California Kills AI Bills but Social Media Restrictions Advance

Tech policy bills that would further regulate social media advanced last week through the California legislature though measures that would have placed greater scrutiny on artificial intelligence were killed for the year.

The legislative activity was part of wrangling over more than 1,000 bills that faced the suspense hearing process, where the Senate and Assembly appropriations committees swiftly and secretly decided which bills with significant fiscal impact move on or die. The challenge was more difficult this year because lawmakers felt pressure from California’s exacerbated state budget deficit of $32 billion.

Many tech bills that survived were narrowed amid intense opposition from the industry, though full details of the changes were not immediately available. Those measures will have to go through the same process again in the opposite chamber around September.

One of the most-watched tech bills that survived was revised to make it more amenable to tech lobbyists. The legislation would attempt to hold social media platforms liable for addiction and other harm to children (S.B. 287). The measure was killed in the suspense file last year. This year’s version would permit local and state prosecutors to sue social media companies and was approved on Thursday, after the Senate Appropriations Committee narrowed the scope to apply to only children under 16 years, among other changes.

Bills regarding AI were not as successful. That was the case for a measure that would attempt to put California at the forefront of AI in regulating business use of the technology (A.B. 331). The Assembly Appropriations Committee killed that bill, which contained a private right of action for algorithmic discrimination. A narrower AI bill that would apply oversight only to state government bodies (S.B. 313) also was held back.

The AI proposals faced intense opposition from business groups concerned they could stifle innovation in a rapidly growing field. The regulatory landscape for the technology is ever-shifting, with state agencies about to draft rules around automation and the federal government eyeing the creation of an artificial intelligence agency.

The legislative inaction, however, will likely clear the way for the California Privacy Protection Agency and the California Civil Rights Department to continue their rulemaking around the technology without worries about conflicting new laws.

Big Tech and the Internet

Other measures regulating Big Tech moved closer to a floor vote, including a bill (S.B. 60) that would allow state residents to seek a court order to take down harmful content on controlled substances from a social media site.

A measure that would ban TikTok for state-issued devices (S.B. 74) advanced, with lawmakers removing a requirement to report when an exception is needed to use the app, such as public outreach or cybersecurity research. The measure follows other states that are attempting to ban TikTok and would also apply to any other apps that are operated or headquartered by “a country of concern.”

Lawmakers also approved a bill (S.B. 244) that would allow consumers to repair cellphones and other devices without having to go to through the manufacturer, after a similar attempt last year died in the suspense file. The measure by Sen. Susan Eggman (D) is part of a broader push by consumer advocates to let devices be repaired by any repair professional of a consumer’s choice. The legislation still faces pushback from tech and business groups, which contend sharing details of their devices undermines intellectual property rights.

A bill that would beef up California’s regulation of data brokers (S.B. 362) passed the Senate Appropriations Committee, after Sen. Josh Becker (D) delayed the implementation date by a year to 2026. The bill would enable consumers to delete all their personal information collected by all registered brokers through a single deletion mechanism on the state privacy agency’s website.

Other Industries

Lawmakers also addressed other tech-related areas. A contentious measure that would require a human driver for self-driving trucks (A.B. 316) survived the suspense hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The autonomous vehicle industry says the requirement would halt the deployment of self-driving trucks and stifle progress, while supporters say it’s necessary for road safety.

California lawmakers have been grappling with how to regulate facial recognition technology, specifically over its use by law enforcement after such a ban expired this January. The direction now seems clear after an effort to further regulate it (A.B. 642) was killed Thursday. A bill that would re-implement the ban (A.B. 1034) has already been passed by the California Assembly and is awaiting action in the Senate.

Proposals that would regulate cryptocurrency also moved forward. Legislation that would license the industry (A.B. 39) and would put restrictions on cryptocurrency kiosks (S.B. 401) were approved with some changes.