State Senate: Democratic majority
State House: Democratic majority
Governor: Gavin Newsom (D)
Attorney General: Rob Bonta (D)

Summary:

The largest state in the U.S is also one of the most Democratic, and has largely led, and mirrored the actions of Democrats nationwide and the Biden Administration, particularly on using censorship to combat supposed “mis and disinformation” related to election and covid vaccines. Attorney General Rob Bonta has been one of the most active Democratic AG’s on these issues, leading multi-state amicus briefs and sending letters to social media companies demanding more censorship.

In 2021,the state passed laws to establish a so-called “State of Hate Commission” (AB 1128) and require social media companies to post their terms of service and submit bi-annual reports to the Attorney General which must include, among other things, information related to each social media company’s content moderation practices (AB 587). The latter bill survived a legal challenge from X but is currently on appeal.

In 2022, AB 2273, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act which creates a large variety of child-protection requirements was signed into law. It was challenged by Netchoice and initially blocked by a district court, but largely upheld by the 9th District Court of Appeals in August 2024.

Additionally, a major bill to regulate the development and use of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models and protect workers from compelled speech in the workplace has advanced through the Senate and Assembly in late August 2024. 

Key Policymakers:

• Attorney General Rob Bonta [D]
• Sen. Scott Wiener [D]
• Asm. Jesse Gabriel [D], Asm. Richard Bloom [D], and Asm. James Gallagher [R]

Legislative Activity:

AB2655: Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act. On Feb. 2, 2024, Democrat Assemblyman Mark Berman introduced this bill to prevent the online dissemination of manipulated media and disinformation meant to deceive voters and to interfere with their ability to vote. The bill would require large online platforms to block the posting or sending of materially deceptive and digitally modified or created content related to elections during specified periods before and after an election. The bill would also require  large online platforms to label certain additional content as inauthentic, fake, or false during specified periods before and after an election. Additionally, this bill would require  large online platforms to develop procedures for California residents to report content that has not been blocked or labeled in compliance with the act. The bill would also authorize California residents, candidates for elected office, elected officials, elections officials, the Attorney General, and a district attorney or city attorney to seek injunctive relief against a large online platform for noncompliance and would assign precedence to such actions when they are filed in court. The bill exempts a regularly published online newspaper, magazine, or other periodical of general circulation that routinely carries news and commentary of general interest if the publication complies with specified disclosure requirements. The bill would also exempt content that is satire or parody. It passed the assembly with all Democrat votes in May 2024 and is currently being considered by the Senate.

AB 2391 (2020):  Limiting Social Media Moderation of Political Content. Introduced by Asm. James Gallagher [R] in 2020, this bill would prohibit operators of social media websites located in California from removing or manipulating content from that site on the basis of the political affiliation or political viewpoint of that content. However, the bill would authorize a site to remove content of a political nature if the site’s content is limited to the promotion of only certain political viewpoints and the content is inconsistent with those viewpoints or the content violates the site’s community values, provided that the content limitation and community values are clearly stated in the user terms and conditions. The bill would specify that it does not prohibit a social media internet website from removing content or communications that are obscene, threatening or harassing, advocate violence, or purport to state factual information that is demonstrably false. The bill did not progress very far and did not receive any co-sponsors.

AB 587 (signed into law)(2021): Requiring Social Media Companies to Post Terms of Service. This law requires a social media company to post their terms of service, defines “terms of service” to mean a policy or set of policies adopted by a social media company that specifies, at least, the user behavior and activities that are permitted on the  internet-based service owned or operated by the social media company, and the user behavior and activities that may subject the user or an item of content to being actioned, as defined. The law also requires the social media company to submit bi-annual reports to the Attorney General which must include, among other things, information related to each social media company’s content moderation practices. The law also includes “meaningful remedies sufficient to induce compliance” and specifies civil penalties. It will only apply to companies that generated more than $100 million in gross revenue during the preceding calendar year. 

The bill, introduced in February 2021 by Asm. Jesse Gabriel [D] and co-authored by a group of state representatives including Buffy Wicks (D) and Jordan Cunningham (R), and state Sens. Richard Pan (D), Henry Stern (D), and Scott Wiener (D) was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 13, 2022. X Corp. sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alleging that the law is unconstitutional. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the social media platform’s request for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the state from enforcing the law, holding that the law does not violate the company’s First Amendment rights. X Corp. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

SB 1047: AI Regulation: On February 7, 2024,Sen. Scott Wiener [D] introduced SB-1047 known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act.This bill aims to regulate the development and use of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models. It mandates developers to make certain safety determinations before training AI models, comply with various safety requirements, and report AI safety incidents. It further establishes the Frontier Model Division within the Department of Technology for oversight of these AI models and introduces civil penalties for violations of the Act. The threshold for regulation under this bill is very high, focusing on only the most sophisticated AI systems or those requiring computing power for training. Like many of the laws proposed by state legislatures, this bill puts the avoidance of harms produced by AI at center stage. It holds organizations developing highly sophisticated AI systems accountable for the effects of the technology they create, requires reporting for some companies, and imposes penalties for non-compliance. The bill also requires developers to test their systems for “harms” and indicates the importance of third-party testing of such systems. On May 21, 2024, the bill passed the Senate almost unanimously, with only 1 Republican opposing, and passed the Assembly with a large majority on August 28, 2024.

AB 1126 (2021) (Signed into Law): This bill establishes the Commission on the State of Hate in the state government. It provides  for the appointment of 9 members, appointed by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Senate Committee on Rules. The bill would prescribe the goals of the commission, which would include, among other things, providing resources to various state agencies and the public to inform them on the state of hate and advising the Legislature, the Governor, and state agencies on policy recommendations to promote intersocial education designed to foster mutual respect and understanding among California’s diverse population. The bill would require the commission to host and coordinate a minimum of 4 in-person or virtual community forums, open to the public, on the state of hate per year. The bill would require the commission to seek to protect civil liberties in accordance with applicable law. Starting July 1, 2023, the bill would require the commission to make publicly available and issue to the Governor and the Legislature an Annual State of Hate Commission Report. This report must describe the commission’s activities for the previous year and its recommendations for the following year.The bill would require this report, among other things, to provide a comprehensive accounting of hate crime activity statewide and report on relevant national hate crime trends and statistics. The bill would require the commission to report to the Legislature through the Joint Committee on Rules annually, as provided. Introduced by Asm. Richard Bloom [D] and Asm. Jesse Gabriel [D ]in Feb. 2021, passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote with 4 Republicans opposing, passed the House unanimously, and signed into law on October 8, 2021. 

AB 1114 (2021)/ AB 836: This bill would declare that, notwithstanding any law, a social media platform, as defined, shall be considered a traditional First Amendment forum for those purposes, as specified. The bill would require a social media platform located in California to develop policies or mechanisms to address content or communications that constitute unprotected speech, including obscenity, incitement of imminent lawless action, and true threats, or that purport to state factual information that is demonstrably false. Introduced solely by Republican Assembly members Asm. Bill Essayli [R],  Asm. James Gallagher [R] and Asm. Kevin Kiley [R] in Feb. 2021 and Feb. 2023 but did not progress.

SB 399: This bill would prohibit an employer from requiring its employees subjecting, or threatening to subject, an employee to discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action because the employee declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or affirmatively declines to participate in, receive, or listen to any communications with the employer or its agents or representatives, the purpose of which is to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious matters, or political matters, or certain rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and California Constitution, as defined. The bill would require the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, upon the filing of a complaint by an employee, to enforce the bill’s provisions. The bill would also authorize any employee who the employer has subjected, or threatened to subject, to adverse action on account of the employee’s refusal to attend an employer-sponsored meeting to bring a civil action and to petition for injunctive relief. A Democrat-only bill introduced by Sen. Aisha Wahab [D] and Sen. Maria Durazo [D] in Feb. 2023, passed the Senate on a partisan vote, and is being considered by the Assembly. 

AB 2273 (Signed into Law): This bill enacted the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which, commencing July 1, 2024, would, among other things, requires a business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children to comply with specified requirements. This includes a requirement to configure all default privacy settings offered by the online service, product, or feature to the settings that offer a high level of privacy, unless the business can demonstrate a compelling reason that a different setting is in the best interests of children, and to provide privacy information, terms of service, policies, and community standards concisely, prominently, and using clear language suited to the age of children likely to access that online service, product, or feature. 

The bill mandates that, before any new online services, products, or features are offered to the public, businesses must complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment, as defined, for any online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children and maintain documentation of this assessment as long as the online service, product, or feature is likely to be accessed by children. The bill would require a business to make a Data Protection Impact Assessment available, within 5 business days, to the Attorney General pursuant to a written request and would exempt a Data Protection Impact Assessment from public disclosure, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit a business that provides an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children from taking proscribed action, including, if the end user is a child, using personal information for any reason other than a reason for which the personal information was collected, unless the business can demonstrate a compelling reason that use of the personal information is in the best interests of children.

This bill would create the California Children’s Data Protection Working Group to deliver a report to the Legislature regarding best practices for the implementation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would require the members of the working group to have certain expertise, including in the areas of children’s data privacy and children’s rights. The bill would require the working group to take input from a broad range of stakeholders, including from academia, consumer advocacy groups, and small, medium, and large businesses affected by data privacy policies, and make prescribed recommendations on best practices, including identifying online services, products, or features likely to be accessed by children.

This bill would authorize the Attorney General to seek an injunction or civil penalty against any business that violates its provisions. The bill would hold violators liable for a civil penalty of not more than $2,500 per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than $7,500 per affected child for each intentional violation. Any penalties, fees, and expenses recovered in an action brought under the act would be deposited into the Consumer Privacy Fund to offset costs incurred by the Attorney General in connection with the act.

Introduced in Feb. 2022 by Asm. Jordan Cunningham [R], Asm. Cottie Petrie-Norris [D], Asm. Buffy Wicks [D], Sen. Benjamin Allen [D], Sen. Josh Newman [D], and Sen. Henry Stern [D]. Passed both chambers and signed into law on September 15, 2022. Challenged by Netchoice successfully in district court, but law upheld by 9th District Court of Appeals in August 2024. 

ACR 219: A resolution to urge social media platforms to universally commit to recognize, implement, and protect certain reasonable rights of their users recognized and declared in the California Social Media Users’ Bill of Rights, as set forth in the measure. Introduced by Asm. Josh Lowenthal [D] in June 2024.

Legal Actions:

Successful Appeal in Netchoice v Bonta. On August 16, 2024, Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom issued statements supporting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in NetChoice v. Bonta, upholding the majority of AB 2273 and finding that NetChoice did not demonstrate they were likely to succeed in showing that the majority of the law is unconstitutional. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction as to the Act’s provisions restricting the collection, use, and sale of children’s data, and the collection of a child’s geolocation information without an obvious sign to the child. “We’re pleased that the Ninth Circuit reversed the majority of the district court’s injunction, which blocked California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act from going into effect,” said Attorney General Bonta.

Attorney General Bonta Joins Multistate Coalition in Amicus Brief Against Florida School Law. On December 23, 2022 California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a coalition of 18 Democrat attorneys general in an amicus brief in Equality Florida v. Florida State Board of Education. The coalition urges the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to allow the plaintiffs’ amended complaint challenging the law to move forward. Signed into law on March 28, 2022, Florida’s House Bill 1557 bans classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, and prohibits such instruction for all other students unless it is in accordance with state standards. In response to its passage, a Florida coalition including parents and students filed a lawsuit challenging the law just days after it was enacted. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.

Attorney General Bonta Calls on Social Media Companies to Stop the Spread of Disinformation Ahead of 2022 Midterm Elections. On November 4, 2022, Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a letter to the CEOs of Meta, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Reddit expressing concern about the ongoing spread of disinformation and misinformation through the social media platforms operated by these companies, saying “while social media companies have taken some steps to combat disinformation and misinformation campaigns, past efforts have proven inadequate, especially given the growing tide of politically motivated violence nationwide. In advance of the upcoming 2022 midterm elections, social media platforms must take further action – such as enforcement of their content moderation policies and terms of service – to stop the spread of disinformation and misinformation that attack the integrity of our electoral processes.”

In the letter, Attorney General Bonta implores the CEOs of Meta, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Reddit to “do more to rid their platforms of the dangerous disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theories, and threats that fuel political violence, spread fear and distrust, and ultimately chill the democratic process.”

Attorney General Bonta Demands Facebook Provide Answers on “XCheck” Program and Its Role in COVID Information. On October 13, 2021 Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a coalition of 14 attorneys general led by Connecticut in requesting information from Facebook on the role its “XCheck” program has played in “protecting false or misleading content regarding COVID vaccines on its platforms.” The attorneys general seek information as to whether and to what extent the XCheck program has been used to protect members of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen”. In their letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the coalition requests information on the XCheck program and its role in allowing false or misleading vaccine content to spread across its platform, including: what is the extent of XCheck or “Whitelist” protections for the Disinformation Dozen; how is vaccine content being scored for removal; when did Facebook become aware its algorithm was promoting pages with false and misleading vaccine content; and if Facebook follow YouTube’s lead and commit to removing all anti-vaccine content and to banning prominent anti-vaccine activists. 

Earlier that year,  Attorney General Bonta co-led a bipartisan coalition in expressing support for hearings in the U.S. Senate on “Protecting Kids Online: Facebook, Instagram, and Mental Health Harms.” Attorney General Bonta also joined a bipartisan coalition in support of Congressional efforts to modernize federal antitrust laws. In May, Attorney General Bonta joined 43 attorneys general in urging Facebook to abandon plans to launch a version of Instagram for children under the age of 13. Facebook announced that it would pause development of the new platform, following heavy criticism and shocking new reports from Wall Street Journal and other publications. 

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia in sending the letter.

Attorney General Bonta Leads Coalition of 16 Attorneys General in Open Letter Supporting Yelp’s Efforts to Provide Consumers Accurate Information about Crisis Pregnancy Centers. On October 23, 2023 Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of 16 attorneys general in an open letter supporting Yelp’s efforts to ensure that consumers are provided with clear and accurate information about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). Yelp has provided notices on CPCs’ Yelp pages notifying consumers that CPCs do not provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare. In the letter, the coalition supports Yelp’s efforts to provide accurate information to consumers who utilize the platform to find reproductive healthcare providers.

In the letter, the attorneys general support Yelp’s efforts to help educate consumers and ensure that patients are informed of what services are and are not available through CPCs. Over the past decade, CPCs have proliferated in the coalition states, outnumbering abortion clinics by a three-to-one ratio.  Joining Attorney General Bonta in the open letter are the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Washington.

Attorney General Bonta Joins Multistate Amicus Brief Supporting Federal Government in Missouri v. Biden. On July 31, 2023, as part of a coalition of 21 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined an amicus brief supporting the federal government’s appeal of a preliminary injunction that broadly prohibits it from communicating with social media platforms about the companies’ content-moderation practices and decisions. In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.