Capitol Briefs: Recess reset

The Legislature has adjourned for summer recess. Lawmakers will return in August to tackle hundreds of bills in their annual sprint to the finish of the session. Here are a few we find interesting.

The golf reservation act: A bill (AB 1954) prohibiting third-party sites from listing golf tee times at a higher rate, presented by Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D-San Diego), passed on Monday. Preceding case law includes California’s Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits unlawful or fraudulent business activities, as well as the False Advertising Law, which prohibits misleading representations about services. This bill, if enacted, would ensure that courses are the only source of booking, rather than through third-party sites.

With over 200 golf courses across California, this price increase on third-party sites limits Californians’ access to recreational opportunities. Ward said underserved communities should not have to pay a higher price to access public California lands.

Supporters say these third-party websites have developed a level of sophistication through investment in search engine optimization creating confusion among consumers who are unaware of these platforms and think they are booking at the normal rate. Supporters include the California Alliance for Golf and the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. There is no known opposition to this bill.

AB 1954 passed in the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development with an 11-0 vote last Monday and will be heard next in the Committee on Appropriations.

And it’s not just golf: Golf isn’t the only industry facing reservation scrutiny. AB 1640, authored by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani (D-San Francisco) and Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) would establish the California Restaurant Reservation Anti-Piracy Act, which would prohibit a person or third-party sites from making facility reservations for more than the original paid amount. A violation of this act would result in fines for the individuals.

The bill has drawn support from the California Restaurant Association, which said restaurants are key to California’s economy, and with involvement from third-party sites, restaurants and individuals are damaged. Restaurants are struggling to keep track of reservations in their systems, and individuals are losing money due to these platforms’ deceptive practices. The author highlights small businesses as victims of these hardships and says that transparency is needed.

Other support has come from Booking.com, the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and the California Attractions and Parks Association. There is no known opposition to this bill.

AB 1640 passed in the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development with an 11-0 vote last Monday and will be heard next in the Committee on Appropriations.

Artificial intelligence regulation: There are scores of AI bills under consideration this session. Here are three that are moving forward to August.

AB 2504, authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), would establish the Future of Creative Industries Pilot Program at select community colleges to help workers in creative industries such as film, music and TV prepare for AI-related changes in the workforce. The pilot would focus on identifying new skills and training opportunities in partnership with labor unions. The bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2545 by Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo (D-Chatsworth) would require the state to study the effects of AI on California’s workforce and recommend ways to help workers adapt. An advisory panel would examine which industries are most affected and identify policies to support workers as AI adoption expands. The measure now awaits consideration in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2656 by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris’ (D-Irvine) would require certain state and local public employers to give unions at least 45 days’ written notice before developing, purchasing or using generative AI to perform work within a represented job classification. The proposal aims to give labor organizations advance notice before AI changes are implemented in the workplace. It now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Antitrust reform bill moves forward: On Tuesday, AB 1776, or the COMPETE Act, passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee after a 9-2 vote with two abstentions. The bill would significantly expand the Cartwright Act, California’s primary antitrust law, to include anticompetitive conduct by a single firm.

Author of the bill and Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters) committed to four of the Senate Chair’s five requested amendments on the Senate floor. These amendments include removing the prohibition of “unreasonable restraint of trade”; explicitly affirming that a business may legally obtain and maintain market or monopoly power based on product superiority; removing the assertion that the legitimacy of a state antitrust case cannot be determined solely by federal precedent; and clarifying that a plaintiff must allege and prove “substantial market power” rather than just “market power” in a case brought under the bill.

The fifth requested amendment, eliminating the availability of a private right of action for new monopolization cases created under the bill, was not immediately committed to. Eliminating the private right of action would authorize only the Attorney General or a public prosecutor to bring state cases under the bill, which opposition argued would protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits.

However, the Cartwright Act in its current form allows for a private entity to sue for anticompetitive conduct; removing this provision exclusively from single-firm monopolization cases could prove legally tedious and, proponents of the bill argued, may prevent businesses from recouping their losses through litigation.

Instead, Aguiar-Curry committed to continue working with opposition regarding the issue of private right of action. The bill is set to be heard by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on August 3rd.

Building safeguards around AI in healthcare: AB 2575, a bill imposing safeguards around AI usage in healthcare services by Assemblymember Liz Ortega (D-Hayward) passed through the Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection last Monday after a 6-2 vote with one abstention.

The bill would enforce transparency surrounding the usage of a clinical decision support system, or a CDSS, to assist with patient care and increases protections for healthcare providers to use professional judgment when working with a CDSS. Healthcare facilities would also be required to provide requested information to patients and healthcare providers regarding in-use CDSS systems, including how they are used, known risks and limitations, and potential biases.

The bill also mandates that employers are not allowed to retaliate or discriminate against healthcare providers solely for the overriding of or reliance on a CDSS system. Additionally, in a case that alleges patient harm as the result of CDSS guidance, CDSS developers and deployers could not assert that a healthcare provider’s failure to override the system absolves them of fault.

AB 2575 comes as health care facilities continue to incorporate AI tools into healthcare provider operations. While these systems could potentially offset administrative and cost burdens, proponents of the bill expressed concern that they are not reliable enough to accurately determine patient care. Preceding the bill, the California Attorney General released a legal advisory that healthcare entities be provided guidance around their obligations under state law when developing, selling, or utilizing AI services.

The bill is sponsored by the California Nurses Association and the California Federation of Labor Unions. It is supported by various labor and consumer organizations, including the California Faculty Association and Health Access California, who state that safeguards around AI use in patient care are necessary to establish accountability and protect patients and healthcare providers.

The bill is opposed by a coalition of healthcare associations, including the California Hospital Association and Stanford Health Care, who argue that the bill disrupts the deployment of AI systems that mitigate healthcare costs and removes accountability in patient care.

AB 2575 is set to be heard by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on August 3rd.

Online age restriction measure moves ahead: AB 1856, a bill updating the California Digital Age Assurance Act (DAAA) by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) passed through the Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection last Monday after a 9-0 vote with no abstentions.

The bill would include specifications around when operating systems are required to collect age information from users and send them to covered application stores or developers, in addition to providing certain exemptions. The bill would also prohibit requesting age information signals from operating systems or application stores if not required under the DAAA or any additional law.

The DAAA, which would take effect at the start of 2027, aims to expand protection for minors online by requiring operating system providers to collect a user’s age information at setup, separating users into distinct age brackets. Operating systems would then be required to send the age bracket information to application developers when a user downloads an app, allowing developers to have “actual knowledge” of a user’s age.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the DAAA into law last October, he urged the legislature to address concerns prior to the law going into effect, including its impact on companies such as streaming services and video game developers that often have preexisting systems to address complexities such as multi-user accounts and profiles across multiple devices.

In addition to including broader clarifications of the DAAA’s scope, AB 1856 would remove preexisting law’s definition of “user” to mean a child who is the primary user of a device, potentially addressing concerns over multi-user platforms.

The bill also clarifies that an operating system provider does not mean an operating system that allows for redistribution and modification of its software. This appears to exempt open-source operating systems such as Linux, whose users and developers had previously opposed the DAAA.

The bill’s support includes groups such as Children Now and Common Sense Media, who state that the bill closes gaps within the DAAA and is integral in ensuring child safety online. The bill is opposed by groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Chamber of Progress, who cite privacy concerns and previously cited the expansion of AB 1856’s scope to browsers and websites, which has since been amended.

AB 1856 is set to be heard by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on August 3rd.

The story was written by Capitol Weekly correspondent Leah O’Tarrow and interns Sydney Laird and Olivia Bye.