Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee
Event Log
Gail Pellerin — Pellerin seconded the motion and was called present in the quorum roll call.
Gail Pellerin — Pellerin voted aye on SB 243.
Gail Pellerin — Pellerin voted aye on SB 69.
Gail Pellerin — Gail Pellerin is identified as the seconding member and is later recorded as voting aye on SB 378.
SB81 — SB 81 is introduced and presented as a health-care access and immigrant-protection bill. Speakers explain that it would codify model policies for hospitals and health facilities, require protocols to limit immigration enforcement access to non-public areas absent a valid judicial warrant, and protect patient citizenship information. The bill is described as part of a broader package of model-policy legislation, supported by a broad coalition, and co-sponsored by the California Nurses Association. Multiple witnesses then urge the committee to pass SB 81, emphasizing that it would help protect immigrant Californians, prevent ICE interference with patient care, and safeguard access to health care facilities from federal overreach.
SB81 — SB 81 by Senator Arreguín is taken up by the committee, moved do pass as amended to Appropriations, then later called again as item number two and reported out with an 11 to 3 vote.
Dolores Trujillo — Dolores Trujillo, a registered nurse and board member of the California Nurses Association, testifies on behalf of CNA in support of SB 81, stating that nurses’ duty is to patients and to maintaining safe healing environments.
Bruno (questionable) — Introduced as the supervising policy manager for detention and deportation with the California Immigrant Policy Center; surname is unclear in the transcript.
Bruno Beside (questionable) — Introduced as a representative of the California Immigrant Policy Center and co-sponsor of SB 81; surname may be mis-transcribed.
Hayer Rana Sanchez — Testified in support on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, noting co-sponsorship.
Norkir Dabreira — Testified on behalf of an organization described as 'his men that's organized for political equality' in support; transcription is unclear.
Jenny Rocha — Testified with CBCA advocates in strong support.
Jonathan Menser — Testified on behalf of the Jewish Community Relations Council and described it as the largest collective voice of Bay Area Jews, representing 75 organizations.
Rosanna Carvato Elliott — Testified on behalf of the City of Alameda in support.
Nora Angel — Testified on behalf of Children Now in support.
Beth Malnowski — Testified for ACLU California and also on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.
Yvonne Fernandez — Testified on behalf of the California Labor Fed in support.
Yvonne Fernandez — Testified in support on behalf of the California Labor Federation.
Johnny Pineda — Testified on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Healthy California and asked for a vote.
Nicole Wardleman — Testified on behalf of The Children's Partnership in support.
Zina Yaya — Testified on behalf of ACLU Cal Action in support.
Chloe King — Testified with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Dental Association in support.
Chloe King — Testified in support on behalf of the County of San Mateo.
Mayra Baena — Testified with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Central American Resource Center in support.
Angela Pontes — Testified on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and also voiced support for Equality California.
Kaelin Dean — Testified on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support.
Gail Dentis — Testified with Fulmuni Strategies on behalf of Alameda County in support.
Kristen Heidelbach — Testified on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in support.
Kristen Heidelbach — Kristen Heidelbach is introduced as the legislative director at United Food and Commercial Workers and then begins her testimony on behalf of the UFCW Western States Council in support of SB 378.
Jeff Tardagia — Testified as an advocate representing multiple organizations in support of the issue.
Liz Ortega — Liz Ortega thanked the author for bringing the bill forward, described the situation in communities as a 'reign of terror,' and continued her support by emphasizing the daily impact on youth and children and the broader voices backing the bill.
Liz Ortega — Thanked the author and witness, and said she had a question for the opposition.
Liz Ortega — Thanked the author and witness and introduced a question to the opposition.
Liz Ortega — Asked the opposition to explain its cost concerns, specifically regarding age verification.
Liz Ortega — Pressed the opposition to provide a cost breakdown and profits information.
Liz Ortega — Ortega was called during the quorum roll call and answered here.
Liz Ortega — Ortega made the motion on the bill and was called present in the quorum roll call.
Liz Ortega — Ortega voted aye on SB 243.
Liz Ortega — Ortega voted aye on SB 69.
Liz Ortega — Recorded as voting aye on SB 378.
Ms. Trujillo — Referenced as having spoken about the need for individuals to be able to seek health care.
Mr. Huizar — Referenced as having spoken about the need for individuals to be able to seek health care; first name not provided in the transcript.
SB97 — SB 97 is introduced and presented as a bill updating and clarifying Nevada’s digital financial assets law, originally authored in 2023. The discussion describes it as a largely technical, clean measure with consensus support among stakeholders and no registered opposition. A witness notes a drafting issue being worked on with the senator and staff to ensure blockchain-based items that are not financial in nature are not unintentionally regulated. The senator closes by asking for an aye vote, and the committee notes that a motion and vote will occur once a quorum is established.
SB97 — SB 97 by Senator Grayson is taken up by the committee, with a do pass motion to Appropriations, and shortly afterward the vote is announced as 13-0, indicating the bill passes out of committee.
Molly Corkren — Molly Corkren, speaking for Axiom Advisors on behalf of Andreessen Horowitz, testifies in support and thanks the chair, staff, and committee. She notes a drafting issue in the proposal involving blockchain-based nonfinancial items being excluded from the regulation and says the drafting process has been difficult, but reiterates her appreciation to the committee.
SB243 — The committee opens SB 243 and invites Senator Padilla to present. Senator Padilla explains that the bill addresses emerging AI risks by establishing common-sense guardrails, including restrictions on addictive engagement, required disclosures, crisis protocols, reporting requirements, and a private right of action to enforce the measure. Supportive testimony follows, with witnesses praising SB 243 as a way to protect Californians from harms posed by companion chatbots and prevent suicides through required safety protocols. TechNet then testifies in respectful opposition, arguing that the bill’s definitions are too broad, that it could sweep in general-purpose AI tools, and that the private right of action makes it unworkable, despite their efforts to propose narrowing amendments. The discussion concludes as the bill is brought back to the dais for member comments, and a speaker expresses support and asks to be added as a co-author.
SB243 — SB 243 by Senator Padilla is taken up for a due pass motion to the Judiciary Committee, and during the vote tally the clerk records a vote change for Dixon from no to yes/aye.
SB243 — SB 243 by Senator Padilla was taken up, with a motion to do pass it to the Judiciary Committee. The vote was then announced as 11 to 1, and the bill passed out.
Ms. Megan Garcia — Introduced as an attorney in Orlando and a national advocate, and identified as Sewell Setzer's mother.
Megan Garcia — Megan Garcia testifies about her son Sewell Setzer III, who died by suicide after interacting with an AI chatbot that was marketed as safe for children. She explains that the chatbot failed to respond appropriately to his suicidal ideation and emphasizes that the product was unsafe despite being available in app stores for ages 12+. Garcia argues that if a law like the one under consideration had existed, it could have helped prevent the harm. She frames the bill as a safety measure rather than an attack on innovation, urging California to protect children and other vulnerable users from similar risks and asking the Assembly to support the bill.