Transcript Highlights:

• I'd be more interested if you could ensure some specific data that shows, let's say, for example, 125%
• And we don't have all the data on exactly what that will do because it's not currently allowed.

Bills: HB4104, HB3722, HB3787, HB3700, HB3701, HB3310, HB3404, HB2964, HB2398, HB3024, HB3499, HB3278, HB3279, HB3645, HB3649, HB2293, HB3260, HB3176, HB3177, HB3114, HB3172, HB3322, HB3323, HB4248, HB3720, HB2210, HB1322, HB1937, HB3301, HB4107

Keywords: Oklahoma criminal law, felony classification, Class B5, Class D1, sentencing enhancement, repeat offender, domestic violence, stalking, voyeurism, peeping tom, clandestine recording, hidden camera, privacy offense, sex offender registry, Sex Offenders Registration Act, protective order violation, animal cruelty, cockfighting, dogfighting, public safety

Transcript Highlights:

• tying sex to reproductive anatomy, the bill invites intrusive verification measures that threaten privacy
• That I'm approaching women's issues with data, evidence-based research, and most importantly, input from
• Every single Texan deserves privacy and their privacy should be protected.
• Members, safety and privacy are common sense.

Bills: SB 10, SB 8, SB 15, SB 12, SB 6, SB 13, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, SB10, SB8, SB15, SB12, SB6, SB13, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4

Keywords: sex designation, restroom access, civil penalties, private civil right of action, women's privacy, law enforcement, department file, employee records, misconduct, confidentiality, Texas occupations code, election laws, attorney general, prosecution, criminal offenses, criminal prosecution, jurisdiction, hemp, consumable hemp, hemp-derived cannabinoids

Bills: SJR 3, SB 5, SJR 36, SJR 3, SB 616, SB 565, SB 384, SB 5, SB 21, SB 72, SB 140, SB 262, SB 370, SB 372, SB 495, SB 627, SB 703, SB 764, SB 842, SB 971, SB 790, SB 767, SB 480, SB 1066, SR 44, SR 135, SR 171, SR 180, SR 185, SR 187, SR 188, SR 191, SR 197, SR 198, SR 199, SR 200

Keywords: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, research institute, funding, grants, state health initiatives, aquifer, water management, Edwards Aquifer, sustainability, regulatory framework, SB 565, Texas Water Code

Transcript Highlights:

• WHEN IT COMES TO CYBER SECURITY, FLORIDIANS' PERSONAL DATA AND THE IT INFRASTRUCTURE OF OUR STATE, OUR
• DATA SHOWS THAT AUTISM IS IMPACTING MORE AND MORE FAMILIES ACROSS OUR STATE AT AN ALARMING RATE.
• THE MORE DATA WE HAVE ON WHEN AND HOW THIS EVIL IS HAPPENING, THE BETTER CHANCE WE HAVE TO STAY ONE STEP

Bills: SJR3, SB5, SJR36, SJR3, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB5, SB21, SB72, SB140, SB262, SB370, SB372, SB495, SB627, SB703, SB764, SB842, SB971, SB790, SB767, SB480, SB1066, SR44, SR135, SR171, SR180, SR185, SR187, SR188, SR191, SR197, SR198, SR199, SR200

Keywords: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, research institute, funding, grants, state health initiatives, aquifer, water management, Edwards Aquifer, sustainability, regulatory framework, SB 565, Texas Water Code

Transcript Highlights:

• A bill establishing the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act.
• Senate Document 2608, the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act.
• This turns meaningful data privacy legislation on its head.
• To mean anything, the right to privacy in the 21st century must include the right to data privacy.
• That's the challenge: finding the balance between data privacy and protections and the promise of data

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, recognized several guests in the chamber, and adopted a resolution congratulating Coleman-Nee on election as National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. It also took up several local and personnel matters, including a sick leave bank for Emily Cullick and later Paul Stavarski, and local bills affecting the town of Weston and a Dorchester housing/library procurement exemption; those measures were advanced to third reading or engrossment as appropriate. The chamber also suspended Joint Rule 12 to refer several House petitions to committees. The main business was Senate No. 2516, the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act, which came before the Senate on a Ways and Means substitute (Senate Document 2608). Senators Creem, Moore, Charles, Feingold, Keenan, and others spoke in support, describing the bill as a comprehensive consumer privacy measure with data minimization rules, limits on sensitive data, protections for minors, and strong Attorney General enforcement. Several amendments were debated, with many rejected or withdrawn, while some were adopted, including provisions on geolocation data protections, opting out of targeted advertising, affiliate and merger/acquisition protections, internal operations exemptions, parental access to child data, and a Ways and Means amendment. A number of other amendments on employee data, union data, loyalty programs, AI training, reporting, and related issues were either not adopted or held/withdrawn. After the amendment process, the Senate adopted the amended Ways and Means substitute and ordered the bill to a third reading. The bill was then passed to be engrossed on a roll call vote of 40-0. The Senate also adopted an order to adjourn to the following Monday at 11:00 a.m. and to dispense with printing a calendar. The session adjourned in memory of Darrow Logan Alexander of South Boston.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next up on our agenda is the performance audit of the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, OPDP, and
• Privacy and data protection refers to how agencies collect and manage the use of personal information
• We'll be using the term privacy in this presentation to refer to privacy and data protection.
• OPDP should develop and use performance measures to evaluate its long-term effect on privacy and data
• The Office of Privacy and Data Protection has regular quarterly meetings for state agencies and also

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on September 17, 2025, in hybrid format. After roll call, the committee initially lacked a quorum and deferred approval of the July 15 minutes until Representative Berg arrived; the minutes were then adopted. Members also discussed the proposed 2026 JLARC meeting schedule, including possible changes to address crowded July meetings and the annual tax exemption review workload. Staff presented the annual lodging tax expenditures report, noting that 213 municipalities received distributions in 2024, with 91% reporting compliance, $114 million awarded for more than 1,700 activities, and no independent verification of the self-reported data. Several members questioned the value and usefulness of the report, and the executive committee indicated it may recommend removing the statutory reporting requirement. The committee then heard the preliminary performance audit of the Office of Privacy and Data Protection, which found the office meets its statutory responsibilities and has high user satisfaction, but recommended updating the statute to better match the office’s current capacity and focus and improving performance measures to reflect long-term privacy outcomes rather than outputs. Members asked about FERPA and other federal privacy laws, and OPDP staff said they provide general privacy training and consultation but not law-specific training unless requested. The committee adopted the final report on Washington State recreational boating programs without recommendation, after staff reported that boating revenues support both general government and boating activities and that no participating agencies submitted formal comments. Members asked about boater safety education and possible overlap among the six agencies involved; Parks staff said education has reached more than 500,000 boaters and that fatalities and incidents have declined. The committee also reviewed planned study questions for a JLARC review of Labor and Industries’ enforcement of farm worker laws, with members raising scope questions about the term “farm worker” versus “agricultural worker,” and for DNR’s Eastern Washington sustainable harvest calculation, which JLARC will review as DNR completes its recalculation. Finally, staff outlined the 2026 tax preference performance reviews covering seven preferences, and members asked about racial equity, environmental impacts, disclosure of beneficiary savings, and how the reviews will measure effectiveness; the meeting adjourned before noon.

Transcript Highlights:

• Big Tech has fought against data privacy for a long time.
• And data privacy actually benefits the small business.
• Our privacy is fundamental to who we are as American, our data.
• That is why this bill enshrines data privacy rights.
• states that have no data privacy laws.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House first adopted several resolutions from the Committee on Rules, including congratulations to four Eagle Scouts and recognition of Sturbridge on the 250th anniversary of the United States. The chamber then took up a series of bills reported by Ways and Means and other committees, repeatedly suspending the rules to move them forward. These included the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, a Fall River land conveyance bill, a Belmont alcohol licensing bill, a Reading senior property tax exemption bill, and a Linfield funding transfer bill, with each measure advancing by amendment or being passed to a third reading or engrossment. A major portion of the session focused on the Massachusetts Consumer Data Privacy Act, with multiple members speaking in support. Supporters described the bill as a broad consumer privacy framework that would limit data collection, require consent for sensitive data, ban the sale of precise location data, restrict targeted advertising to minors, create consumer rights to access, correct, delete, and opt out of data uses, and provide enforcement tools for the Attorney General and, in limited cases, a private right of action. Several members emphasized protections for reproductive health, immigrant communities, and neural data, while others argued the bill would not burden small businesses and would instead hold large data holders accountable. The House adopted the Ways and Means amendment and ordered the bill to a third reading, then later passed the bill to be engrossed and enacted. The House also considered and enacted Senate 2563, a bill updating language in the laws concerning individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Members described the measure as removing outdated and offensive terminology and replacing it with person-first language without changing substantive law. After debate, the House adopted an amendment, passed the bill to be engrossed, and then enacted it by roll call. In addition, the House enacted the fiscal year 2026 supplemental appropriations bill, House 5470, and approved a bill extending deadlines for Middleton and Milton, both by roll call votes with no opposition. Later, the House took up a temporary summer 2026 local-option pilot allowing municipalities to extend liquor license hours and permit public consumption in designated districts. Supporters framed it as an economic development and tourism measure tied to major upcoming events, and the House adopted an amendment, passed the bill to be engrossed, and then concurred with the Senate version. The session ended with the House adopting an adjournment order and adjourning to meet again the following Monday in informal session.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:17.839> the consumer data privacy but I think the consumer data privacy but I think
• Data privacy laws.
• and health privacy and consumer data privacy issues.
• c> privacy and consumer data privacy um privacy and consumer data privacy um issues.<01:26:02.159>
• > federal data privacy protections under federal data privacy protections under federal law<01

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee approved the October 15, 2025 minutes and then held a broader discussion on current challenges with data retention and government transparency. Judy Randall of the Office of the Legislative Auditor said historical data is essential for post-audits, which often look back three to five years, and that retention decisions must balance audit needs with the burden of separating public and nonpublic data. She described the records-retention panel process as informal and largely based on individual judgment, noting she had objected to a proposed 60-day email retention period and generally uses a three-year guideline, though she said that standard is not grounded in a formal rule. Members discussed whether auditing standards should set retention periods, with Randall saying auditing is a good starting point but other offices, including the attorney general, also have needs, and that some agency discretion is unavoidable because of the gray area between official records and non-records. Representative Elkins raised the related principle of data minimization, arguing that government should not keep data longer than needed and citing a University of Minnesota legacy data warehouse breach as an example of the risks of retaining unnecessary sensitive information. Randall agreed that data no longer needed is a liability and said her office purges workpapers after five years. Representative Scott pressed whether three years is enough for fraud investigations and financial records; Randall responded that a reasonableness standard is needed and that longer retention can produce diminishing returns, though she said she would follow up on whether financial records should be treated differently. Tanya Tacker of the Rum River Special Education Cooperative testified in support of updating Minnesota’s data-retention laws for schools. She said districts want to protect student information and maintain transparency, but the current general retention schedule dates to 1985 and 2000 and does not reflect digital records, modern systems, or the volume of special education data. She urged modernizing the schedule, clarifying what must be kept in paper versus digitized form, aligning state rules with IDEA and other federal requirements, and providing practical guidance and tools. Members praised the specificity of her recommendations. Dr. BB Newman testified that retention failures in St. Anthony Village have made it difficult to obtain routine municipal and police data, with records delayed, missing, or inconsistently produced and no clear explanation of what systems were searched or whether records were destroyed. Newman argued these gaps undermine statutory access rights and force residents into costly litigation, and recommended stronger retention auditing, documentation of destruction, mandatory disclosure of systems searched, and consequences for noncompliance. In response to questions, Senate counsel said there is generally no direct penalty, but affected parties may seek mandamus, Data Practices Act claims, or informal mediation/opinions from the Data Practices Office. The discussion closed with calls for clearer standards and possible legislative updates to improve compliance and transparency.

Transcript Highlights:

• Clinicians across the state have also raised many concerns that chatbot therapists pose data and privacy
• concerns, have a limited understanding of client backgrounds, can cause... ...pose data and privacy
• privacy of patients.
• Beyond unlawful data sharing, employment. Data even after being warned.
• that privacy.

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on artificial intelligence, child safety, mental health, and privacy. SB 574 by Senator Umberg would require transparency and human oversight when attorneys, judges, and court neutrals use AI; it drew support from privacy advocates and committee members, with no opposition. SB 1276, the End Child Exploitation Act, would update child sexual exploitation laws to cover live-streamed and AI-generated abuse material and clarify that viewing such content can be criminally punishable; prosecutors, child advocacy groups, and others supported it, while no one appeared in opposition despite opposition on file. SB 813 would create a California AI standards and safety commission and a voluntary two-tier certification framework for AI safety standards; supporters said it would create scalable, independent oversight, while TechNet and CalChamber opposed it as duplicative, under-defined, and likely to create a de facto mandate. The committee discussed market pressure, federal preemption concerns, and the role of voluntary standards, but no final vote was taken in the excerpt. Senator Padilla also presented SB 300, which would strengthen protections for minors from sexually explicit chatbot content by moving from a reasonableness standard to an affirmative duty to prevent such exposure and to prohibit facilitation. Supporters said new evidence showed greater risks and that companies can and should build stronger safeguards; opponents, including TechNet and CCIA, argued the bill was premature because SB 243 had only recently taken effect and warned it could create strict-liability-like exposure. Padilla then presented SB 903, which would bar AI chatbots from being advertised as therapists, require licensed clinician oversight and informed consent for AI use in psychotherapy, and protect patient confidentiality; it received broad support from mental health professionals and labor groups, while industry and health associations were opposed unless amended over triage and crisis-detection language. The committee members emphasized the need for human judgment in mental health care and noted ongoing negotiations on amendments. The committee also heard SB 1119, a companion to AB 2020, which would require annual risk assessments, crisis-response protocols, default child settings, parental controls, limits on data use, public incident reporting, and third-party audits for chatbots used by children. Supporters argued the bill would address documented harms and improve transparency, while industry groups objected to ambiguous standards, liability exposure, and the private right of action. A roll call vote was taken on SB 1119 after quorum was established; the motion to pass to Appropriations succeeded on a 5-1 vote, with one no vote and the measure left on call for absent members. Finally, SB 354, a privacy bill for insurance consumers, would modernize outdated insurance privacy rules, bar sale of personal information, and expand consumer rights to know, correct, and delete data. Supporters said it would implement Proposition 24’s privacy mandate, while a large coalition of insurers, agents, brokers, and related businesses opposed unless amended, mainly seeking a small-business exemption and narrower treatment of publicly available information; members and the author said negotiations were ongoing and the bill had already been substantially revised.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill also requires ALPR operators to require data security training and data privacy training for
• Data deletion is necessary to protect Californians' privacy.
• The chilling effect this has had on both free speech and data privacy has been alarming.
• And so I think privacy is really important, and I strongly supported our data privacy law, and we did
• And so I think privacy is really important, and I strongly supported our data privacy law, and we did

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Clinicians across the state have also raised many concerns that chatbot therapists pose data and privacy
• concerns, have a limited understanding of client backgrounds, can cause... ...pose data and privacy
• privacy of patients.
• Beyond unlawful data sharing, employment. Data even after being warned.
• that privacy.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• S. 71, an act relating to consumer data S. 71, an act relating to consumer data privacy<00:07:04.320
• As 71 creates a comprehensive data As 71 creates a comprehensive data privacy<00:09:42.880> law
• January of 2028, the Vermont Data January of 2028, the Vermont Data Privacy<00:09:47.600> and
• This bill would establish Vermont's comprehensive consumer data privacy law.
• This bill would establish Vermont's comprehensive consumer data privacy law.

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first took up House Bill 955, relating to next steps in transforming Vermont’s education system. The chamber suspended rules to consider the Senate proposal of amendment immediately, and the House Education Committee reported that while it appreciated the Senate’s work, differences remained on issues including the timing of class size minimums, possible tuition or fees under the foundation formula, school construction details, and merger committee groupings. The committee voted 11-0-0 to refuse concurrence and request a committee of conference. After a brief correction on the committee straw poll, the House voted to refuse concurrence in the Senate amendment and appointed Representatives Conlin, Kornheiser, and Quimby as the House conferees. The House then suspended rules to message its action to the Senate forthwith. The House next took up Senate Bill 71, the consumer data privacy and online surveillance bill. The Commerce and Economic Development Committee recommended amendment, and the floor report described the bill as creating a comprehensive Vermont data privacy law effective January 1, 2028. The report outlined consumer rights to know, access, correct, delete, and port personal data, and to opt out of targeted advertising and sale of data; duties for controllers and processors; limits on sensitive data use; special protections for minors and health-related geofencing; Attorney General enforcement; and an 18-month cure period. The committee heard extensive testimony from a broad range of advocates, industry representatives, privacy experts, and other stakeholders, and it reported the bill out favorably with amendment on a vote of 11-0-0 before the House recessed for dinner.

Transcript Highlights:

• Unlike the California Consumer Privacy Act, which allows the sale of personal data... protections, clear
• Unlike the California Consumer Protection Act, Privacy Act, which allows the sale of personal data.
• The California Consumer Privacy Act, which allows the sale of personal data unless the consumer opts
• Privacy, and Privacy Defense Alliance.
• Members, this bill is really about three things: data selling, data sharing, and data processing.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee heard several bills, with most of the discussion focused on insurance transparency, claims handling, privacy, and regulatory enforcement. SB 877 and SB 878 by Senator Pérez addressed post-disaster claims practices: SB 877 would require insurers to disclose original and revised loss estimates and related claim materials to policyholders, while SB 878 would add automatic interest penalties for delayed claim decisions or payments and require written identification of disputed items. Fire survivors, consumer groups, AARP, the Department of Insurance, and other advocates supported both bills, while insurer groups moved to neutral after amendments. Both bills were voted out on roll call and reported to the Committee on Appropriations. The committee also considered SB 1054 by Senator Cabaldon, which would expand data sharing and reporting to improve workforce program evaluation and help counties verify work requirements for Medi-Cal and CalFresh using employer-reported hours worked. County officials, workforce advocates, and the Department of Insurance supported the measure, and no opposition was heard. The bill passed on a due-pass-as-amended motion to the Committee on Labor and Employment. SB 1209 by Senator Allen, presented with Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, would give the commissioner stronger enforcement tools to require insurers to carry out corrective actions identified in market conduct examinations, including fines and hearings for noncompliance. The commissioner and author said the bill would close an enforcement gap and improve accountability; there was no opposition testimony, but the bill was left on call after the roll. The committee also heard SB 354 on insurance privacy, presented by Senator Padilla on behalf of Pro Tem Limón, which would modernize insurance privacy rules by expanding consumer rights over personal data, limiting sale and use of sensitive information, and increasing disclosure requirements. Supporters said the bill updates outdated 1980s-era rules, while insurers, agents, and business groups raised concerns about scope, compliance burdens, and small-business impacts. Members indicated the bill was still being negotiated and would return in a revised form in the Privacy Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill also requires ALPR operators to require data security training and data privacy training for
• Data deletion is necessary to protect Californians' privacy.
• The chilling effect this has had on both free speech and data privacy has been alarming.
• The chilling effect this has had on both free speech and data privacy has been alarming.
• And so I think in privacy, Privacy is really important, and I strongly supported our data privacy law

Summary: The committee heard several bills focused on AI, privacy, and surveillance. SB 903 would prohibit AI from independently providing psychotherapy or presenting itself as a licensed mental health provider, require disclosure and informed consent, and reinforce confidentiality and privacy protections for therapy records. Supporters, including a mother and therapist whose son died by suicide after extensive chats with ChatGPT, argued the bill is needed to prevent harmful, crisis-related interactions. Behavioral health groups and labor/privacy organizations supported the measure, while TechNet, the California Medical Association, and the California Hospital Association opposed unless amended, saying the bill could restrict useful clinical tools and create conflicts around triage, screening, and data use. The committee passed SB 903 4-0 to Appropriations, with members noting the need for further work on definitions and implementation. SB 1119 would create a broader framework for chatbot safety for children, including annual risk assessments, crisis response protocols, default child protections, parental controls, notice and time limits, restrictions on advertising and use of children’s data, incident reporting, audits, and a private right of action. The author and supporters again cited the death of Adam Raine as evidence that chatbots can reinforce suicidal ideation and isolate children. Common Sense Media and several labor and privacy groups supported the bill. CalChamber, TechNet, the California State Sheriffs’ Association, and other industry and local government groups opposed unless amended, raising concerns about vague standards, overlap with SB 243, prescriptive design mandates, and litigation risk. The committee approved SB 1119 4-0 to Judiciary, with amendments to be taken there. The committee also heard SB 1013, which would tighten rules for automated license plate reader data by requiring DOJ audits, employee training, and a 30-day retention limit for most data. Supporters said the bill responds to documented misuse and over-retention of data that mostly belongs to innocent drivers. Law enforcement groups opposed, arguing the retention limit would hinder investigations and reduce the usefulness of ALPRs in serious or delayed cases. The bill passed 4-1 to Appropriations. SB 1292, a local control bill for six cities, would allow camera or sensor-based enforcement of curb and loading zones, with a human reviewing each violation before issuance. Supporters said it would help cities manage congestion and unsafe blocking of bike lanes and loading zones; privacy advocates warned about expanding automated surveillance. It passed 4-1 to Appropriations. Finally, the committee heard SB 1101, which would require higher education institutions to notify students, faculty, and staff when personal information is shared with federal agencies and limit disclosure to what is legally required. Supporters framed it as a transparency and anti-doxing measure in response to recent federal investigations and subpoenas; there was no opposition testimony. The bill passed 5-0 to Appropriations. The committee then began hearing SB 951, the California Worker Technological Displacement Act, which would require advance notice and reporting when employers displace workers due to technology and give displaced workers priority for openings, but the transcript cuts off before the hearing concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• TechNet and our member companies are strongly committed to protecting student data and privacy.
• We want to protect their data.
• We want to protect their data.
• by the data brokers.
• , the data brokers have to, under the data broker law, not sell your data.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard two bills. AB 1159 by Assemblymember Addis would update California student data privacy law to extend protections to college students, limit how ed tech companies can collect and use student information, and add restrictions around sensitive data and generative AI use. Supporters, including Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, CFT, labor, civil rights, and education groups, said students and educators need stronger safeguards against invasive data collection and misuse. Opponents, including College Board, TechNet, CalChamber, and ACT Education, argued the bill was overly broad, could interfere with legitimate educational services and AI development, and raised concerns about a private right of action and impacts on adult students and recruitment opportunities. AB 883 by Assemblymember Lowenthal would expedite deletion of personal information for elected and appointed officials under California’s data broker deletion system by having state agencies provide official lists to the privacy agency and requiring brokers to delete the information within five days. Supporters said the measure responds to rising threats, harassment, and violence against public officials and would help reduce exposure of their personal data. TechNet and TechC.A. opposed unless amended, citing concerns about exemptions for lawful data sharing, the five-day timeline, and litigation risk, while the author emphasized the bill does not create a new right but streamlines access to an existing deletion process. Both bills were advanced after committee discussion and roll calls. AB 1159 passed 11-2 and was sent to the Judiciary Committee. AB 883 passed 14-0 and was sent to the Appropriations Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• A year ago, I came across an article reporting how Carfax and data brokers share data they collect with
• Safeguarding personal data.
• Our data, a week's worth of our data, as you and I, a week's worth, is literally just a couple hundred
• Data brokers underpin nearly every privacy disaster of the modern era.
• Here first to present SB 1114, which is the SOGI Data Privacy Act.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Safeguarding personal data.
• Privacy laws.
• Our data, a week's worth of our data, as you and I, a week's worth, is literally just a couple hundred
• Data brokers underpin nearly every privacy disaster of the modern era.
• Here, first to present SB 1114, which is the SOGI Data Privacy Act.

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• Congress has yet to pass a privacy, data privacy law, which I think is absolutely embarrassing for the
• United States of America that we do not have a federal data privacy law in 2025.
• In 2016, SB 34 required agencies to adopt usage and privacy policies for ALPR data.
• This data, Risking the privacy of millions of law-abiding Californians.
• Systems by requiring operators to require data security training and data privacy training for all employees

Summary: The committee heard several AI- and consumer-protection-related bills, with extensive testimony from authors, supporters, and industry opponents. SB 53 by Senator Wiener would create transparency requirements for large AI developers, including disclosure of safety and security protocols, reporting of critical safety incidents, whistleblower protections, and the CalCompute public cloud. Supporters said it is a narrower, transparency-based follow-up to last year’s vetoed AI safety bill, while opponents argued it still relies too much on company size, could expose trade secrets, and should be narrowed further. The committee approved SB 53 on a do-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations, with the roll held open for absent members. SB 766 by Senator Allen would codify the FTC’s Cars Rule and create a three-day cooling-off period for certain used-car purchases, along with stronger disclosure rules on pricing, add-ons, and government affiliation claims. Supporters said it would save consumers money and time and help buyers avoid bad deals, while dealer and industry groups said amendments addressed many of their concerns. Several former opponents moved to neutral, and the committee passed SB 766 unanimously as amended to Appropriations. SB 7 by Senator McNerney would regulate automated decision-making systems in employment by requiring notice, human review for discipline and termination, and limits on predictive behavior analysis. Labor and consumer advocates supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or overly automated workplace decisions, while employer and industry groups raised concerns about scope, notice burdens, and the predictive-analysis ban. The committee passed SB 7 to Appropriations on a 4-2 vote, with the roll held open. SB 833, also by Senator McNerney, would require human oversight of AI used in critical infrastructure, along with training and system assessments; it drew limited opposition focused on scope, and the committee passed it as amended to Appropriations on a 5-0 vote, also holding the roll open. Later, the committee took up SB 11, which would address AI-generated voice, image, and video cloning and deepfakes by clarifying likeness protections, requiring consumer warnings, and addressing misuse and evidence tampering. Supporters framed it as a targeted response to nonconsensual deepfakes, while industry groups said recent amendments improved the bill but still had concerns about penalties and warning language. The committee also heard SB 720, the Safer Streets Act, which would let cities opt into a revised red-light camera system that shifts from driver to owner liability, removes facial identification, makes violations civil rather than criminal, and directs revenue toward transportation safety projects; the author presented the bill, but the transcript ends before any final action on SB 720.

Bills: SB2097, SB2317, SB2319, SB2177, SB2190, SB2424, SB2524, SB2627, SB3084, SB895, SB896, SB3102, SB3157, SB3215, SB2050, SB2090, SB2211, SB2572, SB2096, SB2025, SB2127, SB2046, SB2262, SB2354, SB2387, SB2487, SB2955, SB3234, SB2851, SB2573, SB2391, SB3282, SB3055, SB2189, SB2194, SB3152, SB2635, SB888, SB2203, SCR1, SCR2, SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7, SCR8, SCR9, SCR10, SCR11, SCR12, SCR13, SCR14, SCR15, SCR16, SCR17, SCR18, SCR19, SCR20, SCR21, SCR22, SR3, SR5, SR6, SR7, SR8, SR9, SR10, SR11, SR12, SR13, SR14, SR15, SR16, SR17, SR18, SR19, SB2010, SB3118, SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing

Bills: SB2097, SB2317, SB2319, SB2177, SB2190, SB2424, SB2524, SB2627, SB3084, SB895, SB896, SB3102, SB3157, SB3215, SB2050, SB2090, SB2211, SB2572, SB2096, SB2025, SB2127, SB2046, SB2262, SB2354, SB2387, SB2487, SB2955, SB3234, SB2851, SB2573, SB2391, SB3282, SB3055, SB2189, SB2194, SB3152, SB2635, SB888, SB2203, SCR1, SCR2, SCR3, SCR4, SCR5, SCR6, SCR7, SCR8, SCR9, SCR10, SCR11, SCR12, SCR13, SCR14, SCR15, SCR16, SCR17, SCR18, SCR19, SCR20, SCR21, SCR22, SR3, SR5, SR6, SR7, SR8, SR9, SR10, SR11, SR12, SR13, SR14, SR15, SR16, SR17, SR18, SR19, SB2010, SB3118, SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing