Calif. Senators Mull Several Privacy, AI Bills at Fiscal Hearing
California fiscal hawks added multiple privacy bills to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file during a livestreamed meeting Monday. A state finance official raised red flags on measures involving data-driven pricing and AI chatbots.
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.
California legislators returned from summer recess Monday with many privacy and AI bills nearing the finish line (see 2508150016 and 2508150039). California appropriators use the suspense file for bills deemed to be costly, setting them up for vote at later meetings.
At Monday’s hearing, the Senate committee moved into suspense multiple bills by Assembly Privacy Committee Chair Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D), including an algorithmic-discrimination measure (AB-1018) and a chatbots bill (AB-1064) that would include rules around using kids' personal information for AI training. The committee additionally put on suspense Bauer-Kahan’s bills on reproductive privacy (AB-45), social media warning labels (AB-56) and enhanced privacy protections for judges and elected officials (AB-302).
The California Department of Finance opposes AB-1064 due to concerns that it would create “general fund pressures not included in” this year’s budget law, the department’s legislative director, Christian Beltran, said at the hearing.
The department also opposed a bill by Assemblymember Chris Ward (D) that aims to restrict so-called surveillance pricing, a practice where businesses use certain data about consumers to set individualized prices. Before the committee moved AB-446 into suspense, Beltran warned that the measure would lead to significant costs not included in the 2025 budget. A Walt Disney Company lobbyist also opposed the pricing bill, without explaining why, at the hearing.
The committee also agreed to add Ward’s AB-322 on location privacy to the suspense file. The hearing continued after our deadline.