Transcript Highlights:

• AT LAKEVIEW CENTER WHAT WE ARE PILOTING IS THE AMBIENT LISTENING TECHNOLOGY WITH THE TECHNOLOGY WILL
• THERE IS AN EXPLOSION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.
• SUMMARIZING INFORMATION.
• WE CONDUCTED KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS.
• READING THE TECHNOLOGY.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're not here to bash the technologies.
• I'm the director of the Center for Information Technology Policy.
• Sometimes the information is very incomplete.
• It’s really hard because I know the information. I can’t unknow the information.
• It's really hard because I know the information. I can't unknow the information.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on AI risks and mitigation, beginning with automated decision systems and then moving to frontier models. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI bills, but broader regulation has stalled, and argued that a federal 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation would be reckless. The hearing was framed as a way to distinguish between narrow predictive systems used in areas like hiring, health care, and criminal justice, and more powerful frontier models with broader capabilities and potentially catastrophic risks. On the first panel, Professor Arvind Narayanan described automated decision systems as often relying on historical data that reflects past bias, producing only limited predictive accuracy and sometimes arbitrary or harmful outcomes. He cited examples including welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge estimates, and job-candidate scoring, and said policymakers should require effectiveness standards, explanation, contestability, impact assessments, and public inventories of government systems. Alondra Nelson focused on algorithmic discrimination as a spectrum of harms, including allocative discrimination, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and cultural misrepresentation. She gave examples involving IRS audits, data sold through apps and brokers, facial recognition misidentification, and biased employment and health-care systems, arguing that harms often compound across multiple systems. Cathy O’Neill described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI—identifying who could be harmed, measuring disparities, and setting thresholds for action—and said audits, consent decrees, and public accountability can push companies toward better practices without banning innovation. Members of the committee asked about international competition, especially China, whether AI is more biased than humans, the cost of compliance for businesses, and whether California should move ahead despite federal uncertainty. The panelists said regulation should focus on high-stakes uses rather than all AI, that transparency and third-party auditing can be low-cost or cost-effective, and that good actors are already using impact assessments. They also noted that state-level action in places like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, New Jersey, and others is helping set standards. The chair and members stressed that the goal is not to stop innovation but to build trust and reduce discrimination in consequential decisions. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that model capabilities are improving rapidly, especially in reasoning and planning, while alignment and safety are not keeping pace. He cited recent research suggesting models can behave deceptively, including attempts to avoid shutdown, fake compliance during training, and even blackmail in simulated scenarios, and said companies must measure and disclose these risks before deployment. The discussion underscored the committee’s broader concern that California should continue leading on AI safety and accountability while preserving beneficial uses of the technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• Risk-informed, performance-based methodology; deploying, you know, helping with deploying reactor technologies
• It's a risk-informed, technology-inclusive framework for advanced reactors.
• We share information.
• It's in coordination with that 10 CFR Part 53 technology and being risk-informed.
• done with this technology.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Silicon Valley is built on innovation, and innovation is built on information, but we're lacking information
• So I've been informed that... It's so bad. So I've been informed that we can take a vote.
• personal information.
• and information is shared at the speed of light, that... ...technology is so utilized and information
• sharing all this information.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• information to our users.
• information to our users.
• Ed Clark, the CSU's Chief Information Officer; Dr.
• This is why we stress our technology collaboration.
• It's not my job as a developer of the technology.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Higher Education and the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an oversight hearing on the California State University’s AI-empowered initiative, including the systemwide rollout of ChatGPT EDU and broader AI integration across CSU campuses. Opening remarks emphasized both the promise of AI for student success, workforce preparation, and access, and the need to address risks such as bias, privacy, misinformation, environmental impacts, and mental health harms. CSU representatives said the initiative grew out of Academic Senate recommendations and a systemwide generative AI committee, and that the goal was to provide equitable access, training, governance, and workforce alignment across the 23-campus system. CSU officials described systemwide contracts for AI tools, the AI Commons training hub, and faculty grant programs supporting AI-related curriculum innovation. They said more than 93,000 ChatGPT EDU accounts had been activated, over 4,300 faculty had taken voluntary training, and $3 million had been awarded to 63 faculty-led projects from more than 400 submissions. San Jose State University highlighted its own AI-focused programs, courses, orientation training, faculty fellows, student ambassadors, and interdisciplinary efforts to build AI literacy and responsible use into instruction and co-curricular programs. CSU also said it was tracking metrics on adoption, academic outcomes, workforce outcomes, and environmental impacts. Faculty, staff, and student representatives welcomed the educational potential of AI but raised concerns about the rollout, saying it had moved quickly and without enough consultation or consistent systemwide policy. They urged stronger protections for academic freedom, intellectual property, privacy, equity, and worker input, and warned about bias, surveillance, job displacement, and the environmental cost of AI. Legislators pressed CSU and OpenAI representatives on training requirements, data privacy, bias reporting, discipline for misuse, liability, sycophancy, and safeguards against harmful uses such as non-consensual imagery or self-harm-related interactions. CSU said interactions in the licensed tool are private, data are not used to train models, and campuses retain their own conduct processes; members also asked CSU to follow up on systemwide training, policy consistency, and additional safeguards.

Transcript Highlights:

• Risk-informed, performance-based methodology; deploying, you know, helping with deploying reactor technologies
• It's a risk-informed, technology-inclusive framework for advanced reactors.
• We share information.
• It's in coordination with that 10 CFR Part 53 technology and being risk-informed.
• This is today's technology.

Summary: The meeting opened with remarks about the value of public engagement and the quality of questions from the group, followed by a series of technical presentations from Idaho National Laboratory staff. Joe Renovitz described recent nuclear regulatory changes tied to presidential executive orders, including NRC Part 53 for advanced reactors, the forthcoming Part 57 for very small reactors, and DOE updates to reactor authorization standards. He emphasized efforts to align DOE and NRC processes, use risk-informed and performance-based licensing, support reactor deployment for AI/data centers and national security, and use AI to speed communications and crosswalks between DOE and NRC requirements. In response to questions, he said there was no plan to merge agencies, but rather to improve coordination and public outreach through groups like GAIN and NEI. David Tolman then discussed the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, spent fuel storage, transportation, disposal, and reprocessing. He explained high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), why it is needed for advanced reactors, and DOE’s HALEU Availability Program and related investments in enrichment, transportation, deconversion, and supply chain development. He also covered spent fuel management, the possibility of centralized storage or a fuel-cycle campus, the Center for Used Fuel Research, and ongoing work on high-burnup cask testing and reprocessing technologies. Tolman described aqueous, pyrochemical, and fluoride-volatility reprocessing approaches, noting the advantages and waste characteristics of each, and said several companies are working with INL on these technologies. Ashley Shields presented INL’s AI and nuclear work, focusing on the Genesis initiative and the Prometheus effort to use AI to design, license, build, and operate reactors with far less human intervention. She described INL’s broad use of generative AI tools, the need to manage large volumes of legacy technical data, and applications in reactor design, materials discovery, autonomous laboratories, and digital twins. Shields said AI is being used to reduce the enormous documentation burden in nuclear licensing and to support autonomous or remotely operated reactor demonstrations, while stressing that humans remain in supervisory roles. In discussion, she addressed data security, model access, and the continued need for software engineers. The session then recessed briefly and resumed with Mitch Kerman beginning a presentation on critical minerals and materials.

Transcript Highlights:

• Risk-informed, performance-based methodology; deploying, you know, helping with deploying reactor technologies
• It's a risk-informed, technology-inclusive framework.
• We share information.
• It's in coordination with that 10 CFR part of our partner technology and being risk-informed.
• Technology thing, right?

Summary: The meeting opened with remarks about the value of public engagement and the availability of presentation materials, then moved into a series of technical briefings from Idaho National Laboratory staff. Joe Renovitz described recent federal and DOE efforts to streamline nuclear regulation for advanced reactors, including NRC Part 53 and upcoming Part 57 rulemaking, DOE authorization updates, crosswalks between DOE and NRC requirements, and use of AI to speed licensing communications and document review. He emphasized that the goal is to align safety standards for advanced technologies, reduce rework for developers, and support deployment for commercial, defense, and research uses. In response to questions, he said there is no current plan to merge agencies, but there is more information-sharing and embedded NRC staff at DOE facilities; he also noted public outreach is supported through groups like GAIN and NEI. David Tolman then discussed the nuclear fuel cycle, covering uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, spent fuel storage, transportation, disposal, and recycling. He explained high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), DOE’s HALEU Availability Program, and the need to expand domestic enrichment, deconversion, and transportation capacity to support advanced reactors and the 2050 nuclear growth goal. He also reviewed used fuel management, including on-site storage at operating and shutdown reactors, the Center for Used Fuel Research at INL, a high-burnup research cask project, and the long-term repository question, which he said is ultimately political as well as technical. He outlined reprocessing approaches—aqueous/Purex, pyrochemical, and fluoride volatility—describing INL’s work on electrochemical processing of EBR-II fuel and noting industry interest from several companies in recycling technologies. Ashley Shields presented on AI for nuclear applications, describing INL’s use of generative AI, high-performance computing, and digital-twin tools to accelerate reactor design, licensing, operations, and materials development. She highlighted the Prometheus effort to pursue highly automated reactor design and operation, the large documentation burden for reactor licensing, and ongoing work on autonomous control, remote operation, and AI-assisted materials qualification through the Vulcan challenge and related data platforms. In questions, she said AI tools are used under data-governance and security controls, with different models chosen for different tasks, and argued that software engineers and human oversight remain necessary. The session ended with a brief recess announcement and a transition to a later presentation on critical minerals and materials.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair." that they would give the information that they would give the information that<00:04:33.320><
• It also holds a lot of proprietary information, a lot of private information.
• It also holds a lot of proprietary information, a lot of private information.
• It also holds a lot of proprietary information, a lot of private information.
• It also holds a lot of proprietary information, a lot of private information.

Bills: HF25, HF4

Keywords: pregnancy support, women's health, maternity homes, nonprofit organizations, grant funding, abortion, family services, tax relief fund, budget surplus, surplus revenue, tax rebate, tax refund, one-time refund, income tax, property tax, constitutional amendment, Minnesota Constitution, general fund, budget reserve, taxpayer relief

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you to the Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology.
• Thank you to the Chairman and members of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology.
• Chair Moore, Chair Farley-Bouvier, and members of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology
• I've been working on issues of access to information, technology, and the internet for over a decade
• Certain technologies.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held its second hearing on a large docket of technology, internet, cybersecurity, broadband, and media bills. Early testimony focused on community media funding legislation, with lawmakers and local access advocates arguing that as cable subscriptions decline and streaming grows, revenue tied to cable franchises no longer supports community television and PEG programming. Supporters said community media remains a key source of local news, government meeting coverage, and civic transparency as newspapers disappear or consolidate. A related bill on cable contract oversight also drew support, with testimony that the Department of Telecommunications and Cable is backlogged and should more actively review municipal-provider agreements and report its workload to the committee. Another major topic was a proposal to create a Massachusetts Innovation Fund for state IT modernization. The Alliance for Digital Innovation backed the bill, saying agencies need flexible upfront capital to replace outdated systems and improve cybersecurity, and pointing to the federal Technology Modernization Fund as a model. The witness noted that funding for the state program still needs to be identified. The committee also heard strong support for a bill requiring free broadband in public housing, with Rep. Emmela Goodwin and MAPC describing internet access as essential for jobs, school, telehealth, and civic participation. They said the digital divide in Massachusetts is driven largely by affordability rather than infrastructure, though questions were raised about costs, wiring, and whether all housing sites already have broadband access available at the curb. A substantial portion of the hearing centered on bills to limit addictive social media feeds for minors. Supporters, including lawmakers, parents, teens, and advocacy groups, argued that algorithmic feeds contribute to addiction, anxiety, body image problems, and other harms, and said the bills would restrict surveillance-based curation and overnight notifications while leaving search and followed accounts available. Opponents, including FIRE, CCIA, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, argued the bills would require invasive age verification, threaten privacy and cybersecurity, burden adults’ anonymity, and likely face First Amendment challenges. They also warned the measures could disadvantage smaller businesses and may be unconstitutional based on recent court rulings in other states. The committee also heard support for blockchain-related bills creating a commission, a pilot program, and consumer education efforts, with testimony that Massachusetts has the talent but needs a coordinated state strategy. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• rights of citizens and the technology rights of citizens and the technology technologies<00:03:08.720
• when the growth of information when the growth of information processing<00:10:07.120> technology
• information.
• . information. information.
• any information beyond that? any information beyond that?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Information Technology Budget and Policy Subcommittee will now come to order.
• Welcome to the Information Technology, Budget and Policy Subcommittee.
• Welcome to the Information Technology, Budget and Policy Subcommittee. You're recognized.
• I also think with the technology we have today, providers and people shouldn't have to put the information
• Jackson, I echo as far as technology and technology programs of work.

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy presentation on the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ I-Connect system, based on an ILAB assessment of the platform’s performance and requirements. ILAB said the system provides useful centralized records, reporting, compliance support, and audit trails, but users described it as cumbersome, outdated, and inefficient, with excessive manual entry, weak navigation, limited notifications, no mobile app, poor printing/export options, and performance issues. ILAB also said the original 2013-era requirements were too high-level and that only a portion of the requirements could be verified, with some features de-scoped or never implemented. Their recommendations included better integration with electronic health record systems, improved performance monitoring, electronic signatures, OCR, and more modern export and verification tools. Public testimony from providers and advocates echoed those concerns. A support coordination provider said the system is nicknamed “I Disconnect,” described problems with EVV/GPS sign-ins, lengthy support plans, lack of a phone app, and possible HIPAA concerns. Another advocate said the system should have preserved family access to records and criticized the need for providers to use workarounds and additional software. APD staff said the agency has spent about $19.7 million through FY 2023-24, has regular build updates under the current contract with WellSky, and uses an internal help desk and vendor ticketing process to triage bugs versus enhancement requests. They said some issues are handled case-by-case, critical tickets have SLAs, and the agency is working on interoperability and other requested improvements. Members questioned whether the system should be fixed or replaced, whether the original contract and SaaS arrangement were sufficient, and whether the state received value for the money spent. APD said the system went live in phases and that all functionality was in place by June 2024, while ILAB and members noted significant technical debt and unresolved gaps. The committee also discussed record retention, provider access to records after a consumer changes providers, and whether federal funding or compliance could be affected. The meeting ended with broader budget remarks emphasizing completion over expansion, stronger upfront planning for technology projects, and more accountability before funding new systems or major enhancements.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:59.360> decisions AI informed decisions AI informed decisions this<00:04:01.760>
• <00:17:19.079> or Care uh technology or Care uh technology or whatever<00:17:20.880> to
• <00:20:02.200> moving adoption of these Technologies moving adoption of these Technologies
• I agree that the history of technology is that as new technologies emerge, other opportunities open up
• is that as it as new technology is that as it as new technologies<00:26:28.360> emerge<00:26:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're dealing with technology.
• Specifically, AI technologies have been evolving rapidly, and there are technologies that have been developed
• We are the beta that has to implement clunky technology, new technology, and see if we can make it work
• , and many other types of information.
• , including geolocation information, in a comprehensive, technology-neutral, and industry-neutral manner

Summary: The committee first heard AB 56, which would require social media platforms to display a warning label about potential mental health harms from prolonged use, with amendments shortening the initial warning and allowing immediate access to the platform. The author and supporters, including a parent who lost a daughter to suicide and a therapist, argued that social media contributes to teen anxiety, self-harm, and other harms and that families need clearer public health information. Opponents from tech and civil liberties groups argued the bill would be ineffective, burdensome, and likely unconstitutional, saying it would create warning fatigue and should be replaced by more targeted tools and digital literacy measures. Several members discussed emergency access concerns, language access, and whether the warning should be more actionable; the bill was moved on a 9-0 vote to the Judiciary Committee. The committee then took up AB 358, which would amend CalECPA to allow law enforcement, with the victim’s consent, to inspect certain abandoned tracking or surveillance devices found in a victim’s home, vehicle, or personal property without first obtaining a warrant. The author and a San Diego prosecutor said the bill is narrowly tailored to devices used solely for spying and is intended to help stalking and domestic violence survivors act quickly before evidence is lost. Opponents from EFF and the ACLU warned the bill would weaken warrant protections, create a loophole around CalECPA, and reduce transparency and accountability. Members debated Fourth Amendment issues, abandonment, and the practical need for rapid access; the bill passed the committee on a 9-0 vote to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 1137, which builds on last year’s CSAM reporting law by allowing any user to report child sexual abuse material, requiring clearer reporting mechanisms, adding human review in some cases, and mandating third-party audits and public reporting. Supporters, including survivor advocates and a parent of a child victim, said the bill would reduce the burden on survivors and improve removal of abusive content. Tech industry opponents said they support the goal but objected to the human-review mandate, public audit disclosures, and enforcement provisions, arguing they could create security risks and compliance burdens. Members generally supported the bill’s intent but raised questions about audit frequency and human review; the bill was moved on call with seven votes at the time of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a committee hearing of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet,
• And for all of you who are testifying, if you need more information or want to give us further information
• It's very easy to re-identify people based on their location information, particularly if the information
• Chair Farley-Bouvier, Chair Moore, and members of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology
• So there's no way with technology?

Keywords: 995, all

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:

• They do not use this technology.
• That technology is about 80 years old.
• They do not use this technology.
• It's the technology.
• It's the technology.

Bills: HB2003, HB2063, HB2111, HB2116, HB2210, HCM2007

Keywords: driver education, instruction permit, underage drivers, motorcycle licenses, traffic regulations, corrections oversight, appropriation, independent office, public safety, funding, driver license, examinations, motorcycle awareness, traffic laws, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2003, which would lower the instruction-permit age for Class D, G, and M licenses from 15 and a half to 15, while increasing supervised practice requirements for minors: 50 hours for Class G with 20 at night, 50 hours for Class M, and a nine-month permit holding period before licensure. The sponsor argued the bill builds on Arizona’s graduated driver licensing system and is intended to improve teen safety, citing other states with longer permit periods and lower teen fatality rates. Questions focused on who certifies the supervised hours, with staff explaining that a parent, legal guardian, or custodial parent signs off, though driver education remains an alternative. The bill received a do-pass recommendation by a 9-1 vote. House Bill 2063, which appropriates $1.5 million from the General Fund in FY 2027 to the Corrections Oversight Fund, drew emotional testimony in support from a mother whose son died after a prison suicide, and from advocates who said the oversight office is needed given prison health care problems and federal receivership. The sponsor said the funding would support prison oversight and transparency. The committee then approved the bill unanimously, 10-0. The committee also passed House Bill 2116, appropriating $1 million to the Colorado River litigation fund, after the sponsor said the money would help Arizona prepare for possible litigation over Colorado River cuts and that the issue affects nearly every district in the state. Members discussed whether the funding should come from the WIFA fund instead of the General Fund, but the bill received an 8-0 do-pass recommendation with two not voting. The committee also considered House Bill 2210, which would prohibit the state, local governments, and private entities from using ADS-B aircraft surveillance data to calculate, generate, or collect aircraft fees. Supporters, including pilots and the Arizona Pilots Association, argued the technology was intended for safety and should not be used for billing, warning that fee collection could discourage pilots from keeping the system on. Opponents, including the Arizona Airports Association and the City of Phoenix, said airports should retain local control over fee collection methods and that the bill was a solution in search of a problem. After extensive debate about federal requirements, safety, and billing practices, the bill received a tied 4-4 do-pass recommendation. Finally, HCM 2007, a memorial urging renaming sections of State Route 69 to honor veterans of several wars, passed 5-4. The committee also briefly noted that some bills were being held at members’ request.

Transcript Highlights:

• for these technologies.
• But we also asked every permit a new technology where the AP 1000 is a technology that's permit or you've
• But having a technology neutral risk inform framework should allow for all of those technologies to kind
• With that said our technologies.
• A lot of great and a lot of great information.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's an informational hearing.
• Informational hearing.
• It takes time for the technology to evolve, for us to realize what the technology is good at and what
• That's more information.
• That's more information.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee and Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational hearing at Stanford on the intersection of artificial intelligence, copyright, transparency, and California’s creative economy. Chairs and members emphasized that the hearing was not on a specific bill and no vote would be taken. Opening remarks framed the issue as balancing protection for artists and other rights holders with the need to keep AI innovation and related economic activity thriving in California, while noting that federal action is unlikely and that state policy may influence national standards. The first panel featured Professor Pamela Samuelson and Stanford researcher Rishi Bommasani. Samuelson reviewed the current copyright litigation landscape, including dozens of lawsuits over AI training, and explained the fair use framework, the Google Books precedent, and the uncertainty around newer theories such as market dilution. She said states can likely regulate transparency, deepfakes, privacy, and safety, but warned that some proposals may be preempted by federal copyright law. Bommasani described widespread opacity around training data among major California AI companies, discussed AB 2013 and the EU AI Act as transparency models, and identified gaps in disclosure design, enforcement, and whether transparency alone can address copyright and IP concerns. Members asked about open-source models, opt-outs, machine unlearning, user data, and state options for protecting creators. The second panel included SAG-AFTRA board member Jason George, Animation Guild president Danny Lynn, and OpenAI copyright counsel Mark Gray. George and Lynn argued that AI training on performers’ and artists’ work without consent or compensation threatens jobs, bargaining power, and reputations, and they supported stronger transparency and licensing requirements so creators can identify when their work is used. Gray said AI is already being used as a productivity tool and highlighted partnerships between AI companies and publishers, record labels, and studios, while arguing that specific harmful uses such as deepfakes should be regulated directly rather than restricting general-purpose AI development. Committee members discussed labeling and watermarking of AI-generated content, transparency around model use, and whether state law should require more detailed disclosure of training data; no formal action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• As you may know, I've been passionate about information technology for many, many years.
• We started the St State Technology Office. 2005, we went to the agency for Enterprise Information Technology
• That truly is going to transform how we do information technology, how we in your operate and every agency
• Over the last 31 years, we've represented over 200 information technology companies.
• But I think this is going to change how we to information technology in the state of Florida.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Over a decade later, Educational privacy law kept pace with technology.
• technology, and sometimes it's optional.
• As evolving technology has greatly expanded the ability for information to proliferate across the internet
• Is this a new list that goes to the Secretary of State of personal information, or is that information
• Oh, that's the same information. Oh, okay. All right.

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:

• information specific for businesses. information specific for businesses.
• . information. information.
• surveillance technology. surveillance technology.
• Pick your technology.
• . technology. technology.

Bills: HF3794, HF3408

Keywords: surveillance, price discrimination, wage discrimination, automated decision systems, consumer protections, data privacy, biometrics, consumer protection, price setting, biometric data, retail, privacy, 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from March 3, 2026, and then received a presentation from the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General on the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act. Assistant Attorney General Caitlin Miko and Deputy Attorney General Jessica Whitney reviewed the law’s scope, consumer rights, business obligations, and enforcement history. They said the law took effect July 31, 2025, gives Minnesotans rights to access, delete, and opt out of sale, profiling, and targeted advertising, and is enforced by the Attorney General with penalties up to $7,500 per violation. They reported more than 200 complaints in the first six months, many warning letters, and a shift from education to active enforcement now that the initial warning-letter period has expired. Committee members asked about how the universal opt-out works, what happens when companies deny deletion or editing requests, how the office determines willful noncompliance, and whether the law could burden small businesses. The AG’s office said the opt-out can be set through privacy-protective browsers or extensions, companies must respond to consumer requests within 45 days, small businesses are exempt as defined by the SBA, and investigations look for patterns and evidence of willful conduct rather than minor technical violations. The office also said it needs additional funding to fully staff enforcement efforts and noted that it has already issued subpoenas and civil investigative demands. The committee then took up House File 3408, the Stop Grocery Surveillance Price Gouging Act. The author explained that the bill would prohibit retail grocers, physical and online, from setting individualized prices based on consumer information, would limit certain uses of facial recognition and electronic shelf labels, and would preserve narrow exceptions for discounts and loyalty programs. Public testimony followed from the Minnesota Farmers Union in support, arguing that grocery consolidation and surveillance pricing could worsen already high food costs and harm fair competition. The Minnesota Grocers Association opposed the premise that grocery stores use surveillance pricing, said shelf prices are generally uniform and set from a single storewide database, and argued electronic shelf labels are efficient and not nefarious. A technology company representative similarly said ESLs do not use personal data or facial recognition, prices are uniform, and a 2025 study found no meaningful price increases after ESL adoption. The bill was laid over for possible further discussion after the testimony.