Bills: SJR34, SB10, SB18, SB19, SB21, SB72, SB140, SB262, SB370, SB480, SB495, SB627, SB703, SB767, SB790

Keywords: parental rights, parents, children, custody, care and control, upbringing, family law, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, child welfare, education policy, medical decisions, parental authority, primary decision makers, family autonomy, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display, First Amendment

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

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:

• It is not misleading.
• It is not misleading.
• That is not misleading. I reject the premise of this amendment.
• said, it's a misleading Women's Act.
• When we talk like that on this House floor, that's misleading.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is not misleading.
• so the deception and the misleading so the deception and the misleading practices<01:43:15.400><
• pregnancy centers and is it misleading pregnancy centers and is it misleading I'll<01:44:12.480>
• is not misleading is it misleading<01:44:34.320> on<01:44:34.480> how<01:44:34.599>
• /c><01:45:00.199> telling misleading is it misleading in telling misleading is it misleading in

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It is not misleading.
• It is not misleading.
• It is not misleading.
• <00:25:01.679> but can often not only be misleading but can often not only be misleading but
• To say that this is a deception, misleading, and deceiving—one of your members said it's a misleading

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think it’s misleading to this discussion to say that...”
• And so I think it is misleading not to clarify that vote by mail will be impacted.
• So to me, it is very misleading. ...for the discussion, members.
• Without it, I feel it's misleading.
• This is very misleading. This is completely... This is very misleading.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think it's misleading to this discussion to say that...
• And so I think it is misleading not to clarify that vote by mail will be impacted.
• So to me, it is very misleading. To me, it is very misleading. For the discussion, members?
• Without it, I feel it's misleading.
• This is very misleading. This is completely... ...this is very misleading.

Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:06:46.199> and misleading and misleading and deceptive<00:06:48.000> so<00:06:48.199
• If we go to page nine, here's the problem of misleading.
• If we go to page nine, here's the problem of misleading.
• HB 4022 seeks to avoid misleading EFA families.
• HB 4022 seeks to avoid misleading EFA families.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a public hearing on HB 402, a bill dealing with whether Education Freedom Account (EFA) payments should be described in state law as not constituting taxable income. The bill sponsor argued that the current statute is misleading because New Hampshire should not imply a federal tax result, and said the bill would remove that language and could also be amended to clarify that families should consult tax advisors. He emphasized that the measure was not intended to impose a state tax on EFAs, but to avoid giving inaccurate advice about possible federal tax liability. Testimony was divided. A retired representative and a tax preparer both opposed the bill, saying EFA payments are already treated consistently with IRS rules and that the bill would create confusion, administrative burden, and possible tax consequences for low- and moderate-income families. They argued the bill is a solution in search of a problem and warned that requiring 1099s could add costs for the scholarship organization and recipients. A tax attorney supported the bill’s repeal of the state language, saying New Hampshire should not put tax advice into statute and that the current wording is inaccurate because federal law, not state law, controls taxability. He cited IRS Section 117 and Publication 970, explaining that only some scholarship-like payments are tax-free and that many EFA-eligible expenses may not qualify for federal exemption. Members asked questions about what would be misleading, whether the bill was trying to tax EFAs, and the cost of issuing 1099s. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly said the bill was not a state tax on voucher payments, but a clarification about federal tax treatment. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and candidates from AI-generated misinformation, notably synthetic media specifically designed to mislead
• the public the bill requires mislead the public the bill requires clear<00:04:58.280> disclosures
• <00:15:40.600> but<00:15:40.759> the the ad is not misleading but the the ad is not
• misleading but the candidate<00:15:41.319> wants<00:15:41.600> to<00:15:41.759> ER<
• despite the fact potentially misleading despite the fact that<00:15:54.360> it<00:15:54.480><

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Roll Call 00:36 SB 4 Discussion 01:16 SB 4 Vote 28:30 SB 130 Discussion 31:18 SB 130 Discussion 36:02, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 4, as amended by a committee substitute, which would create a state artificial intelligence governance framework for Kentucky government agencies and address AI-generated misinformation in campaigns and elections. The bill’s sponsors said it is intended to regulate only state government use of AI, not the private sector, and would require oversight by the Office of Technology, agency reporting, and annual reporting to the General Assembly. They also said the elections provisions were narrowed to focus on AI-generated audio and video, remove image disclosures, eliminate prior restraint and monetary damages, and rely on disclosure requirements modeled on laws they said had survived constitutional review in Texas. Testimony on SB 4 was mixed. Supporters emphasized transparency, human accountability, and the need to prepare state government for rapidly changing AI tools, citing possible uses such as fraud detection, inmate classification, and transportation planning. An opponent from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression argued the bill would burden core political speech, create First Amendment problems, and invite litigation and abuse, especially in the election context. Members asked about litigation, constitutional concerns, costs, and whether the bill should be expanded later to cover ordinary citizens harmed by AI-generated content. Several members expressed support but noted reservations about the election sections or the need for future amendments. After discussion, the committee voted on SB 4 and reported it favorably. The roll call showed the measure passing with favorable expression, with some members explaining votes as supportive but cautious, and one member initially passing before later recording a yes vote. The chair then moved to Senate Bill 130, and Senator Scott Maiden and Kentucky Retail Federation representative Shannon Stiglets began presenting it as a response to gift card scams and theft of redemption information, describing recent large-scale supermarket fraud cases in Kentucky and saying the problem is tied to broader organized retail crime.

Transcript Highlights:

• Found this very misleading.
• Once I came to New America, misleading.
• It's often inconsistent, confusing, and in some cases misleading.
• of misleading of misleading information.<01:13:02.000> The<01:13:02.239> letter<01
• Misleading information, leading to unnecessary debt and financial hardship.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• counties come before us in this committee, what we heard today, and whether purposefully or not, mislead
• importantly than just us in this room, who we represent, can they go back to those communities and mislead
• counties come before us in this committee, what we heard today, and whether purposefully or not, mislead
• counties come before us in this committee, what we heard today, and whether purposefully or not, mislead
• counties come before us in this committee, what we heard today, and whether purposefully or not, mislead

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Representative Hicks presented House File 4194, which would change how Rochester’s approved local option sales tax funds could be used for a regional athletics facility. Hicks argued the city’s 2023 ballot materials promised substantial community and stakeholder engagement and an indoor/outdoor community recreation complex, but that the project shifted to an outdoor-only plan without meaningful public input. She said the bill was needed to center Rochester residents’ voices and prevent a precedent of approved projects being changed after the vote. Rochester City Council President Randy Schubring opposed the bill, saying the city is following the 2023 authorization and building as much as possible within the approved funding. He said the ballot question passed with 53% support and urged the committee not to overturn local election results, while asking lawmakers to work with the city and Rochester delegation on the remaining funding shortfall. Testifier Kamau Wilkins also opposed the city’s current direction, saying voters were promised indoor recreation facilities but are now getting mostly outdoor baseball diamonds, which he described as a bait-and-switch. Several members supported Hicks’ concerns, saying legislators have a duty to ensure local sales tax projects match what voters were told. Representative Lee raised a broader issue about legislative oversight of local option sales taxes and referenced a possible St. Paul-related fix. Hicks closed by saying she supported the tax originally but no longer believes the project matches what voters approved. The committee then laid House File 4194 over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is misleading advertising, and this is being targeted to our children right now.
• The tsunami of misleading ads is in the compounding weight loss space.
• An ad without safety information is still misleading to consumers.
• One, with the misleading ads, we are trying to attempt to put some guardrails up.
• One with the misleading ads, we are trying to attempt to put some guard rails up.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My bill aims to prohibit misleading caller ID practices and decrease the number of fraudulent calls consumers
• Specifically, the bill creates section 364.242 in the Florida Statutes titled 'Misleading or Inaccurate
• Specifically, the bill creates section 364.242 in Florida statute titled misleading or inaccurate caller
• Section 20 continues: Section 364.242 in Florida Statutes, titled “Misleading or Inaccurate Caller Identification
• This new statute mandates that a telecommunications company may not use inaccurate or misleading caller

Bills: S0888, S1516, S1562

Keywords: professional services, design professionals, contracting parties, indemnification, public policy, caller identification, telecommunications, fraud prevention, STIR/SHAKEN, telecom regulations, call blocking, consumer protection, motor vehicle, franchise, dealership, distribution, licensee, successor, franchise agreement

Summary: The Commerce and Tourism Committee met with all members present and took up three bills. On Senate Bill 1562, as amended by a strike-all, Senator Trumbull explained that the measure would apply only to new vehicle brands and would limit any one dealer or dealer group to no more than one-third of statewide sales after a brand reaches 1,000 vehicles in Florida, with the stated goal of promoting competition and preventing manufacturers from concentrating sales through a single dealer. The committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably. Senator Smith later asked to be recorded in the negative on this bill, and Senator Yarbrough asked to be recorded in the affirmative on SB 1562 and SB 888. The committee then heard Senate Bill 888 by Senator Martin, which would limit professional services contracts for architects, engineers, surveyors, and landscape architects so they are liable only for their own negligence or that of those under their supervision, extend those protections from public to private contracts, void broader indemnity clauses, require a professional standard of care, and prohibit additional-insured requirements. There was no debate or opposition, and the bill was reported favorably. Finally, Senator Garcia presented Senate Bill 1516 on caller identification information, citing the volume of robocalls and fraud losses among older adults. The bill would prohibit misleading caller ID practices, require telecommunications companies to provide accurate originating number and location information, create penalties for violations, and require STIR/SHAKEN authentication or a comparable framework. Two appearance forms were filed in support from the Elder Law Section of The Florida Bar and AARP, and Senator Smith voiced support during debate. The committee reported the bill favorably. The meeting concluded with closing remarks and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:06:46.199> and misleading and misleading and deceptive<00:06:48.000> so<00:06:48.199
• If we go to page nine, here's the problem of misleading.
• If we go to page nine, here's the problem of misleading.
• HB 4022 seeks to avoid misleading EFA families.
• Oh, come on. misleading EFA families it seeks to misleading EFA families it seeks to protect<00:37:52.640

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, we can, as states, regulate speech that's false or misleading.
• We can impose other restrictions if there is something inherently misleading about the advertising, or
• Now, we can also regulate non-misleading commercial speech, but there has to be a substantial government
• So as you can see, a lot of our rules are based on misleading advertising, because that is where we know
• or what experience is misleading, what behavior is inherently misleading, or what experience demonstrating

Summary: The Judiciary Committee met with a quorum present and Senator Thompson excused. The committee first considered Senate Bill 48 by Senator Garcia on judicial sales and procedures. Garcia explained a delete-all amendment that would create clearer statewide procedures for alternative judicial sales, increase transparency, remove bidding credits, extend sale timelines, and add oversight for auctioneers and escrow agents to prevent fraud and collusion. After no questions or opposition, the amendment was adopted, Senator Pasadoma said the rewrite addressed many of his concerns, and the committee then voted CS for SB 48 favorably with unanimous yes votes from members present. The committee then received a presentation from the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office on the effectiveness of Florida’s recent anti-squatting law, House Bill 621/SB 888. Presenters described several cases in which deputies used the new process to remove unlawful occupants, including a false landlord report, a long-term fake lease situation, and a more recent unlawful occupancy case. They said the law has helped protect property owners and potential victims, but suggested technical changes: clearer authorization for deputies to enter and use force if needed, and a fix to the affidavit penalty provision because false statements are currently being charged as false reports rather than perjury under the existing wording. The Florida Bar also presented on its role in regulating lawyers, lawyer advertising, and the unlicensed practice of law. Bar leaders explained that the Bar operates under the Florida Supreme Court’s authority, is funded by member fees, and handles complaints through a multi-step process involving intake, branch offices, grievance committees, referees, and final Supreme Court review. They described advertising review procedures, discipline statistics, consumer assistance, the Clients’ Security Fund, and enforcement against unlicensed practice. Senators asked about the Legislature’s authority over lawyer advertising, the prevalence of legal ads, the role of public members on grievance committees, and how those members are selected and used.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this language is misleading.
• And this language is misleading... ...bad, and this language is misleading.
• I want to go back to the ballot summary and how misleading it is.
• Why do you think it’s not misleading to say, um, save our homes, “Why do you think it's not misleading
• I do not believe it's misleading at all.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If there is fall speech misleading speech, if you are soliciting people to engage in illegal activities
• We can as states regulate speech that's false or misleading. We can impose other restrictions.
• If there is something inherently misleading about the advertising or if we can demonstrate 3 of surveys
• We can also regulate non misleading commercial speech.
• or experience what behaviors inherently misleading or his experience demonstrating and advertising the

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1050 requires labeling of all ads that use synthetic performers, not just those which are misleading
• Our view is that the harm is that it's misleading to the consumer, potentially misleading to the consumer
• And it being a synthetic or digitally created being inherently misleads the consumer.
• Our view is that the harm is it's misleading to the consumer, potentially misleading to the consumer.
• digitally created being inherently, inheriting. synthetic or digitally created bean, inherently misleads

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard a long agenda focused largely on artificial intelligence, consumer transparency, and privacy protections. The committee first took up consent items, then heard SB 1050, which would require disclosures in advertisements that use AI-generated or synthetic performers. Supporters, including SAG-AFTRA, Teamsters, Common Sense Media, and the Music Artists Coalition, argued consumers should know when an ad uses a synthetic person and that the bill protects workers and honesty in advertising. Opponents from TechNet, the Motion Picture Association, broadcasters, and business groups said the bill was too broad, lacked a deception standard, created enforcement and compliance concerns, and should include carve-outs and stronger guardrails. The bill passed out on a divided vote. The committee then heard SB 1111, which would create liability and remedies for nonconsensual use of a person’s voice or likeness to create digital replicas or deepfakes. Supporters said the bill addresses a growing problem of exploitative AI-generated sexual content and gives victims clear legal standing; there was no opposition testimony. SB 867, a proposal to place a four-year moratorium on AI chatbot-powered toys, drew support from children’s advocates, pediatricians, and media-safety groups, who said the Legislature should pause before exposing children to potentially harmful products. Business and civil-justice groups raised concerns about broad definitions and unintended consequences, but the bill advanced after members discussed the need for clearer guardrails. Later, the committee heard SB 1247, which would let people who were monetized as child influencers delete content featuring their image and likeness once they turn 18. Supporters framed it as a privacy and healing measure for children whose lives were shared online for profit, and there was no opposition. SB 1146 would require disclosures in health-related ads that use AI-generated or synthetic depictions of health care providers; medical and pediatric groups supported it as a way to combat deceptive health misinformation, and it also passed without opposition. The committee also heard SB 1000, updating California’s AI Transparency Act to align disclosure and provenance standards with evolving technology and international practices, and SB 957, which would require social media companies to notify users before complying with certain federal administrative subpoenas and give them time to challenge them. SB 957 drew support from civil liberties and privacy groups and opposition from one member concerned about federal law-enforcement impacts; both bills advanced, along with the others heard, with roll calls left open for absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 1050 requires labeling of all ads that use synthetic performers, not just those which are misleading
• SB 1050 requires labeling of all ads that use synthetic performers, not just those which are misleading
• Through the Chair, our view is that the harm is that it is potentially misleading to the consumer.
• real person that's benefited from a product, and being synthetic or digitally created inherently misleads
• to the consumer potentially misleading to the consumer the consumer may be assuming that the individual

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard a long agenda focused largely on AI-related consumer protection, child safety, and privacy bills. Members first adopted the consent calendar, then took up SB 1050, which would require disclosures when advertisements use AI-generated or synthetic performers. Supporters, including SAG-AFTRA, Common Sense Media, and labor groups, said consumers should know when an ad depicts a non-human performer and that the bill protects both consumers and workers. Opponents from TechNet, the Motion Picture Association, broadcasters, and business groups argued the bill was too broad, lacked a deception standard, could burden accessibility uses and short audio ads, and created litigation risk. The committee voted the bill out on a party-line-leaning roll, with several members noting concerns but supporting continued work on the measure. The committee also approved SB 1111, which creates liability and remedies for non-consensual digital replicas using a person’s voice or likeness, and SB 1146, which targets deceptive AI-generated health advertisements that depict synthetic health care providers. Both measures drew support from consumer, labor, medical, and child-safety advocates and faced no formal opposition. Members emphasized the need to prevent deepfake abuse, especially in health-related ads where consumers could be misled into trusting fake doctors or medical endorsements. Several child- and privacy-focused bills were also heard and advanced. SB 867 would place a four-year moratorium on AI chatbot-powered toys for children, with supporters warning about harmful content, addictive design, and privacy risks; some opposition raised definitional concerns and asked for clearer standards. SB 1247 would give child influencers the right to delete monetized content posted during their minority, and it moved forward without opposition. SB 1000 updated California’s AI Transparency Act to align content provenance rules with newer technology and international standards, with support from Google and Adobe and no opposition. Finally, SB 957 would require social media companies to notify users when the federal government seeks their data through administrative subpoenas, give users time to challenge the request, and report disclosures; supporters framed it as a First Amendment and due process protection, while one member opposed it as an overreach against federal law enforcement. All of the measures discussed were reported out of committee, with several rolls left open for absent members.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this is misleading.
• I want to go back to the ballot summary and how misleading it is.
• Why do you think it's not misleading to say, um, save our homes, Why do you think it's not misleading
• And so isn't it, again, a misleading part of the ballot summary to say we're... ...a misleading part
• I do not believe it's misleading at all.

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, a proposed constitutional amendment to reduce property taxes by lowering assessment caps on non-homestead property, expanding homestead exemptions over time, and allowing local governments to increase exemptions further. The sponsor argued the measure would provide broad property tax relief while requiring revenues to be directed to core services such as public safety, education, infrastructure, and natural resource projects, with a trust fund intended to help local governments transition. Senators raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal score, the effect on counties, cities, school districts, and special districts, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. Several amendments were debated. Senator Polsky’s amendment to explicitly authorize user fees and non-ad valorem assessments to offset lost property tax revenue failed. Senator Avila’s amendment broadening permissible uses of ad valorem revenue to include county constitutional officers and other expenditures approved by local governing bodies was adopted after debate over whether the bill would otherwise underfund essential functions. Senator Smith’s sunset amendment, which would have made the constitutional changes expire after five years, failed. Senator Smith’s amendment to allow tourism development tax revenue to support public safety and education also failed. Senator Graal’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund language was adopted, with supporters arguing the Constitution should not promise an unfunded account. Additional late-file amendments were considered. Senator Berman’s proposal to change the ballot title to more neutrally describe the measure as affecting property taxes and local community service reductions failed. Senator Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal was adopted, preserving school taxes. Senator Smith’s amendment narrowing the non-homestead assessment cap reduction to small businesses only failed. The committee then returned to the bill as amended and continued questioning the sponsor about eligibility, fiscal impacts, and whether the proposal could lead to local governments offsetting lost revenue through special assessments or other charges.