Calif. DOJ Isn't ‘Wild' About Possible Requirement to Grow AI Expertise, Senator Admits
Expect the California attorney general’s office to support a bill requiring it to build internal expertise on AI once it sees “the money for it,” predicted California Sen. Jerry McNerney (D) during an Assembly Privacy Committee hearing Tuesday. The committee approved the measure to go to the Judiciary Committee by a 14-0 vote.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
"AI is evolving very quickly and California must develop the legal expertise to keep up with AI,” McNerney said at the hearing. SB-69 will make sure California DOJ is ready to create an AI-focused team at the department "to deal with AI on civil rights, public safety and the law." Currently, DOJ lacks "sufficient expertise to handle AI issues,” the senator said. “This bill will change that.”
However, asked by Sen. Pellerin if the AG’s office supports the bill, McNerney said it's officially neutral. “They're not too wild about the proposition, to be honest,” he said. “But we need ... that capability here in California.” The AG office looks “at this as another chore, but when they see" the funding for it, "they'll jump on it,” he later added. The bill doesn’t currently specify how much money would be appropriated for it.
While she said she’d support the bill for now, Pellerin urged McNerney to get the AG on board. The AG’s office didn’t testify at the hearing, nor did it respond to our request for comment afterward.
The bill garnered Republican support. Committee Vice Chair Diane Dixon (R) said it’s a good idea to "begin to establish some type of institutional framework" on the issue and the AG office is the right place to start.
“This bill would require the Attorney General to establish and maintain a specified program to build internal expertise in artificial intelligence, including its applications, risks, regulatory implications, and civil rights impacts,” said a summary of the new SB-69. By July 1, 2027, and every year afterward, the AG would have to “submit a public report to the Legislature describing the program, key developments in artificial intelligence law and policy, and recommendations for additional state oversight or safeguards.”
Transparency Coalition CEO Rob Eleveld told the committee he supports SB-69 because there aren't enough technology experts at state AG offices. “Across the country and here in California, there is a yawning need for expertise in enforcing tech policy." It may be a “challenging budget year … but this doesn’t need to be a large group,” said Eleveld. “Four to six lawyers that are trained would really move the needle relative to a vacuum today.”
Oakland Privacy and TechEquity Action also supported SB-69 at the hearing. No opponents appeared.
California legislators used a procedural tactic known as “gut and amend” on June 23 to convert SB-69 into an AI bill. It was previously about reducing pollution from car emissions. State legislators previously used the same process to revive a location privacy bill (see 2506240071) and to propose a change to how the California Consumer Privacy Act treats publicly available sensitive data (see 2506300026).
While the earlier version of SB-69 passed the Senate on May 28, that chamber would have to vote again if the Assembly passes the amended bill. Before it can go to the Assembly floor, SB-69 will need approvals from the Judiciary and Appropriations committees, in that order.
The committee decided not to hear SB-238, a workplace surveillance bill, at Tuesday’s hearing as originally scheduled.