing horrific slurs at me
• ><c> out,</c><00:13:15.760><c> the</c><00:13:16.000><c> reason</c> throwing racial slurs out, the reason
• throwing racial slurs out, the reason he's<00:13:16.399><c> throwing</c><00:13:17.200><c> horrific</

Transcript Highlights:

• Our daughter was presented with content that painted suicide as a rational and reasonable way to deal
• But again, as we said before, with those appropriate safeguards in place. And so a bit on...
• As we said before, with those appropriate safeguards in place.
• The moral of the story here is that no single safeguard is sufficient on its own.
• And part of the reason they're on YouTube is because my son has learned to play chess on YouTube.

Summary: The hearing focused on online safety controls and whether parental controls are sufficient to protect children on social media and other digital platforms. The chair and several members framed the issue as a child safety and public health problem, not just a technology issue, and said the goal was to understand what parental controls do, where they fail, and what policy solutions might be needed. Opening remarks also emphasized that California should lead on safer online spaces for children. Victoria and Paul Hinks gave emotional testimony about the death of their daughter, Alexandra, saying that despite using screen time limits, content filters, app restrictions, and other parental controls, their daughter was still exposed to harmful content and found ways around the settings. Researchers and advocates from Stanford, Children Now, and other organizations said parents face major challenges because digital parenting is complicated, platforms and apps change constantly, children can bypass controls, and many tools are costly or inaccessible. They argued that parental controls are often incomplete, hard to use, and not enough on their own to prevent harms such as cyberbullying, self-harm content, eating disorder content, and exploitation. Witnesses also discussed broader risks in digital spaces, including mental health harms, addiction, fentanyl-related contact through social media, and concerns about AI chatbots. Several speakers said safety should be built into products from the start, with stronger age assurance, clearer reporting systems, independent standards, and corporate accountability. Members asked about what “safe” means, whether other countries’ restrictions are effective, and which features are most harmful. There was broad agreement that no single tool is enough and that multiple layers of protection are needed. The final panel featured representatives from Meta, Google, OpenAI, and Roblox, who described their companies’ teen safety features and parental tools. They pointed to default protections for minors, content limits, bedtime and screen-time tools, age assurance efforts, and new parent notifications for certain self-harm searches. They also supported legislation on age assurance and app-store parental approval. Members pressed the companies on whether their tools are truly effective, and several witnesses acknowledged that current systems still have gaps and that more work is needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• I still have yet to hear a good, a really good reason why we need to have the holes. I'm sorry.
• For these reasons, I am unable to support this bill and respectfully recommend an opposed position.
• This is about restoring trust, and for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
• This is about restoring trust, and for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
• So under those circumstances, this is a reasonable bill to affirm the limits found in the U.S.

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposition 115 guarantees access to discovery, but it does not prohibit reasonable procedural safeguards
• It brings up the issue of objectively reasonable.
• Senate Bill 1070 is a necessary and reasonable step to protect that freedom.
• But for those reasons, I do have concerns about supporting the bill.
• But for those reasons, I do have concerns about supporting the bill today.

Committee: Senate Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• ,</c> with other safeguards, with other safeguards, it'd<00:26:43.600><c> be</c><00:26:43.760><c> helpful
• Is that the safeguard? Um, we also have an internal safeguard.
• And I think it's incumbent upon responsible operators to take reasonable steps.
• </c> responsible operators to take reasonable responsible operators to take reasonable steps.<00:37:38.320
• Thank you. the big picture and the reason why this the big picture and the reason why this issue<01:08

Bills: HB2227 , HB1775 , HB1560 , HB1642 , HB1647 , HB2003 , HB1640 , HB2198

Committee: House Consumer Protection & Commerce

Summary: The committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce met on February 5, 2026, and heard testimony on several bills, beginning with HB 227 relating to eviction records. Supporters, including the Public First Law Center and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, argued the bill would help people who prevail in eviction cases avoid long-term housing harm from online court records, while the Public First Law Center said keeping records off eCourt Kokua would not violate the First Amendment because the records would still be available in person. Members discussed access-to-justice concerns, and a witness said legal aid attorneys could still access the records through the attorney-only Jeff’s system and the court’s access-to-justice room. The chair also asked about precedent, and a witness cited a Hawaii Supreme Court case as supporting removal from the online database rather than sealing records entirely. The committee then took up HP 1775 relating to foreclosures, but the transcript only shows in-person opposition comments from the Hawaii State Bar Association Collection Law Section, the Hawaii Credit Union League, and the Hawaii Bankers Association. The credit union and banking groups said they had concerns about broader negative impacts on mortgage lending and other requirements, but no detailed discussion or action was captured before the committee moved on. The next measure, HB 1560 relating to consumer protection, drew support from the Office of Consumer Protection and cryptocurrency companies including Coinflip and America Digital, which said they already use wallet-pinning and other safeguards to prevent fraud. AARP Hawaii did not take a formal position but said the bill addressed a real problem, noting that Hawaii residents, especially in Kona, had lost more than $920,000 in 2024 to cryptocurrency ATM scams and arguing that stronger oversight was needed. The committee also heard HB 1642, which would ban cryptocurrency kiosks. The Office of Consumer Protection supported the ban as the best way to protect consumers from fraud, while Coinflip, Bitcoin Depot, and America Digital opposed it, arguing kiosks provide cash-based access to crypto, especially for unbanked or underbanked consumers, and that targeted regulation would be better than an outright ban. AARP Hawaii took no formal position but strongly emphasized the harm caused by scams, saying victims are often frightened into acting quickly and that kiosk transactions currently lack enough friction or intervention. Finally, HB 1647, also on consumer protection, would impose liability on host businesses that provide space for crypto kiosks. The Office of Consumer Protection warned small businesses might not understand the liability, while Coinflip, Bitcoin Depot, and America Digital opposed the bill, saying it would unfairly shift enforcement duties to host stores and could discourage businesses from hosting kiosks, effectively creating a de facto ban. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Exempting just $1,000 from weekly medical debt garnishment under this bill is a reasonable safeguard
• And for those reasons, we oppose Senate Bill 6105. Thank you so much.
• And for those reasons, we oppose Senate Bill 6105. Thank you so much.
• For these reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 6105. Thank you. Thank you so much.
• For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to oppose SB 6105. Thank you.

Summary: The committee began with Senate Bill 5962 on spring blade knives, first suspending the five-day notice requirement. Staff explained the bill would remove spring blade knives from the list of dangerous weapons while keeping restrictions on carrying them in schools, child care, and other protected locations. Proponents, including Knife Rights and the prime sponsor Sen. T’wina Nobles, described the measure as a modernization and cleanup bill that would reduce confusion and support lawful use and manufacturing; one testifier strongly objected to the bill’s added location-based restrictions. Public testimony was overwhelmingly in support, and the hearing then moved on without a vote. Senate Bill 6105 would raise the wage exemption from garnishment for medical debt judgments from 30 to 60 times the state minimum wage, while keeping the 80% disposable earnings exemption and adding notice requirements identifying the debt as medical. Sen. Marko Liias said the bill is intended to protect low-wage workers from severe financial hardship and reduce incentives to work off the books. Supporters from patient, consumer, AARP, and anti-poverty groups said medical debt is often unexpected and garnishment can destabilize families; opponents from collectors and trade groups argued the bill was too broad, lacked stakeholder input, could hurt providers, and should define medical debt more clearly. The hearing closed with no action taken. The committee then heard Senate Bill 6203, which would clarify that out-of-state convictions can include foreign-country convictions for offender scoring if obtained with sufficient due process safeguards. The sponsor, Sen. Matt Boehnke, said the bill closes a gap in sentencing law; prosecutors supported the concept and suggested simplifying the language, while the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, defense attorneys, and public defense opposed it, citing undefined standards, difficulty verifying foreign convictions, and due process concerns. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6296 on involuntary treatment, which would expand who may petition for detention, change rules for assisted outpatient treatment and police assistance, require firearm surrender compliance procedures, and make other ITA changes. The sponsor and several providers and family members supported the bill as a needed modernization, while DCRs, disability advocates, behavioral health organizations, hospitals, and others raised concerns about due process, implementation, rural transport, capacity, and unintended consequences. No votes were taken on either bill during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are a lot of good safeguards built into the bill, but through rulemaking and the discretion on
• what to invest and how or if any, as we contemplated, I think some of those... safeguards are there.
• Without using that reasoning. What's that? Without using that reasoning. Sure.
• I think that's one good safeguard that's in the bill. Do we know how? Oh, it just went missing?
• This is for many reasons.

Bills: SB 21 , SB21 , SB72 , SB140 , SB262 , SB370 , SB372 , SB495 , SB627 , SB703 , SB764 , SB842

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposition 115 guarantees access to discovery, but it does not prohibit reasonable procedural safeguards
• It brings up the issue of objectively reasonable.
• But for those reasons, I do have concerns about supporting the bill.
• But for those reasons, I do have concerns about supporting the bill today.
• For those reasons, we have an opposition at the moment. Thank you.

Committee: Senate Public Safety

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety met on March 24, 2006, first as a subcommittee until a quorum was reached. The committee heard several bills in file order, beginning with SB 1056 by Senator Grayson, which would require protective orders for sexually explicit material involving adult victims in criminal cases. The author and survivor witnesses argued the bill would prevent unnecessary copying and dissemination of highly sensitive evidence while preserving defendants’ access to discovery; public defenders and criminal defense groups opposed it as vague, overbroad, and potentially harmful to due process. After committee amendments were accepted, SB 1056 passed on a due pass as amended motion to Appropriations, with the bill held on call. The committee then heard SB 937 by Senator Gonzalez, which would restrict law enforcement use of flashbang devices for crowd control and ban their use in immigration enforcement. Supporters described serious injuries and community fear from recent deployments, while sheriffs’ and police groups objected that the bill was vague, could limit necessary tactics, and might conflict with existing law and task-force operations. Members raised concerns about overuse of force but also about drafting details and exceptions for exigent circumstances; the bill was moved on a due pass motion to Appropriations and held on call. Next, SB 1070 by Senator Grove sought to make intentional disruptions of worship services a wobbler offense, allowing felony charges in more serious cases. Faith leaders and supporters said the bill was needed to deter coordinated disruptions and protect religious exercise, while opponents, including civil liberties and public defender groups, argued it would criminalize speech, raise constitutional concerns, and impose excessive penalties for conduct better addressed through existing law or restorative justice. After extended debate, the committee rejected the bill on a roll call vote, and the motion to reconsider was granted without objection. The committee also heard SB 1130 by Senator Reyes, which would update privacy law for wearable recording devices such as smart glasses by restricting surreptitious recording in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy and limiting technologies that disable recording indicators. Supporters said the bill addressed a growing privacy threat, while industry groups warned it could create liability for manufacturers and businesses and needed tighter definitions. After committee amendments reducing penalties and removing manufacturer provisions from the criminal code, SB 1130 passed as amended to Rules, with the bill held on call. Finally, the committee heard SCA 2 by Senator Troy, a constitutional amendment to bar governors from pardoning themselves or immediate family members. Supporters framed it as an accountability measure, while some members objected that it addressed a hypothetical problem and could unnecessarily restrict legitimate clemency. The transcript ends during the roll call on SCA 2, with the vote in progress.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know any reason why we need this against the landlord to pay.
• this would probably put it on hold in debt, because it looks like you're going out to a man for no reason
• I've heard a lot of this, but I haven't heard any reason why this would be...
• One of those is without safeguard... ...employment and not the Federal Fair Housing Act.
• One of those is without safeguards... So I'm just going to give you a couple of them verbatim.

Committee: Senate Housing & Land Use

Summary: The Senate Land Use Committee met in hybrid format but did not have a quorum, so it did not approve minutes or take formal votes. The committee first heard House Bill 457, which would raise the appraisal threshold for certain DELDOT real property dispositions from $10,000 to $25,000 to match federal highway standards and reduce the time and cost of selling small surplus properties. There was little discussion and no public comment on that bill, and the chair indicated it would be circulated. The committee then took up House Bill 451, which would codify a disparate impact framework under Delaware’s Fair Housing Act. The bill was described as clarifying that housing policies or practices can violate the law even without discriminatory intent if they have an unjustified discriminatory effect on a protected class, using a burden-shifting test similar to federal law. The sponsor and DHSA said the measure was intended to preserve fair housing protections amid uncertainty at the federal level, and an additional amendment was discussed that would delay implementation for 180 days and require DHSR, with DSA and stakeholders, to conduct outreach, education, and training. Public testimony was divided. Supporters, including Housing Alliance Delaware, YWCA Delaware, and the Delaware Human and Civil Rights Commission, said the bill would protect against discriminatory outcomes, align state law with longstanding fair housing principles, and preserve recourse if federal enforcement changes. Opponents and housing-provider groups, including the Delaware Association of Realtors, Greater Wilmington Housing Providers, and the Delaware Apartment Association, argued the bill could create liability for neutral policies, rely on statistical outcomes landlords cannot easily measure, and increase litigation and costs; several asked for more time, a right-to-cure process, or further amendments. The committee adjourned without taking a formal vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• What kind of safeguards are there?
• I'm here in support of House Bill 2539 for multiple reasons.
• So that's the main reason for extending it. All right.
• Recall is intended to be a voter-controlled safeguard, not an administrative mechanism.
• For these reasons, we urge the committee not to advance House Bill 2387. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The House Community Safety Committee held public hearings on several bills. House Bill 2508, concerning the Office of Independent Investigations (OII), would expand OII’s jurisdiction over deadly-force and related use-of-force incidents, require broader notification and records access from law enforcement and emergency responders, and exempt certain OII investigative records from public disclosure. Rep. Deborah Entenman and OII staff supported the bill as a way to improve independent, transparent investigations, while committee members raised questions about when cases are considered “closed” and how to protect against repeated or harassing investigations. OII representatives said formal reviews are referred to prosecutors, administrative closures are not, and the bill would clarify existing public records protections. Law enforcement and public-interest witnesses were split, with some supporting the expansion and others objecting to added secrecy provisions and questioning safeguards and oversight. House Bill 2539, as amended by a proposed substitute, would raise the Department of Corrections inmate indigency cap from $25 to $100 so incarcerated people can retain more money for hygiene and basic necessities before deductions are taken. Rep. Chappala Street said the change would help people buy essential items and reduce conflict, while incarcerated witnesses and advocates testified that current deductions leave too little for basic needs and place burdens on families. A committee member questioned whether DOC already provides those items, and Street and supporters responded that provided items are often low quality or insufficient. No vote was taken. House Bill 2490 would expand extraordinary medical placement for incarcerated people with serious, chronic, or terminal conditions, extending the expected life-expectancy threshold from six months to approximately 18 months and adding clearer DOC review criteria and appeal rights. The prime sponsor and supporters argued the bill would improve humane care, reduce costs, and allow more people to receive treatment in the community when they no longer pose a public-safety risk. DOC said the revised language would reduce legal concerns and allow more time to develop safe placement plans, while opponents of the current system said EMP is underused and people die waiting for decisions. The committee also heard extensive testimony on House Bill 2387, which would tie certain sheriff decertification actions to recall procedures and preserve an elected sheriff’s office unless voters remove them. Supporters, including the sponsor and several sheriffs, said the bill protects voter control and local accountability; opponents, including civil rights and immigrant-rights groups, argued it weakens certification standards, creates unequal accountability for sheriffs, and improperly uses recall-like consequences through statute rather than constitutional process. The chair indicated the committee intended to act on House Bill 2508 the following Monday, February 2.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill includes three critical safeguards.
• So it requires the defense to say, we have reason to believe that these records do exist. for some reason
• reasonably believed to a reasonable person standard.
• It also says that you have to be acting reasonably.
• And if you were not acting reasonably, reasonably under the circumstances.

Bills: SB693 , SB781 , SB836 , SB860 , SB906 , SB993 , SB1101 , SB1321 , SB1370 , SB1537 , SB1563 , SB1610 , SB1637

Committee: Senate Criminal Justice

Keywords: notary public, notaries, acknowledgment, jurat, personal appearance, remote notarization, online notarization, e-notary, electronic notarization, fraud prevention, identity verification, real estate fraud, property transfer, state jail felony, Class A misdemeanor, secretary of state, continuing education, record retention, notarial act, Texas Government Code

Summary: The committee heard a series of criminal justice bills focused on victim protections, law enforcement tools, notary/deed fraud, sexually violent predators, veterans in jail, tribal policing authority, and peace officer records. Several bills were laid out, heard, and left pending because the committee lacked a quorum for final action on those items. Testimony was generally supportive on bills addressing interpreter appointments, fuel theft investigations, deed fraud, survivor privacy, veteran jailer training, tribal peace officer authority, and officer-record confidentiality, though some bills drew concerns about due process, scope, or drafting. Senate Bill 1537 would clean up criminal procedure language on appointing interpreters and align it with Government Code standards requiring licensed or certified interpreters; it received no public opposition and was left pending. Senate Bill 993 would let Comptroller Criminal Investigative Division officers directly seek warrants for mobile tracking devices in fuel-theft and tax-fraud investigations; it also drew support and was left pending. Senate Bill 693, as substituted, would create a criminal offense for notarizing documents without the signer personally appearing, with a higher penalty when real property is involved, and would add notary continuing education; a Dallas County prosecutor testified that notary fraud is a major driver of deed theft, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 1610, as substituted, would address safety, registration, and criminal penalties at the Texas Civil Commitment Office for sexually violent predators, including assaults on staff and sex-offender registration issues; agency witnesses described increased assaults and operational problems, while a public witness urged waiting for Sunset review and raised due-process concerns. Senate Bill 836 would add privacy protections for sexual assault survivors by limiting livestreaming of trials, expanding pseudonym use, and protecting forensic exam and invasive-recording evidence; survivors and advocates strongly supported it, and defense lawyers said they had no opposition to the substitute. Senate Bill 1563 would require county jailer training on interacting with veterans, with testimony from the Texas Veterans Commission and veterans’ advocates emphasizing suicide risk, PTSD, and the need for better identification and support in jails; the bill was left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 906, which would authorize the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo tribal police to be commissioned as Texas peace officers like two other federally recognized tribes in Texas; tribal leaders said the change would improve response times and coordination, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 781, as substituted, would standardize confidentiality rules for peace officer personnel and departmental files statewide, mirroring Chapter 143 civil-service practices; law enforcement witnesses supported it as a way to protect personal information and create uniform records practices, but several senators raised concerns that the bill could blur existing disclosure rules or bury misconduct complaints, and public testimony included an opposition witness describing a police shooting involving her brother.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is good governance, sound public safety policy, and a necessary safeguard for our state.
• I'm thinking that we're ready to go, or is there a reason to have to connect? Okay.
• So for that reason, I am asking for a no vote.
• So for that reason, asking for a no on Amendment E3.
• So for that reason, I'm asking for a no.

Bills: SB5917 , SB6080 , SB6085 , SB5940 , SB5945 , SB5957 , SB5966

Committee: Senate Human Services

Keywords: abortion medications, reproductive health, mifepristone, misoprostol, abortion access, medication abortion, early pregnancy loss, miscarriage management, Department of Corrections, Department of Health, health care providers, health care entities, Indian health care providers, pharmacy distribution, wholesale distribution, reproductive rights, women's health, emergency clause, immediate effect, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, and that is one of the reasons why I'm a no vote on this bill. sell or cash out of their digital
• why I'm a no vote is one of the reasons why I'm a no vote on<00:06:42.240><c> this</c><00:06:42.400>
• . and for the safeguards back on here. and for the protection<00:09:00.160><c> of</c><00:09:00.320><c
• There'd be no reason to have a $500 fee to let your scrap license expire.
• to have a $500 fee to let your reason to have a $500 fee to let your scrap<00:11:50.320><c> license<

Transcript Highlights:

• And the reason why you want interoperability is essentially competition, right?
• And again, for these reasons, we do respectfully urge the committee to oppose the bill.
• And again, for these reasons, we do respectfully urge the committee to oppose the bill.
• For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to support SB 85, the Virginia Digital Choice Act
• Most importantly, the substitute before us safeguards our democracy, as I've said several times.

Committee: House Communications, Technology and Innovation

Transcript Highlights:

• The nature of the bills vary widely, which is one of the reasons why we're here today.
• They're administered only in controlled clinical environments with supervision and lots of safeguards
• "And there's no reason they can't do this.
• So that's one of the reasons we've tried to keep this as tight as possible as far as that.
• And the reason for this designation is important because it increases engagement with the FDA and the

Summary: The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Access to Breakthrough Mental Health Therapies met to discuss psychedelic-assisted treatments for serious mental health conditions, with a focus on psilocybin, ibogaine, MDMA, and related compounds. The chair framed the issue as a clinical and access problem for veterans, first responders, and others with PTSD, depression, TBI, addiction, and suicidal ideation, emphasizing that these therapies are intended for supervised medical settings rather than take-home use. Members reviewed research claims and policy trends, including FDA breakthrough therapy designations, state-level psychedelic legislation, and the role of Arizona’s right-to-try law in expanding access once federal approval is in place. Testimony came from Alan Mullen, a retired Army Special Forces veteran, who described his PTSD/TBI history and said ibogaine treatment helped him confront trauma and showed promise in reducing symptoms under strict medical monitoring. Dr. Sue Cisley of Scottsdale Research Institute described ongoing FDA-controlled trials in Arizona, said current medications often fail high-need patients, and urged removal of research barriers and preparation for right-to-try and expanded access. Dan Freiberg of the Professional Firefighters of Arizona said firefighters face chronic exposure to trauma, often rely on alcohol or other coping mechanisms, and need effective alternatives beyond traditional therapy. Dr. Chung Trin discussed late-stage psychedelic trials, the FDA breakthrough pathway, safety oversight, and the need for state readiness when approvals occur. Committee members asked about how the treatments work, whether they require psychotherapy support, safety concerns including suicidality and black-market abuse, patenting and synthetic versus natural versions, and costs compared with ketamine and other treatments. Witnesses said the therapies are administered with extensive screening, monitoring, and integration support, and argued that addiction potential appears low under medical supervision. The discussion ended with interest in sending correspondence to federal officials to support right-to-try cooperation and in continuing the research and policy work; no formal vote or action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><03:04:11.359><c> shark</c> that one of the reasons shark that one of the reasons shark depradations
• We must work together to safeguard the unvarnished truth of our history.
• Our natural resources Democrats reasons.
• </c><03:55:00.239><c> We</c> for legal or environmental reasons.
• We for legal or environmental reasons.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think we can agree we need strong safeguards to keep up with this emerging technology.
• So for those reasons, SB 1159 seeks to fix that gap.
• Where a reasonable person may not be misled or harmed by it. So that was one question.
• But as an initial step forward, this seems well reasoned.
• Many of them, the ones that I've laid off today, I've laid off for that reason.

Summary: The committee held its first hearing and took up several privacy, AI, and consumer protection bills. SB 1106 (Cabaldon) would shorten the Delete Act data broker deletion response deadline from 45 days to 30 days; it received support from the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, one senator said they would lay off pending implementation of the original law, and the bill passed on a due-pass motion to Appropriations with a 5-0 vote on call. SB 923 (Becker) would expand the CCPA deletion right to all personal information held by businesses and require online-only businesses to offer a web form or similar method for privacy requests; supporters included the California Privacy Protection Agency and privacy groups, while business groups raised concerns about scope, compliance, and the email/web-form requirement. The committee advanced it 6-0 to Appropriations, on call, with members noting continued work on amendments. SB 1142 (Becker) would regulate digital replicas and deepfakes, including takedown and notice provisions for large online platforms and protections against misuse of a person’s likeness, voice, or identity. Supporters emphasized harms from non-consensual synthetic media and fraud; opponents, including the Motion Picture Association and tech industry groups, raised First Amendment, due process, Section 230, and overbreadth concerns, especially around deceased persons and the 48-hour takedown process. Members said they would support the bill while working on constitutional issues, and it passed 6-0 to Judiciary, on call. The committee also adopted its rules without objection. The committee then heard several member bills. SB 867 (Padilla) would impose a four-year moratorium on AI chatbot-powered toys for children; supporters cited research showing sexual content, dangerous advice, and privacy risks, while opponents asked for narrower definitions and retailer liability protections. It passed 7-0 to Appropriations, on call. SB 1247 (Padilla) would give child influencers a right to request deletion or modification of images and likenesses used in monetized social media content; there was little testimony beyond a civil justice group’s opposition to a new private right of action, and it passed 7-0 to Judiciary, on call. SB 1114 (Cabaldon) would restrict sharing of state-collected LGBTQ-related data absent an enforceable order; Equality California and other advocates supported it as a safeguard against misuse of sensitive data, and it passed 6-0 to Appropriations, on call. SB 1159 (Cabaldon) would limit local governments’ obligation to treat AI bots and agents as persons in public participation and records processes; supporters said AI-generated comment floods and requests can drown out human participation, while opponents argued the bill should focus on fraud and warned about overreach. It passed 9-0 to Appropriations. Finally, SB 1050 (Ashby) would require disclosures when advertisements use AI-generated synthetic performers; supporters framed it as a truth-in-advertising and worker-protection measure, while opponents urged narrower, materiality-based standards and exemptions for broadcasters. Members generally supported the goal but raised concerns about breadth and alignment with existing law, and the bill was moved forward on a due-pass motion to Judiciary.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under current law, when tenants make repairs for health and safety reasons that the landlord will not
• Senator Hughes, is there any reason why your committee substitute is on this yellow paper?
• Is there a reason why we wouldn't want transparency for all organizations?
• So I think for all those reasons, it makes sense to move forward.
• So I can understand the reasoning for it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bills: HB111

Committee: Senate Business & Commerce

Summary: The committee heard a long series of House bills, with most measures laid out by Senate sponsors and then left pending after brief public testimony. Early bills focused on construction and licensing issues, including HB 305 on prompt payment for public construction audits, HB 5093 on restoring public access to notary contact information, HB 2037 on updating landlord-tenant repair and security deposit rules, HB 4214 on a centralized public information request contact database, and HB 5435 exempting higher education institutions from a 90-day notice requirement for certain public-private partnership projects. Testimony was generally supportive on these bills, and no votes were taken; each was left pending. The committee also considered several transparency and regulatory bills. HB 111 would expand the Public Information Act to certain nonprofit state associations and narrow some attorney-client and working-paper exceptions, with supporters arguing it would improve oversight of public funds and critics questioning the scope and thresholds. HB 5129 would protect occupational license holders’ personal identifying information from disclosure without consent, HB 4350 would allow peace officers to redact personal information from online real property records, HB 4748 would authorize multiple-award state purchasing contracts, and HB 4765 would clean up code enforcement officer licensing rules. HB 4134 would allow motor vehicle creditors to charge limited fees for electronic payment options while requiring a free alternative, and HB 1043 would direct a study of blockchain-based property title records; both drew testimony, with some concern about the practical effects and vendor implications of the blockchain study. Several bills addressed insurance, workforce, and digital-asset regulation. HB 3520 would reduce the insurance coverage required for transportation network companies during the period when a driver is en route to pick up a passenger, drawing support from Texans for Lawsuit Reform and opposition from trial lawyers who argued the higher coverage better protects the public. HB 3320 would create a self-insurance pool for religious institutions, with TDI explaining it would still be regulated but operate under a special statutory framework. HB 4233 would modernize rules for digital asset service providers by removing certain auditor-access requirements and updating reporting and licensing provisions. HB 3923 would reduce bachelor’s-degree requirements for some state jobs, though Every Texan argued low pay, not degree requirements, is the main driver of turnover. HB 4518 would create a legal structure for decentralized unincorporated nonprofit associations tied to blockchain governance; business law experts opposed it as unnecessary and potentially risky, while crypto advocates supported it. Finally, HB 1803 would join an interstate compact for dentists and dental hygienists, with supporters citing workforce shortages and opponents saying Texas already licenses quickly and that the compact could weaken state oversight. Throughout the hearing, the committee repeatedly closed testimony and left bills pending, and a quorum was eventually established before later items were heard.