Transcript Highlights:

• search history, or any of these attributes, to adjust the price of goods or services. or online search
• Surveillance pricing undermines the concept of a uniform price.
• With surveillance pricing, the price that you see may not be the price that someone else sees, and you
• moving the baseline price.
• The price is the price of an...

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with the main discussion focused on AB 1705, AB 1898, AB 2076, and AB 2564. AB 1705 would require pornographic websites and uploaders to certify consent and age before sexually explicit content is posted, including AI-generated nude images, and would allow civil actions by nonconsenting individuals or minors depicted in the material. Supporters, including child advocacy, women’s groups, district attorneys, and university women’s organizations, said it would help combat nonconsensual sexual imagery and revenge pornography; there was no opposition testimony, and the bill drew favorable comments from members. AB 1898 would require employers to give workers advance notice before using AI-powered tools to surveil or manage employees, including disclosure of the purpose, data collected, decisions affected, and general locations of use. Labor groups and privacy advocates supported the measure as a transparency and worker-protection bill, while business and industry groups opposed it, arguing the definitions were too broad, the notice requirements could expose proprietary or security-sensitive information, and the private right of action could lead to litigation and overbroad compliance burdens. Members raised cybersecurity and scope concerns, and the author said the bill had already been narrowed and would continue to be refined, but the committee ultimately took a roll call and advanced the bill on a vote, leaving it on call for absent members. AB 2076 would add nitrous oxide to the list of products subject to online age verification under the Parents’ Accountability and Child Protection Act and increase penalties for large sellers that fail to comply. The author and supporters, including a parent, a deputy district attorney, narcotics officers, Children Now, labor, and the Children’s Advocacy Institute, described rising youth access, health harms, and online sales loopholes. Some opposition groups said they appreciated the amendments but remained concerned about other provisions. Members questioned the bill’s gift-card restrictions and whether they would unnecessarily limit adult purchasing choices; the author and committee staff explained the restriction was aimed at anonymous purchases of the most dangerous items. The bill passed on a 7-0 vote and was left on call for absent members. AB 2564 would prohibit “surveillance pricing,” or using personal data to set individualized prices, while preserving certain transparent discounts and loyalty programs. The author and supporters from Consumer Reports, TechEquity, labor, and privacy groups argued the bill would prevent discriminatory pricing and protect consumers from opaque data-driven price manipulation. Retail, chamber, and industry opponents said the bill was too broad, could chill legitimate discounts and promotions, created compliance and litigation risks, and contained vague definitions. Members discussed the balance between consumer protection and business concerns, but the transcript cuts off before a final vote on AB 2564.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or online search history, or any of these attributes, to adjust the price of goods or services based
• Surveillance pricing undermines the concept of a uniform price.
• With surveillance pricing, the price that you see may not be the price that someone else sees, and you
• moving the baseline price.
• So this is the price point that becomes the price that's going to be offered in the grocery store.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• Online ordering.
• A lot of people order online. Ordering online is more expensive, and the card is not present.
• , somebody purchasing online?
• , somebody purchasing online?
• Drew Humphreys, are you online, Drew? I see you online.

Summary: The commission met to continue studying credit card payments, interchange fees, fraud, chargebacks, and the impact of card processing costs on small businesses, especially restaurants and retailers. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurant owners, payment-industry representatives, and an airline trade group. Supporters of reform argued that swipe fees are a major and rising expense, that businesses are paying fees on sales tax and tips that are merely pass-through amounts, and that merchants have little negotiating power. Several restaurant and retail witnesses described thin margins, higher costs for card-not-present transactions, and chargebacks that they said usually favor cardholders and leave merchants absorbing losses and fees. Witnesses from the Cooperative Credit Union Association cautioned that state-level interchange regulation could reduce revenue used for fraud prevention, compliance, and member services, and could lead to higher rates or reduced access. Retail and restaurant representatives countered that fees have risen sharply, that statements are difficult to decipher, and that rewards programs and card-network pricing are subsidized by merchants and ultimately by all consumers. The Massachusetts Restaurant Association and independent operators urged legislation to bar fees on tax and tip portions of transactions and to allow businesses to pass along card fees if they choose, saying this would improve transparency and fairness and help keep small restaurants open. Other testimony came from the National Restaurant Association, which supported interchange reform and said modern point-of-sale systems can already separate tax and tip amounts, and from a payments-industry group that emphasized the broader economic benefits of digital payments and warned against state-by-state rules. Airlines for America opposed changes that could undermine airline credit card rewards programs. Commission members asked detailed questions about fee structures, card types, chargebacks, POS systems, and whether consumers paying cash are also affected. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Abraham is here, Edmonds is here, Carter is here, Price is here, Bartholomew is here, Duplessis is here
• There are amendments sent up by Senator Price, set number 4109. On your amendments. Thank you, Mr.
• Price, Lambert, Miller, Hodges, Migues, Harris, Carter, Alon.
• Price, yes. Presley, yes. Madam Secretary, closing: 34 yeas, zero nays. Adopted.

Bills: SR134 , SR135 , SR136 , SR137 , SR140 , SR141 , SR142 , SCR75 , SCR77 , SCR12 , HB75 , HB1199 , HB221 , HCR89 , HCR96 , HCR103 , HCR108 , HCR58 , HB9 , HB177 , HB181 , HB198 , HB202 , HB223 , HB225 , HB387 , HB398 , HB457 , HB459 , HB540 , HB591 , HB616 , HB766 , HB775 , HB783 , HB797 , HB895 , HB906 , HB950 , HB975 , HB1028 , HB1052 , HB1057 , HB1076 , HB1100 , HB1139 , HB1155 , HB1160 , HB1182 , HB1186 , HB1220 , HB1222 , HB1223 , HB1224 , HB1228 , HB1231 , HB1245 , HB1256 , SCR3 , SB393 , SB401 , SB415 , SB426 , SB435 , SB487 , SB488 , SB523 , SB56 , SB163 , SB341 , SB504 , SB322 , SCR9 , SCR58 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB246 , SB249 , SB269 , SB282 , SB296 , SB323 , SB363 , SB369 , SB474 , SB490 , SB492 , SB500 , SB514 , HCR27 , HCR28 , HCR66 , HCR67 , HCR72 , HCR31 , HCR47 , HCR41 , HB363 , HB368 , HB377 , HB380 , HB386 , HB392 , HB431 , HB441 , HB559 , HB664 , HB685 , HB715 , HB741 , HB822 , HB856 , HB908 , HB980 , HB990 , HB999 , HB1010 , HB1243 , HB54 , HB137 , HB180 , HB192 , HB310 , HB321 , HB396 , HB512 , HB552 , HB578 , HB638 , HB663 , HB708 , HB717 , HB718 , HB1009 , HB1082 , HB1104 , HB1107 , HB1198 , HB1246 , HB27 , HB143 , HB205 , HB259 , HB267 , HB288 , HB308 , HB403 , HB405 , HB414 , HB417 , HB478 , HB546 , HB548 , HB555 , HB557 , HB609 , HB670 , HB672 , HB740 , HB779 , HB786 , HB796 , HB812 , HB848 , HB915 , HB917 , HB921 , HB930 , HB933 , HB1095 , HB1096 , HB1103 , HB1129 , HB1154 , HB1166 , HB1187 , HB1195 , HB1230 , HB316 , HB511 , HB799 , HB1039 , HB12 , HB66 , HB145 , HB167 , HB196 , HB213 , HB218 , HB222 , HB256 , HB291 , HB326 , HB352 , HB401 , HB430 , HB433 , HB434 , HB448 , HB456 , HB476 , HB481 , HB487 , HB492 , HB549 , HB579 , HB608 , HB621 , HB624 , HB626 , HB632 , HB637 , HB656 , HB722 , HB745 , HB804 , HB818 , HB821 , HB833 , HB864 , HB867 , HB874 , HB893 , HB909 , HB951 , HB968 , HB969 , HB978 , HB979 , HB988 , HB989 , HB1001 , HB1005 , HB1007 , HB1024 , HB1032 , HB1038 , HB1050 , HB1051 , HB1056 , HB1059 , HB1077 , HB1080 , HB1081 , HB1086 , HB1108 , HB1112 , HB1153 , HB1172 , HB1173 , HB1175 , HB1192 , HB1193 , HB1204 , HB1218 , HB1242 , HB1244 , HB1249 , HB1252 , HB1254 , HB17 , HB36 , HB41 , HB47 , HB73 , HB126 , HB133 , HB140 , HB159 , HB166 , HB211 , HB226 , HB271 , HB324 , HB337 , HB351 , HB399 , HB571 , HB712 , HB723 , HB726 , HB750 , HB759 , HB844 , HB966 , HB1006 , HB1018 , HB1036 , SB29 , SB42 , SB43 , SB78 , SB208 , SB217 , SB274 , SB300 , SB379 , SB382 , SB387 , SB441 , SB449 , HB74 , HB134 , HB258 , HB359 , HB468 , HB956 , HB1117 , SB149

Keywords: SR134, Senate Resolution 134, Isaac Herzenberg, Metairie Park Country Day School, Country Day, javelin, track and field, Class 2A, state championship, high school athletics, student athlete, Louisiana Senate commendation, honorary resolution, sports recognition, University of Nebraska, Baton Rouge, LSU Bernie Moore Track Stadium, sportsmanship, collegiate athletics, condolence resolution

Transcript Highlights:

• Online ordering.
• , somebody purchasing online?
• Drew Humphreys, are you online, Drew? I see you online.
• Is Ralph online?” “Yeah. Ralph, are you online?” “Yep. Can you hear me?” “Welcome.
• Nancy's online? Welcome.

Summary: The commission met to hear testimony on the future of credit card payments and swipe fees, with a focus on impacts to small businesses, especially restaurants and retailers. Members and witnesses discussed interchange fees, processing fees, chargebacks, fraud risk, rewards programs, and the growing use of card-not-present and digital wallet transactions. Several witnesses urged the commission to support legislation that would prohibit fees on the tax and tip portions of transactions and allow businesses to pass credit card fees on to customers if they choose, while others warned that state regulation of interchange could reduce fraud protections and harm consumer rewards programs. Small business owners and trade groups described rising costs and thin margins, saying card fees are now among their largest expenses and are often charged on money that is merely passing through the business, such as sales tax and gratuities. Restaurant representatives said the current system shifts fraud and chargeback losses onto merchants, with little ability to negotiate rates or recover disputed funds, and argued that transparency and fee relief would help keep independent businesses open. Retailers gave similar testimony, citing rising swipe fees, complex statements, and the burden of online and phone transactions. A representative from the airline industry opposed interchange reform, arguing that airline credit card rewards are popular with consumers and support travel and jobs in Massachusetts. Credit union representatives cautioned that state-level interchange limits could weaken fraud prevention and force higher rates or reduced services, while the National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that banks and networks already operate under fee caps in other contexts and that interchange rates are fixed rather than competitive. Commission members asked questions about how chargebacks work, how fees are broken down, whether businesses can negotiate with processors or POS providers, and how consumer behavior has shifted toward cards, online ordering, and delivery since the pandemic. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• which is increasingly moved online.
• When falling prices are combined with those speed gains, the real price per megabit has dropped more
• So let's just talk about those who are online and not online.
• same price.
• The control of the overall price.

Committee: House Communications and Conveyance

Transcript Highlights:

• , surveillance price discrimination.
• um surveillance price predatory pricing um surveillance price discrimination.<00:01:26.560><c> So,</
• </c><00:04:28.000><c> based</c> pricing than just charging prices based pricing than just charging prices
• Corporate CEO consultant McKinsey said of surveillance pricing, it can enhance price pricing to generate
• </c> big box stores and online retailers. big box stores and online retailers.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what is surveillance pricing? Surveillance pricing can happen in a couple different ways.
• And I understand one of your panel mates is joining us online. Nicole, are you online?
• Is joining us online. Nicole, are you online? Yes, trying to get my camera on. Okay, great.
• Surveillance pricing uses these profiles to deliver prices tailored to each individual.
• Surveillance pricing uses these profiles to deliver prices tailored to each individual.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a package of Massachusetts privacy and technology bills, especially measures to ban the sale of location data, establish a comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and regulate biometric recognition and surveillance pricing. Chairs and sponsors argued that self-regulation has failed, that data brokers and large tech companies routinely collect and monetize sensitive information, and that state action is needed because federal protections are weak or absent. Several speakers tied the bills to reproductive health, gender-affirming care, domestic violence, children’s data, and other sensitive uses of location and biometric information. Supporters included legislators and advocates who backed H. 86/S. 197 (Location Shield), H. 78/S. 45/H. 104/S. 29 (comprehensive privacy bills), H. 99/S. 47 (surveillance pricing in grocery stores), and H. 36/S. 36 (biometric recognition accountability). They emphasized data minimization, bans on selling sensitive data, consumer rights to access, delete, and opt out, and in some cases a private right of action. Several witnesses said Massachusetts should lead or align with other states, while others argued that stronger protections are needed because data can be weaponized by stalkers, anti-abortion actors, abusive partners, insurers, or law enforcement. Industry and coalition witnesses urged the committee to favor a more standardized, interoperable framework modeled on laws already adopted in other states, warning that novel definitions, data-minimization rules, and private rights of action could create compliance burdens, confusion, and costs for businesses, including small businesses. They argued that entity-level exemptions for sectors already covered by federal laws like HIPAA or GLBA promote consistency, and that Attorney General enforcement is preferable to private lawsuits. Committee members questioned witnesses on patchwork concerns, the scope of exemptions, and whether the proposed bills would harm or help consumers and small businesses. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; written testimony was noted as due later, and the committee continued taking testimony from multiple panels and virtual witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, dynamic pricing is a method that some businesses use to change the price of retail goods.
• , can you price match?
• , can you price match?
• Maya online.
• Online.

Summary: The committee heard public hearings on several bills. HB 2675 would eliminate a number of state accounts and transfer remaining balances from two accounts to the general fund, while also changing how revenues in the Salary Insurance Contribution Increase Revolving Account are deposited; OFM testified in support and there was no public opposition. SHB 1903 would create a statewide low-income energy assistance program through the Department of Commerce, funded by the general fund and Climate Commitment Act revenues; supporters said it would address Washington’s underfunded and uneven energy assistance system, while utilities and rural co-ops raised concerns about cost, reporting burdens, utility authority, and implementation details. SHB 2384 would require actuarial reviews for certain continuing care retirement communities with prepaid life care contracts; residents and consumer advocates supported the added transparency, while providers opposed the added review costs and said they already pay for actuarial work. SHB 1982 would expand the ability of tribal members to vacate convictions tied to treaty rights, add OPD representation and a tribal liaison position, and then an amendment was described that would remove the liaison position and eliminate the fiscal impact; the sponsor and OPD supported the bill, and testimony emphasized correcting past treaty-rights convictions. The committee also heard SHB 2389, a broad juvenile justice bill that would expand suspended disposition options, create midpoint review hearings, reduce some robbery ranges, and address juvenile rehabilitation capacity and transfers. Supporters argued it would reduce racial disparities, favor community-based rehabilitation when safe, and improve outcomes, while prosecutors, sheriffs, counties, judges, cities, victim advocates, and some tribal law enforcement warned it would weaken accountability for serious violent offenses, increase court and local government burdens, and shift costs without funding. Several witnesses and the bill sponsor discussed proposed amendments, including removing presumptions and the mid-sentence review. The committee then heard SHB 2439, which would raise tobacco and vapor product license fees, create a responsible vendor program, add manufacturer certification and enforcement provisions, restrict certain products and sales practices, and redirect tobacco tax revenue to public health, cancer research, and youth prevention accounts; public health and prevention groups supported it, while retailers and industry representatives opposed the fee increases and some of the new restrictions. Finally, HB 2681 would sharply increase cannabis license fees and index them to inflation; OFM supported the change as aligning fees with program costs, while cannabis businesses and associations opposed or sought changes to the fee structure and CPI indexing. The committee also heard a briefing on SHB 2215, which would require the Caseload Forecast Council to forecast SNAP and state food assistance caseloads in light of upcoming federal cost-sharing changes; no questions were raised at the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• When falling prices are combined with those speed gains, the real price per megabit has dropped more
• consumer prices went up more than 30%.
• So let's just talk about those who are online and not online.
• And if Verizon were to offer that in a lower price, any lower price in any other state, California would
• immediately gain that exact same price.

Summary: The Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee held an informational hearing on the state of broadband affordability in California. Chair Tasha Berner said the committee was examining how broadband prices, access, and affordability are affecting households, especially after the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and amid concerns about federal resistance to state broadband regulation. She noted the committee’s continued interest in policy options for 2026 and referenced prior legislation, including AB 353, that would have required affordable home internet as a condition of doing business in California. Industry witnesses from U.S. Telecom and CTIA argued that broadband and wireless prices have generally fallen in real terms even as inflation and other household costs have risen, citing competition, infrastructure investment, and faster speeds as the main drivers. They said California’s higher costs are tied to permitting delays, taxes, copper theft, and legacy obligations such as COLR requirements, and they urged the Legislature to preserve market incentives, reduce fees and regulatory burdens, and support infrastructure deployment. They also discussed fixed wireless access, federal BEAD funding, and Universal Service Fund reform, arguing that more entities benefiting from networks, including tech platforms, should contribute to support programs. Consumer and public-interest witnesses presented a different view, saying California still has a serious affordability and adoption problem, especially for low-income households. Sunny McPhee of the California Emerging Technology Fund said broadband adoption has improved dramatically over time, but about 500,000 households remain offline or underconnected and many low-income households still pay above the FCC affordability benchmark. Ernesto Falcon of the CPUC Public Advocates Office said California’s market is losing its competitive edge, with prices higher than in other states and meaningful price pressure coming mainly from fiber competition at the gigabit tier. He said roughly 4.8 million Californians are limited to one gigabit option and estimated that more competition could save consumers more than $1 billion annually. Both witnesses emphasized the need for stronger transparency, targeted subsidies, and a permanent affordability solution, including extending and refining the CPUC broadband Lifeline pilot and advancing SB 716. Public commenters, including representatives from cable providers, nonprofits, and digital equity organizations, largely supported SB 716 and a permanent broadband affordability program. Several urged the committee to remove a cap on the Lifeline program, expand the CPUC pilot, and invest in digital navigators, outreach, and enrollment assistance. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, after the chair thanked the witnesses and public commenters for their testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Online ordering.
• A lot of people order online. Ordering online is more expensive, and the card is not present.
• , somebody purchasing online?
• , somebody purchasing online?
• Drew Humphreys, are you online, Drew? I see you online.

Summary: The commission met for its second hearing to study the future of credit card payments and sales transactions and their impacts on small businesses. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurants, and payment-industry representatives on interchange fees, processing fees, fraud, chargebacks, rewards programs, and the ability of businesses to pass fees on to customers. Several witnesses argued that swipe fees have risen sharply, are especially burdensome for restaurants and other small businesses, and are charged on taxes and tips that are merely pass-through amounts. They urged state action to prohibit fees on tax and tip portions, improve transparency, and allow surcharging or convenience fees, while opponents warned that state regulation could reduce fraud protections, increase compliance costs, and threaten consumer rewards programs. Business owners and trade groups described thin margins, rising costs, and the difficulty of understanding merchant statements or negotiating with processors. Restaurant witnesses said card-not-present and online transactions create the greatest fraud and chargeback risk, with money often removed immediately from merchants’ accounts and disputes rarely resolved in their favor. Retail witnesses gave examples of rising effective rates, higher fees on rewards cards, and the burden of processing fees on low-value transactions. A representative from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and others said restaurants are effectively paying fees on meals tax and gratuities, which they argued should not be subject to interchange charges. On the other side, the Cooperative Credit Union Association said interchange revenue helps credit unions fund fraud prevention, rapid card replacement, and member protections, and warned that state limits on interchange could weaken those safeguards and lead to higher consumer costs or reduced services. Airlines for America testified that airline credit card rewards are popular, support travel and jobs in Massachusetts, and could be harmed by interchange reform. The National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that interchange fees are set by card networks rather than competitive markets, that banks remain highly profitable even with rewards, and that states can act after recent court decisions. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questions from commissioners.

Transcript Highlights:

• , algorithmic pricing, surveillance pricing.
• </c> open price. open price.
• Corporate CEO consultant McKinsey said of surveillance pricing, it can enhance price pricing to generate
• </c> price for the same item. price for the same item.
• pricing, really enables companies to hide the prices.

Bills: HF3794 , HF3408

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• price.
• An establishment may not use surge pricing to modify the price of goods.
• or surge pricing.
• This is zeroing in on online sales because it's electronic, so there's an electronic price tag.
• So, and we know that dynamic pricing happens online already, but this would be taking it to another step

Summary: The Senate Business, Trade, and Economic Development Committee heard several public hearings on consumer protection and business regulation bills. Senate Bill 6175, the WAVE Act on ticket sales, would create licensing and enforcement rules for ticket resellers, require all-in pricing and refunds, cap resale prices and fees at 110% of the original ticket price, and prohibit speculative ticketing and deceptive practices, with exemptions for some events such as agricultural fairs and sports. The sponsor and many arts, venue, labor, and consumer advocates said the bill would curb bots, fake websites, and predatory markups that harm fans and nonprofit venues; opponents from resale platforms and industry groups argued it would restrict legitimate resale, reduce consumer choice, and push transactions into less regulated channels. Public testimony was extensive and sharply divided, but no committee vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6230, which would require cash transactions to be rounded to the nearest five-cent increment in light of the federal decision to stop minting pennies. Retail and grocery groups generally supported the bill but asked for amendments to protect against audit and consumer-protection liability, preserve acceptance of exact change, and avoid conflicts with local ordinances and SNAP rules. The bill sponsor said the measure is meant to give businesses a clear framework for cash rounding, and staff noted the Department of Revenue would issue a revised fiscal note with minimal costs. Senate Bill 6312, concerning surveillance-based pricing in grocery establishments, would require posted prices, prohibit individualized surveillance pricing and surge pricing, and place a moratorium on electronic shelf labels in larger stores until 2030. Labor and privacy advocates supported the bill as a way to stop AI-driven price discrimination and protect workers and consumers, while retail and grocery associations and an ESL manufacturer warned the definitions were too broad and could unintentionally affect loyalty programs, discounts, and operational efficiency. After testimony, the committee suspended the five-day notice rule for the bill. The committee also heard Senate Bill 6149 on the definition of a rural county and Senate Bill 6248 on travel insurance, with testimony on the latter split between industry support for adopting a model act and state agency concerns about adjuster licensing and preserving Washington consumer and anti-discrimination protections. In executive session, the committee considered Senate Bill 6061 on the tourism self-assessment program and Senate Bill 6137 on sports wagering. The committee rejected an amendment to SB 6061 that would have allowed voluntary local tourism contributions, then advanced the bill with a due pass recommendation. It also advanced SB 6137 with a due pass recommendation. The meeting concluded after those votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, dynamic pricing is a method some businesses use to change the price of retail goods.
• Dynamic pricing is a method some businesses use to change the price of retail goods.
• Fair, simple pricing is essential.
• Algorithmic pricing is...
• ... ...and prohibitions on the way that surveillance pricing and pricing discrimination and surge pricing

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2325, which would create a tourism self-supported assessment program to fund statewide tourism promotion. Staff explained that the bill would let the Washington Tourism Marketing Authority develop and administer an assessment program overseen by a 10-member ratepayer board, subject to a referendum of affected businesses, and would add a public records exemption for business financial and commercial information. The prime sponsor and supporters from State of Washington Tourism, the hospitality industry, the Port of Seattle, breweries, and wine interests argued that Washington is underinvesting in tourism compared with other states and that an industry-led assessment would provide sustainable, competitive funding. Opposition testimony from a taxpayer group objected to new assessments and unelected authority over tax-like charges. No vote was taken on the bill in the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2481, which would prohibit surveillance-based price discrimination and surge pricing for certain retail goods, require clear price posting, and temporarily bar electronic shelf labels in larger grocery stores while Commerce studies their effects. The sponsor said the bill is intended to ensure that customers in the same store pay the same price and to prevent AI-driven pricing based on personal data. Labor, privacy, and consumer advocates supported the bill, citing concerns about hidden price discrimination, worker stress, and consumer harm. Grocery and retail groups, along with an ESL manufacturer and a tech association, opposed the bill as written, warning that the definitions were too broad and could interfere with loyalty programs, discounts, inventory management, and electronic shelf label systems; several said they were working with the sponsor on amendments. The chair indicated amendments were expected and asked stakeholders to submit language soon, but no vote occurred. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 2503, which would require developers of generative AI systems to post high-level documentation about training data before public release and make violations a Consumer Protection Act issue. The sponsor described the bill as a transparency measure meant to function like an ingredients label for AI, helping consumers, researchers, and creators understand what goes into a model. Supporters from TechNet and Chamber of Progress said they generally backed the concept but wanted the bill aligned more closely with California’s recent law, especially on enforcement and the private right of action. Members raised questions about trade secrets, applicability to large versus small developers, and whether the bill could affect medical or other specialized AI uses; the sponsor said amendments were anticipated and that the bill was still early in the process. The hearing on HB 2503 then moved to public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• As noted by the assembly member, surveillance pricing algorithms ...such as surveillance pricing by the
• The price that's at, like, $50, I get 10% off.
• Section 2, 3, below that, a discounted price.
• Fundamentally, this bill is about fair pricing.
• One, that there is a customization of the price of a good.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 1159, which would update California student data privacy law for educational technology and college-level platforms. The author and supporters argued that students’ personal information is being collected and used far beyond educational purposes, including sensitive health and demographic data, and said the bill would limit misuse and add stronger privacy protections. Support came from privacy, labor, education, and civil rights groups, while opposition from college store and industry representatives focused on narrowing the definition of “operator,” preserving institution-related communications, and concerns about the bill’s private right of action. Members raised questions about how the bill would affect scholarships, financial aid, adult students, consent, and litigation; the author said the bill includes a right to cure and notice to the Attorney General. The committee voted 4-0 to pass the bill to Appropriations, with the measure placed on call. The committee then took up AB 1709, which would set a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts on platforms with specified addictive design features and create a youth safety commission. The author, pediatric and safety advocates, and several public supporters argued that social media companies intentionally design compulsive features that harm youth mental health, sleep, and development, and that the bill is a necessary product-safety response. Opponents argued the bill is overbroad, may be ineffective, raises First Amendment concerns, and could cut off vulnerable youth from important online support networks. Members focused heavily on possible amendments, especially a non-addictive feed option for younger users and strengthening the commission; the author said he was open to those changes and to further work with the committees. The bill was moved to Judiciary on a 5-0 vote and placed on call. At the end of the excerpt, the author began presenting a third measure, AB 2076, which would strengthen California’s Parents’ Accountability and Child Protection Act by adding nitrous oxide to the list of age-verified dangerous products, banning purchase with gift cards or store credit, and increasing penalties for large sellers. The author described nitrous oxide as increasingly accessible to minors online and cited enforcement gaps in the current law, but the transcript cuts off before testimony or action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• online, getting them into the store.
• use personal data when charging different prices for the same product or service, whether it's online
• As surveillance pricing continues to mature and deploy, As surveillance pricing continues to mature and
• higher prices.
• This is saying whether you opt in or opt out, when you're given a price, it should be the price.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee met with a new membership roster and adopted its committee rules after quorum was established. The hearing then began with AB 412, the AI Copyright Transparency Act, which would require generative AI developers to provide copyright holders notice when registered copyrighted works are used in training data. The author and supporters, including SAG-AFTRA, the Transparency Coalition, voice actors, writers, labor groups, and other creators, argued the bill would give artists a practical way to learn whether their works were used and to vindicate their rights. Opponents, including EFF, CalChamber, RIAA, CCIA, Chamber of Progress, Bay Area Council, BSA, and TechNet, said the proposal was technically unworkable, could burden startups, conflict with existing law and pending litigation, and raise federal preemption concerns. Members discussed the bill’s amendments, including a fingerprinting approach and narrowing the bill to model developers, and the committee voted 8-2 to pass AB 412 as amended to the Judiciary Committee. The committee then heard AB 446, which would prohibit “surveillance pricing,” or the use of personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service. The author and supporters, including Consumer Watchdog, UFCW, labor organizations, and consumer/privacy groups, described examples of differential pricing tied to device type, location, shopping behavior, and digital price tags, and argued the bill would protect consumers from discriminatory and predatory pricing. Business and industry opponents, including CalChamber, grocers, retailers, travel, broadband, and other associations, said the bill could conflict with the CCPA, interfere with loyalty and rewards programs, and create confusion about personalized discounts and dynamic pricing. The discussion focused on how the bill would treat loyalty programs, whether existing privacy law already covers the issue, and whether the proposal would unintentionally affect legitimate discounts and promotions.

Transcript Highlights:

• for their online SAT tutoring course.
• Staples was caught altering prices based on the consumer's location.
• What happens online does not stay online.
• In Sri Lanka, online disinformation fueled anti-Muslim riots.
• And I see it online. I get it.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection

Summary: The committee hearing covered several bills on consumer protection, pricing, gift cards, streaming ads, name-image-likeness protections, and online hate. SB 259 by Senator Wahab would prohibit surveillance pricing based on device data such as geolocation; supporters said it would curb discriminatory and opaque pricing, while business groups raised concerns about geolocation language and impacts on legitimate location-based pricing. The bill was moved on a due pass motion and passed the committee 8-1, with the author saying amendments were still being discussed. SB 22 by Senator Laird would raise the amount consumers can redeem from unused gift cards, with the author emphasizing inflation and consumer fairness. Retailers, restaurants, and other business groups opposed the bill, arguing it would increase fraud risk, create safety concerns by requiring more cash on hand, and should also clarify existing exemptions and rules. Consumer advocates supported the measure. The bill was sent out on a 6-1 vote and kept on call. SB 576 by Senator Umberg, the CALM Act, would apply broadcast-style limits on loud commercials to streaming services; the Motion Picture Association and Streaming Innovation Alliance opposed it, citing technical and federal-law concerns, but the committee approved it 8-0. SB 683 by Senator Cortese would clarify that people whose name, image, voice, or likeness is misused can seek injunctive relief or a TRO, with the author saying the bill updates an outdated statute and strengthens privacy protections. The Recording Industry Association of America supported the goal but wanted faster takedown timing, while the First Amendment Coalition opposed the measure over free-speech and prior-restraint concerns. The bill passed 8-0. The final bill, SB 771, sought to hold social media platforms accountable when their algorithms amplify hate, harassment, or violence; supporters from Jewish and Muslim advocacy groups described real-world threats and violence linked to online hate, while TechNet and CCIA argued the bill would conflict with Section 230 and chill protected speech. Members raised questions about constitutional limits and the scope of platform liability, and the discussion continued as the hearing concluded.

Bills: SB330 , SB2069 , SB2095 , SB1721 , SB1433 , SB1316 , SB1280 , SB1455 , SB1456 , SB1457 , SB1459 , SB1461 , SB1463 , SB1465 , SB1466 , HJR1088 , SB1684 , SB378 , SB1447 , SB1920 , SB1443 , HR1047 , SB1877 , SB1884 , SB1365 , SB2174 , SB1525 , SB1810 , SB1771 , SB1805 , SB1916 , SB1530 , SB1847 , SB1990 , SB2060 , SB1992 , SB1579 , SB1778 , SB2132 , SB1623 , SB2067 , SB1589 , SB1441 , SB1224 , SB372 , SB1232 , SB1264 , SB1450 , SB2011 , SB2030 , SB1980 , SB1936 , SB1477 , SB1593 , SB1725 , SB1670 , SB1480 , SB1726 , SB1633 , SB1735 , SB1632 , SB1277 , SB1217 , SB1826 , SB1824 , SB1813 , SB1326 , SB1937 , SB1641

Keywords: elk population, wildlife management, Oklahoma State University, veterinary medicine, ecosystem health, habitat assessment, advanced nuclear energy, nuclear power, small modular reactor, SMR, microreactor, generation III+, generation IV, nuclear reactor, nuclear permitting, nuclear licensing, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, OCC, Oklahoma Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, Oklahoma Advanced Nuclear Development Revolving Fund

Transcript Highlights:

• Now the price you pay is on your phone, on your screen, and maybe ...the store and the price, take it
• As noted by the Assembly Member, surveillance pricing algorithms ...such as surveillance pricing by the
• Price increases are not acceptable.
• Ultimately and fundamentally, this bill is about fair pricing.
• One, that there is a customization of the price of a good.

Committee: Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• What the price cap does is, by keeping it under 110% of the original price, it keeps what would normally
• And that is why prices have gone up. the basis of that lawsuit, and that is why prices have gone up 120%
• The market's dictating a certain price.
• The market's dictating a certain price.
• , that they raise prices, that there is no face value, that they increase prices.

Committee: House Privacy and Consumer Protection