Transcript Highlights:

• and have to do that and disclosure and have to do that and disclosure statements<00:25:49.120>
• But I could support the making disclosures.
• But I could support the making disclosures.
• But I could support the making disclosures. I could support the making disclosures.
• Um but so I can't support disclosures.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A disclosure is required when a person publishes or distributes synthetic media that the person knows
• A disclosure is required when a person A disclosure is required when a person publishes<00:37:11.920>
• [clears throat] The<00:37:22.079> disclosure<00:37:22.800> must<00:37:23.200> be
• <00:37:23.440> the<00:37:23.760> following The disclosure must be the following The disclosure
• For audio recordings, the disclosure must be read in a pitch and pace that can be easily heard by the

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House opened with a devotional performance, then introduced several bills. H.896 would create a New England Oregon bank specialty license plate and was referred to Transportation. H.897 would prohibit social media use by children and was referred to Commerce and Economic Development. H.898, a committee bill on transitions from copper-based to fiber-based telecommunications networks and consumer protections, was read and placed on the notice calendar. H.899 would finance multi-unit housing through the Vermont Economic Development Authority and was referred to Commerce and Economic Development. The chamber also referred H.635, eliminating Department of Corrections supervisory fees, to Ways and Means because it affects state revenue. The House adopted JRS 40, a joint resolution setting weekend adjournment for February 13, 2026, to reconvene no later than February 17, 2026. It also concurred in HCR 181 congratulating the 2025 Spirit of the ADA award winners and HCR 189 designating February 11, 2026, as Disability Advocacy Day at the State House. HCR 181 recognized a long list of employers for inclusive hiring and accommodations, while HCR 189 highlighted disability rights history, the Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights, and ongoing barriers faced by Vermonters with disabilities. The House then took up HCR 192, recognizing February 11, 2026, as National 211 Day in Vermont and celebrating Vermont 211’s statewide referral and crisis-support role. The resolution noted more than 61,000 contacts and over 22,000 referrals in 2025, along with its emergency and after-hours support functions. Members also made announcements recognizing Recovery Day, the Spirit of the ADA award recipients, Disability Advocacy Day, National 211 Day, and other guests and events in the chamber. On the action calendar, the House considered the conference committee report on S.23, concerning the use of synthetic media in elections. The committee reported a strike-all compromise on definitions, disclosure requirements, exemptions, and penalties. The report defined deceptive synthetic media, required a disclosure for certain synthetic media distributed within 90 days of an election, provided exemptions for some broadcasters and parody, and set civil penalties for violations. The House was asked to adopt the conference report.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and disclosure of sexually explicit<00:39:40.800> images<00:39:41.200> without<00:39:
• Vermont statute on non-consensual disclosure encompasses what is often called revenge porn, as well as
• H. 626 allows victims of non-consensual disclosure of explicit images to have access to the same civil
• of those recordings or disclosure of those recordings or images,<00:44:22.800> non-consensual
• <00:44:23.800> disclosure<00:44:24.280> of images, non-consensual disclosure of images,

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When everything is labeled, disclosures can become less meaningful.
• A materiality standard would improve focus on disclosures that matter the most.
• And like I said, the disclosure part makes absolute sense to me.
• So I think the protections are absolutely needed, at least the disclosures.
• So I think the protections are absolutely needed, at least the disclosures.

Summary: The committee convened for its first hearing, took roll, and heard several privacy- and AI-related bills. SB 1106 by Senator Cabaldon would shorten the Delete Act data broker deletion deadline from 45 days to 30 days; it drew support from a technology and democracy group, no opposition testimony, and was moved out on a due pass to Appropriations vote. SB 923 by Senator Becker would expand the CCPA deletion right to cover all personal information held by a business and require online-only businesses to offer a web form or similar method for privacy requests; supporters included the California Privacy Protection Agency and privacy advocates, while business groups raised concerns about scope, compliance, and the email/web-form requirement. The bill passed 6-0 to Appropriations, with some members noting they were laying off or wanted further amendments. The committee also heard SB 1142, the Digital Dignity Act, which would regulate digital replicas and deepfakes on large online platforms, including takedown and revocation procedures and penalties. Supporters said it would protect Californians from fraud, harassment, and nonconsensual synthetic likeness use; opponents, including the Motion Picture Association, CCIA, TechNet, and others, raised First Amendment, due process, Section 230, and overbreadth concerns, especially around deceased persons and the 48-hour takedown process. Members said they supported the bill but wanted further work before Judiciary, and it passed 6-0 as amended to Judiciary. The committee also adopted its rules without objection. Later, SB 867 by Senator Padilla would impose a four-year moratorium on the sale and manufacture of AI chatbot-powered toys for children, citing research showing unsafe, sexually explicit, or privacy-invasive behavior; child advocacy and consumer groups supported it, while retailers and civil justice groups sought narrower definitions and liability protections. It passed 7-0 to Appropriations. SB 1247 would give child influencers, once adults, a right to request deletion or modification of images and likenesses used in monetized social media content; it drew no support testimony but was opposed by a civil justice group over the creation of a new private right of action, and it passed 7-0 to Judiciary. SB 930, the consent-calendar item, was approved 7-0. The committee then heard SB 1114, which would restrict sharing of state-collected data related to LGBTQ Californians absent an enforceable order, with supporters arguing it would protect sensitive data from misuse by federal agencies and preserve trust in state programs. It passed 6-0 to Appropriations. SB 1159 would let local governments treat AI bots and agents differently from people for Brown Act, public records, and related civic participation laws, in response to AI-generated comment floods; supporters from environmental, local government, and nonprofit groups said it was needed to preserve human participation, while opponents argued the bill should focus on fraud rather than AI and warned about overreach. The bill passed 9-0 to Appropriations. Finally, SB 1050 would require disclosures when synthetic performers are used in advertisements; labor and consumer advocates supported it as a truth-in-advertising measure, while media and industry groups objected that it was overbroad and should be narrowed to misleading ads and aligned with existing law. Members signaled support for the bill’s goal but also raised concerns about scope and consistency with current false-advertising rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• The issue has always been around disclosure, and while disclosure often sounds simple, which is you should
• But with the disclosure label that I... ...that we as OBGYNs would recommend.
• And so it really is about disclosure to allow the individual and their provider... ...bill.
• And I think we've, again, it all came down to the disclosure.
• Yeah, I think you'll get there on the disclosure. So I'm ready. That was my question too.

Summary: The committee heard SB 404 on metal shredding facilities, SB 601 on water quality protections after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, SB 682 on phasing out PFOS in certain consumer products, and later SB 646 on prenatal vitamins and toxic metal contamination. SB 561 had been pulled from the hearing. In each of the measures, the authors and supporters emphasized environmental and public health protections, while opponents raised concerns about overregulation, implementation, and unintended economic impacts. The committee also spent time on the policy details of each bill, including how smaller operators would be treated under SB 404, how “nexus waters” would be defined under SB 601, and whether alternatives and testing standards were adequate under SB 682 and SB 646. For SB 404, Senator Caballero said the bill would create a permitting and enforcement framework for metal shredding facilities, with operational standards for fire prevention, stormwater, and releases of shredder residue, while supporters argued it would bring needed certainty to a critical recycling industry. Opponents, including small recyclers and community/environmental advocates, said the bill was either too broad or not strong enough, with some warning it would burden smaller facilities and others arguing it would fail to protect overburdened communities. The committee approved SB 404 on a due-pass-as-amended motion to Appropriations, with recorded support from the chair and some members and opposition from others. SB 601 sought to restore state-level protections for waters that lost federal Clean Water Act coverage after Sackett, using a “nexus waters” framework and revised enforcement provisions after amendments removed the private right of action. Supporters said California needed to preserve protections for seasonal streams and wetlands and avoid backsliding, while opponents from business, agriculture, water districts, and local governments argued the definition remained too broad and could create uncertainty, costs, and unintended consequences. The committee also approved SB 601 on a due-pass motion to Appropriations, again with split votes. SB 682, which the committee also advanced, would phase out intentionally added PFOS in six product categories, including cleaning products, cookware, dental floss, ski wax, food packaging, and juvenile products, with an amendment delaying cookware implementation until 2030. Supporters framed it as a source-control measure to reduce PFAS contamination and lower long-term water treatment costs, while manufacturers and cookware interests argued the bill was overbroad, lacked workable testing standards, and could push consumers and businesses toward uncertain alternatives. The committee chair recommended an aye vote, and the measure passed to Appropriations. SB 646 was then introduced on prenatal vitamins, with supporters saying it would require testing and disclosure of heavy metals like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, while the opposition said disclosure must be handled carefully so as not to confuse consumers or undermine confidence in prenatal supplements.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 362 will strengthen our price disclosure law by ensuring that small businesses receive clear disclosures
• SB 362 addresses some of the gaps in California's small business disclosure framework and makes clear
• A stronger disclosure framework will result in small businesses receiving better information as they
• As drafted, the bill would require an APR disclosure as part of any communications, which my clients
• There's a very important disclosure provision in this bill.

Summary: The Assembly Banking and Finance Committee met to hear several bills focused on consumer and small business financial protections. SB 97, by Senator Grayson, would update and clarify California’s digital financial assets law; supporters from the blockchain industry and consumer groups said it would improve compliance clarity while preserving room to align with possible federal action. The committee passed SB 97 on a due-pass motion to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee also heard SB 362, which would strengthen disclosure rules for small business financing by requiring clearer pricing information throughout the marketing process. Supporters said the bill would help small businesses compare offers and avoid harmful financing, while some industry groups objected to the bill’s treatment of communications and APR disclosures during negotiations. After discussion, the committee passed SB 362 to the Judiciary Committee, with several members voting aye and the roll left open. SB 784, a bill addressing predatory home-improvement and solar financing practices, drew extensive testimony. The author and supporters described scams targeting seniors, low-income homeowners, and non-English speakers, and said the bill would add safeguards such as confirmation calls, document access, fee transparency, and longer cancellation periods. Solar industry groups moved to neutral after amendments, while banks and other lenders raised concerns about overbreadth and impacts on legitimate lending. The committee passed SB 784 to Judiciary, with some members not voting or changing votes during the roll call. Finally, SB 825 sought to give the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation clearer authority to enforce existing consumer financial protection laws against its licensees, especially in light of reduced federal CFPB enforcement. Supporters argued California needs independent state enforcement tools, while banking and mortgage groups opposed the bill as duplicative and unnecessary, urging coordination with federal regulators and proposing narrower amendments. The committee passed SB 825 to Appropriations on a due-pass vote, and then adjourned after completing the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Davis, relating to the disclosure of information regarding an open enrollment charter school management
• Davis, relating to the disclosure of information regarding an open enrollment charter school management
• Davis, relating to the disclosure of information regarding an open enrollment charter school management
• Davis, relating to the disclosure of information regarding an open enrollment charter school management
• Davis, relating to the disclosure of information regarding an open enrollment charter school management

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So for ALRs, the ownership disclosure was... ...develop or in development.
• So for ALRs, the ownership disclosure was lowered.
• So our recommendations were passing S. 478, the disclosure bill, updating the consumer guide.
• Two, on the disclosure statements, there's a description of physical facilities.
• And I think disclosure itself can incorporate some of the things people care about a lot.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met to review its draft final report on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with most of the discussion focused on whether recommendations required unanimous consensus and how to handle disagreements in the report. Members agreed that consensus meant no stated opposition, and several participants argued that unresolved issues should still be described in the report rather than omitted. The chairs said the report would include agreed-upon recommendations, note areas without consensus, and preserve written comments or dissent letters submitted by members. The draft report’s findings and slides were reviewed charge by charge, including CCRC definitions, financial condition, entrance fee refunds, regulatory oversight, advertising practices, and closure/change-of-ownership procedures. Members suggested several factual and wording edits, including clarifying financial data sources, correcting a presenter’s name, refining language about entrance fee use and refund timing, and revising statements about Attorney General authority and CCRC advertising. There was also discussion about the need to distinguish nonprofit and for-profit CCRCs and to better explain how different care levels and licensing structures are described. On recommendations, the commission kept the proposal to advance the disclosure bill (S. 478) and update the consumer guide, but removed a recommendation for annual open board meetings after objections that it was inadequate. The group spent considerable time debating whether to recommend resident representation on CCRC boards, timely refund requirements for entrance fees, and possible state registration or definition changes for CCRCs, but no consensus was reached on those items. The chairs said the final report would be completed by the statutory August 1 deadline, with final written comments due before then and the report and meeting materials posted on the legislature website.

Transcript Highlights:

• And under that same language, it doesn't compel disclosure of documents.
• I also argue that there's some other disclosures I actually would like to know.
• is necessary. rather this citizenship disclosure is necessary.
• What is the reasoning for the dual citizenship disclosure?
• What would voters gain or learn from that disclosure?

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> [laughter] I like disclosure. I think disclosure is great. >> Okay, so disclosure.
• But all I want is disclosure.
• I like disclosure. I think disclosure is great. >> Okay, so disclosure.
• . disclosure. disclosure.
• focused on disclosure. focused on disclosure.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Or the bill that we're going to be exacting out has some disclosure requirements, maybe some layman's
• terms disclosures, kind of bullet-pointing for the insured what they're going to have coverage on or
• terms, disclosures. has some disclosure requirements, maybe some layman's terms, disclosures, kind of
• disclosure language.
• But in an essence of time... ...and the disclosure language.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, this bill will not affect disclosure requirements under the Michael Morton Act and the
• Under this section, it is subject to disclosure only as required by law. I'm sorry. What page?
• So in terms... ...of what would be included in this department file that's not subject to disclosure.
• Be placed in a department file where it's not subject to disclosure.
• You are creating a bar in this last sentence; it is a specific bar to disclosure under Chapter 552.

Bills: HB17, HB16, SB 10, HB27, HB23, SB 15, SB 18, HB 17, HB 16, SB 10, HB 27, HB 23, SB 15, SB 18

Keywords: property tax, school funding, enrollment changes, inflation adjustment, tax rate notice, judicial administration, court reform, juvenile diversion, court security, mental health services, drug offenses, constitutional amendments, property tax exemption, ad valorem tax, Texas Tax Code, nonprofit corporation, charitable organization, educational nonprofit, scientific nonprofit, agriculture support

Transcript Highlights:

• of a safe at home disclosure of a safe at home participant's<00:09:27.040> data.
• /c><00:09:31.279> uh<00:09:31.440> we'll disclosure causes bodily harm, uh we'll disclosure
• of that data might, how that disclosure might impact a participant.
• of that data might be, and how that disclosure might impact a participant.
• , on our radon testing, well disclosures, on our radon testing, well disclosures, uh,<00:14:51.920

Bills: HF3676, HF2959, HF3233

Keywords: Safe at Home, address confidentiality, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, harassment, victim privacy, survivor protection, confidential address, protected address, secret address, identity protection, residential confidentiality, program participant, nondiscrimination, court disclosure, protective order, service of process, driver's license, state ID

Transcript Highlights:

• I just cannot hear you. disclosure side and then um what disclosure side and then um what qualified<00
• > strengthens disclosures so that strengthens disclosures so that residents<01:00:47.680> can<
• uh unless I signed a disclosure uh unless I signed a disclosure agreement<01:05:31.200> that<
• look at the uh disclosure agreements. look at the uh disclosure agreements.
• The disclosures come after there's a contract in place to buy or sell.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, this bill will not affect disclosure requirements under the Michael Morton Act and the
• Camera footage only authorizes disclosures. It does not require them.
• And as I said, the law says disclosure only as required by law, which means that optional proactive disclosure
• by a department would still be prohibited, even if the intent is to allow those disclosures.
• but any disclosures authorized by law.

Bills: SB 15

Keywords: law enforcement, department file, employee records, misconduct, confidentiality, Texas occupations code, 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's all right now: just disclosure. Because why?
• Just disclosure. Because why? Because it did happen with the read.
• I guess my question, this type of disclosure will allow you to see what.
• disclosure?
• But again, this is just a disclosure bill, you know. That's what they agree with it.

Bills: HB414, HB786, HB1041, HB1052, HB1118, HB1139, HB1182, HB1185, HB1214, HB1217, HB1231, SR63, SCR27, SB5, SB194, SB415, SB433, SB451, SB462, SB516

Keywords: healthcare, criminal convictions, employment, background checks, prohibited offenses, Medicaid, claim payments, extrapolation, provider audits, medical freedom, discrimination, access, medical intervention, child protection, confidentiality, multidisciplinary teams, child advocacy centers, public records, investigations, hospital

Transcript Highlights:

• needs to be worked through, maybe sort of like Madam Secretary, we're talking over at the AL, some disclosure
• time point to kind of review those also and make sure, because there is some really... ...strong disclosure
• And we've been supporting this bill, which we call the disclosure bill, which hasn't gotten very far.
• Is it standard practice to do a disclosure?
• Do you do a disclosure with them about, you know, if they live there 10 years, here's what it's going

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Aging and Independence commission meeting focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with members and presenters discussing how the model works, consumer protections, and areas for future review. After member introductions, Jennifer Fuller summarized survey results showing the top priorities as financial viability and affordability, consumer protections and rights, and regulation/monitoring standards. The commission said those issues would guide its work plan, while also keeping staffing, definitions, and federal support on the radar. Alyssa Sherman of LeadingAge Massachusetts and Jim Freiling of Brookhaven at Lexington gave a detailed overview of CCRCs, explaining that they combine housing with health-related services under long-term contracts and typically require entrance fees plus monthly fees. They described the three common contract types: Type A/life care, where costs stay relatively stable if residents need more care; Type B, which offers some included or discounted care with higher costs later; and Type C, fee-for-service, with lower entrance fees but higher costs if care needs increase. They also discussed nonprofit governance, resident involvement, and the role of state and Attorney General disclosure requirements. Several members raised concerns about affordability, refund timing, and the need to distinguish true CCRCs from other senior housing marketed similarly; presenters said refunds are often tied to reoccupancy and that their organizations are collecting data on refund timelines and contract terms. The discussion also covered resident rights and governance, including whether residents should have seats on nonprofit boards. Christine Griffin said her community lacks resident board representation and urged the commission to consider a state requirement, while others said resident associations and direct engagement with boards can be more effective than mandatory board seats. Members also discussed transparency around monthly fee increases, financial screening before admission, and the importance of clear marketing so consumers understand what they are buying. No votes were taken. The meeting ended with logistical updates, including a tentative public hearing date of June 3, 2025, a note that the next meeting would focus on regulation and monitoring standards, and a reminder that the commission would continue refining its work plan based on survey feedback.

Transcript Highlights:

• CCRCs to forward their marketing materials, contracts, and disclosure statement to us at age, and that
• So those types of, I guess I would put out those types of caveats as the importance of disclosure for
• And Malkra is actually encouraging a disclosure process at the point of admission.
• And maybe this disclosure bill that there's a hearing about on the 12th will address some of that.
• And maybe this disclosure bill that there's a hearing about on the 12th will address some of that.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities met for its third meeting, focused on regulations, oversight, and enforcement. Staff and agency presenters reviewed the current framework: the Executive Office of Aging and Independence explained that assisted living regulations generally do not apply to CCRCs unless an assisted living component markets itself separately, and that CCRCs must submit marketing materials, contracts, and disclosure statements for public posting. The Attorney General’s office described Chapter 93A consumer protection standards and noted it is working on draft assisted living-specific regulations. DPH outlined its oversight of licensed nursing facilities associated with some CCRCs, including routine surveys, complaint investigations, and enforcement tools such as admissions freezes, fines, receivership, and license actions, along with federal CMS sanctions for certified facilities. Commission members and presenters then discussed gaps and ambiguities in how CCRCs are defined and regulated, especially whether communities without on-site skilled nursing should still be treated as CCRCs, how assisted living-like services within CCRCs are classified, and whether residents have enough clarity about the services they are buying. A major theme was disclosure: members raised concerns about entrance fees, refund timing and conditions, whether skilled nursing is on-site or provided by contract, and how residents can compare communities. Several participants suggested more standardized disclosure and possibly broader consumer protection rules, while others cautioned that overly rigid requirements could affect community finances and development. The commission also explored enforcement and resident protections. Some members argued that independent living residents are already covered by landlord-tenant law and that existing complaint systems and community education may be sufficient, while others said residents in supported or assisted settings within CCRCs should have clearer access to ombudsman services and oversight. The discussion turned to closure and ownership transfer, with members citing recent national examples of sales and bankruptcies that changed resident terms. DPH explained its closure process for licensed nursing facilities, and members noted that Chapter 197 of 2024 adds oversight for facility transfers and financial disclosures. The meeting ended with logistics for the next session at Brookhaven at Lexington on June 2, a public hearing on June 16, and a request to circulate the hearing notice broadly to residents and stakeholder organizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• We did do training and disclosure in 2025.
• And as a matter of fact, two weeks from tomorrow, we are doing the training and disclosure.
• This Friday, the board is doing their training and disclosure.
• And they did not Disclosure forms annually and at hire or appointment.
• Turning to the third finding, which relates to conflict of interest and disclosure requirements.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's part of why disclosure is here.
• That's part of why disclosure is here.
• That's part of why disclosure is here.
• This is a disclosure is part of it.
• <01:19:07.360> to to as regulatory disclosure to to as regulatory disclosure to to<01:19:08.520

Bills: HF3878, HF4131, HF3796, HF4097

Keywords: airport workers, wage standards, labor rights, minimum wage, economic equity, surveillance, price discrimination, wage discrimination, consumer rights, automated decision systems, Minnesota Statutes, suitable seating, employee seating, workplace seating, occupational safety, workplace safety, labor standards, employer requirements, chair, stool