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