[{"_1":2,"_120":-5,"_121":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,87,96,108],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6623981,"mediaKeyId","2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70","parentId",2769241,"title","Panel advances bill to incentivize nonprofit home‑sharing for older adults with guardrails on tenant protections","audioSeconds",1850,"startMs",3527000,"endMs",5377000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70&start=3527&end=5377","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70/thumbnail_3527000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6623981/California/Panel-advances-bill-to-incentivize-nonprofit-homesharing-for-older-adults-with-guardrails-on-tenant-protections","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623981-1a1051dded072bb07e7ae5edd4c7367b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770800561&Signature=eIrrodjf0zQL9wqfsQGMUP71XHBpUbOhp-UF9yegZt8Te7PkCxA1uy4GFosU6H2nkE3Oxnph1iaPi1lvaIEYOiODXxo9YH6vjzE4~YAod3D6chUx89dUkVnnY7VviqWRmxaXIqRJr2tkJ9hrsfKyjTI2z1tmy9Lv9UhIJnrDXBscc0WoGmWE8~40jLdvLvs-~TidcdATnTvK~p4oc6ws1kfZKac29cjVfx2MOeQY8YyBUW5I8lPO3saguzmQmG0njz7CqEyDZhNfNAVJxLj6pcM8yY5pr7lKLchONB97c4NkojlJXrZlSs5iYqUM6x805NFzK3fbJ8v1gTpVgYz1hg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Assembly","date","2025-03-25T00:00:00Z","article","Assemblymember Adam Ward presented AB 474 as a package of incentives and clarifications to expand nonprofit home‑sharing programs for low‑income older Californians. “This bill … will help simplify and incentivize the process of renting out your room through a nonprofit home share program that already exists,” Ward told the Judiciary subcommittee.

The bill proposes three main elements: a state income tax exemption for rental income earned by qualifying low‑income homeowners who participate in nonprofit home‑sharing programs; assurance that that rental income will not automatically disqualify them from existing social‑safety net benefits; and a carve-out to clarify how state landlord‑tenant law (the so‑called “larger law” or lodger statute) applies to shared‑housing arrangements run by nonprofits.

Witnesses described nonprofit programs that match older homeowners with home seekers, prepare rooms, conduct compatibility screening and provide ongoing case‑management support. Dr. Angela Perrone of UC Berkeley and Luke Barnes‑Moore of Front Porch’s HomeMatch program testified about research showing home‑sharing can reduce older adults’ loneliness, help them age in place, and prevent homelessness.

Opposition and concern came primarily from landlord and rental‑housing trade groups about removing protections in the existing lodger statute that can allow an owner to seek rapid removal of a problem occupant. Deborah Carlton of the California Apartment Association said the current statute, imperfectly enforced, can sometimes allow a homeowner to call local enforcement to remove a threatening lodger; she urged continued negotiation so home providers would not lose a practical safety remedy. Committee members from both parties pressed the author for clarity and committed to further work on narrowing or clarifying the exemption so it applies only to nonprofit home‑share participants and does not unintentionally remove important protections for vulnerable homeowners.

Author Ward agreed to continue working with stakeholders. Committee members repeatedly said they supported the bill’s goal to create more affordable housing options and to help older adults remain in their homes, but wanted stronger assurances that the bill would not leave home providers exposed or make eviction impractically slow in dangerous situations.

After debate, the committee moved AB 474 forward to the Human Services Committee. The author said the bill is triple‑referred and will receive additional scrutiny and opportunities for compromise on the lodger/larger‑law language in subsequent committees.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Judiciary Committee","oneSentenceSummary","AB 474, advanced by Assemblymember Adam Ward, would incentivize nonprofit home‑sharing for low‑income older homeowners through a targeted tax exemption and clarifications to state housing law, while lawmakers asked the author to resolve concerns about eviction protections.","taxTitle","California State Assembly, House, Legislative, California","taxId",17099,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":44,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6623985,"Assembly panel advances bill barring companies from blaming AI for civil harms",1434,2093000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70&start=2093&end=3527","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70/thumbnail_2093000.jpg","/articles/6623985/California/Assembly-panel-advances-bill-barring-companies-from-blaming-AI-for-civil-harms","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623985-01307cd92a4985dbdb06f9070f94e99f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770800561&Signature=fw0Kh1dzNJZIk3auQrES6Q-eIdR1dpOBUBPBB3nK0krLwx5Iz6lwHt~OQYktdUjBlx~svtpBtVaYnmRsF-lLqEtvGYO3i2YZh~JuP7M2mkla6A4412Cp8TWX50cQ7JDi-6n5ZPJu33KNXe5b0K1eZ6KhR633ORo~jq11o7XgdkAGckzZJprBecgOGpH-vrTeS4RO9gl7Jva0on31DZFft6OcAcoYtxLvXY1FIy8fAKMKiCl1VoKuKpbfLdhVbN6EOAp153DCjHByF2RcQqwcn0Sf4jzqX1JGpDTwXtzUi8dleB~1cOMeKvdWeQcBFeNyxPTnUA9PIu7-4mq2pyWb0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assemblymember Kevin Krell introduced AB 316 on the Assembly Judiciary subcommittee agenda, saying the bill would ‘‘provide guidance to our courts’’ and prevent defendants from blaming artificial intelligence for harms caused by products or services. “It’s simply a rail guard … that would govern future cases,” Krell said during the hearing.

Supporters — including Mark Berkman of the Organization for Social Media Safety and Leora Gershinson of the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy (California Common Cause project) — told the committee that AB 316 does not change plaintiffs’ burdens or create new causes of action but would prevent deployers and developers from asserting that an AI’s ‘‘alleged autonomy’’ eliminates human responsibility. “If you build an AI-powered feature … and it causes harm, you should not be able to claim that AI caused the harm, not you,” Berkman said.

Proponents pointed to recent examples of harms tied to AI-powered chatbots and features, and said the bill would preserve accountability while leaving the underlying negligence or liability standards to courts. Gershinson noted the bill is “a very small thing” that asks courts not to let defendants hide behind alleged machine autonomy.

Industry groups raised concerns. Robert Boykin of TechNet and Catherine Charles of the Chamber of Progress said they were in respectful opposition, describing ongoing discussions with the author’s office and expressing worry that the bill could affect liability rules in ways they are still negotiating. The bill’s author and several committee members said they would continue to work with stakeholders as the measure moves through the process.

During the hearing several members expressed support, calling the bill a common-sense first step as California continues larger work on AI regulation. The committee moved the bill forward; the subcommittee recorded the motion and later took a roll-call to advance the measure off the committee.

The bill’s text, as presented, does not change burdens of proof or create new causes of action. Supporters repeatedly emphasized that AB 316 leaves to courts and future legislation any questions about strict liability or other remedial frameworks.

Closing statements reiterated the narrow intent: maintain human accountability for harms, and prevent litigants from escaping responsibility by invoking alleged AI autonomy. The bill moved forward in committee for further consideration and stakeholder negotiation.","The Assembly subcommittee advanced AB 316, a bill from Assemblymember Krell that would bar companies from using alleged AI autonomy as a defense in civil lawsuits. Proponents said the bill is a narrow ‘‘guardrail’’ to prevent defendants from shifting blame to autonomous systems; industry groups expressed careful opposition and want further talks.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":91,"_49":82,"_51":92,"_53":93,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":94,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":95,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6623967,"Votes at a glance: key Assembly Judiciary subcommittee measures moved on May 20, 2025",0,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70&start=2093&end=2093","/articles/6623967/California/Votes-at-a-glance-key-Assembly-Judiciary-subcommittee-measures-moved-on-May-20-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623967-8999723a0f49787742bb2d5780b5386c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770800561&Signature=XrpEavCDymK8dkqEnDm67LY7s8HZdLmJhYHkRQJ-xW9HtpBE5Izd6~XP8Fd~dyuCglgIUBjJX9D5Vt7RqsHbhk5cQBctwYAjOAUrtoGnpAsj~S9tQJd5SHo8ELMF6zMzl-z9~KeIM703CwgYKZ1TRZI3KjxKQzNRsma-Pc4yIM45DvR5GjFWvejpJ40UqwYFv7xekJ4IfXpb-HWVhSo9QLsFo~O1hJhDh6JFhnz462jLB~4WZxQbSfTWRO3y0QBevQNjWL8XvDkoXdi~H4-k7fesM~bMwOnQV-k--AOmFldZK9LGA33PSfz2LQdT0HeRLsMV53xa7gJ2deVHP7Nsfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Judiciary subcommittee on May 20, 2025 took formal action on multiple bills. Below are the items the committee debated and the recorded committee outcomes or next referrals as reflected in the hearing record.

- AB 316 (Krell) — AI defenses: Moved off the subcommittee for further consideration (committee roll‑call and record indicate the bill was advanced). Supporters said it simply prevents defendants from claiming machine autonomy as a shield; industry groups signaled ongoing negotiations.

- AB 251 (Calra) — Elder‑abuse spoliation standard: The committee discussed amendments negotiated with the California Association of Health Facilities; the committee moved toward a motion (transcript shows motion to move the bill and initial roll calls; record indicated further steps and a vote stayed on call in the hearing transcript).

- AB 474 (Ward) — Nonprofit home sharing: Moved to Human Services with the author committing to continue talks on how to narrow the interaction with the ‘‘lodger’’/larger‑law eviction rules.

- AB 464 (Aguilliera) — Prison staff sexual‑assault protections: Passed as amended to Appropriations. Key changes included tolling civil‑claim deadlines while incarcerated (and for four years after release), a 90‑day anti‑retaliation monitoring requirement for survivors, and a rehiring prohibition for staff confirmed to have committed abuse.

- AB 614 (Lee) — Uniform government claims statute of limitations: The committee moved the bill to Appropriations as amended. The measure would align the Government Claims Act deadlines by extending six‑month limits for personal‑injury and wrongful‑death claims to one year, a change proponents said would improve access to justice; local government groups urged caution over evidentiary preservation and corrective action timelines.

- AB 1240 (Lee) — Restricting large corporate purchases of single‑family homes: Advanced to Appropriations (on call). The bill would bar corporations owning at least 1,000 single‑family homes from buying additional single‑family homes for conversion to rentals; sponsors said it protects for‑sale inventory for first‑time buyers; opponents said the targeted investors own a small fraction of homes statewide and cautioned about unintended consequences.

- AB 851 (McKenna) — Post‑fire protections for homeowners (Palisades/Altadena): Passed as amended to Appropriations. The bill would extend protections from unsolicited below‑market purchase offers in declared fire ZIP codes and add a four‑month rescission window for sales in affected areas; sponsors said predatory solicitations have targeted survivors in fire‑affected neighborhoods.

- AB 628 (McKinner) — Required refrigerator and stove in new residential leases: The author accepted amendments to narrow the scope; housing groups moved from opposition to neutral/support as amendments were negotiated; the subcommittee recorded a motion to pass as amended and kept the measure on call.

- AB 711 / AB 926 / related measures: The subcommittee advanced AB 926 (family visitation presumption) to Human Services after negotiations with county welfare directors; a court‑reporting notice bill (file number recorded in the hearing) also passed with commitments from the author to continue working with stakeholders.

Several motions were recorded as ‘‘passed’’ or ‘‘passed as amended’’ with referral to the next committee (Human Services or Appropriations). For the bills the committee advanced to Appropriations, members repeatedly flagged likely fiscal implications and directed the authors and stakeholders to work with staff and the Appropriations Committee on cost estimates and implementation details.

The hearing included extensive testimony from academic experts, nonprofits, survivors, industry trade groups, and county officials on multiple bills. Authors repeatedly committed to continued stakeholder negotiation on technical or draft language before next committee actions.","A roundup of bills the subcommittee acted on during the May 20 hearing: several measures were advanced to other committees or appropriations with amendments, including bills on AI liability, home‑sharing, prison sexual‑assault protections, government claims, single‑family investor limits, and post‑fire solicitation protections.",{"_33":97,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":98,"_41":99,"_43":100,"_45":101,"_47":102,"_49":103,"_51":104,"_53":105,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":106,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":107,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6623973,"Bill would create presumption of unsupervised family time in dependency cases; committee advances measure",847,12771000,13618000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70&start=12771&end=13618","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70/thumbnail_12771000.jpg","/articles/6623973/California/Bill-would-create-presumption-of-unsupervised-family-time-in-dependency-cases-committee-advances-measure","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623973-244ad1bdaaccfdc8a9ba7ba9bfc7fc7b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770800561&Signature=OLl-Q-LjulvrK0za1eYlAerJ7IgL5ekzt~1CTv7p31e5lFklRzWqyPPyn3YoWUx2kqZUOA66JX9LQLi00dKDCDFhe9XitjaAkJZjHyNjkjDXjwMJ8DnguXjqqFx~Oans6K0GWwnovqSKAD0GbqdXkEUSlgE~uDW9EzJRdPgnwZxvzovDutFtFU~9VPq957oc47kdNhF43io7jgUUGPkjVJZJUNGtLRFixbFWCmi0PH7uBZobwqyMxNbx0bkOXmezPug2t25Pc~R54FkGd7F-mbxVK~QazlvLowpGEUCFLbODZ0u9GtCn88jgoJNpZx3Y5YQxSX3HfX44Hm64OWJ0CA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assemblymember McKinner introduced AB 926 to change how family time is ordered in dependency proceedings: instead of supervising visits by default, the bill would create a rebuttable presumption that family time is unsupervised unless the court finds a substantial danger to the child that cannot be mitigated by other reasonable means.

Julie Hannigan of Dependency Legal Services and attorneys for children said the current practice in many counties defaults to supervised visits in CPS offices — limited hours, closed holidays, and settings that exclude extended family and normal cultural practices. “Family time promotes repair and stability and fosters healthy relationships and attachments,” Hannigan told the committee. She and other supporters argued supervised visits are often used as a surveillance tool rather than focused therapeutic programming.

Children’s Law Center and attorneys who represent children testified that supervised CPS‑office visits often result in one‑hour sessions and months of restricted contact that heighten trauma for children and make reunification harder. Supporters emphasized that nothing in AB 926 prevents observation or assessment when appropriate, or tailored therapeutic services for parent‑child interaction problems.

County officials — represented by the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) — said they support the bill’s policy direction but raised concerns about the proposed legal standard for the rebuttable presumption. CWDA said it would work with the author to find language that balances child safety and access to unsupervised family time. Committee members asked questions about the statutory language, the definition of “substantial danger,” and whether the measure could unintentionally shorten judicial discretion when children’s safety is at risk.

After discussion, and with the author’s pledge to continue negotiations on the standard language, the committee moved AB 926 to Human Services.","AB 926 would create a rebuttable presumption that visits between parents and children in foster care are unsupervised unless the court finds substantial danger to the child. Proponents and child‑advocate attorneys said supervised office visits can be restrictive and traumatic; counties signaled willingness to work on the standard language.",{"_33":109,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":110,"_41":111,"_43":112,"_45":113,"_47":114,"_49":115,"_51":116,"_53":117,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":118,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":119,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6623978,"Committee advances bill to extend protections, anti‑retaliation and reporting for prisoners who report staff sexual assault",2146,10344000,12490000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70&start=10344&end=12490","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769241-beaef05006c009290295c2f94382db70/thumbnail_10344000.jpg","/articles/6623978/California/Committee-advances-bill-to-extend-protections-antiretaliation-and-reporting-for-prisoners-who-report-staff-sexual-assault","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623978-acb1ba1c55f14d47d03457a6bd0b34c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770800561&Signature=WIegWu4F18eJR7-T7yMrnMZYSVzdbgIe9XCH61Dop9Ut52OiBFmUnLs-NSfF2gTyFNJs1k~whWdqDfJTshWWigA4X~FeLrKVIUk4WH12i9ljRfbvkz33EDy9YFGWc6BimN347ORJ21kbmUl5UuhWrquntL9LG8Q8z-k8nMd72VIdGKPLuUZlNGkBNcNGu8RE8zEKWwlL739W~e8RShq-6GcyzadORUGn8OZCK6cmlbVRW0ZSf0-XxHvj3gNo7UCU2TiatbDTsgfQ~tgz~-poF4cfW3SzhPVRusvVWSyAWgl468lABpQbk1iVh-7K~mjiG2QqaVOBT2I7nCAYtDn3gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assemblymember Aguilliera (author) presented AB 464, an accountability and anti‑retaliation package aimed at addressing sexual assault and retaliation by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) staff. The author said the bill arose from survivor testimony and research showing persistent reports of staff sexual misconduct and retaliatory measures that discourage reporting.

Survivors provided extended and emotional testimony. Kiana Aldridge recounted multiple incidents she said occurred while incarcerated at the California Institution for Women (CIW), the discipline she experienced after reporting, and the punitive responses she linked to CDCR — including solitary confinement, loss of prison jobs, and revocation of credits. April Grayson read testimony from another survivor, who described grooming, repeated abuse, and a response that protected staff while punishing survivors.

Key provisions in the bill as amended included: tolling the statute of limitations for civil claims while survivors are incarcerated and for four years after release; enhanced monitoring of survivors for 90 days after they report to reduce retaliation; prohibiting rehiring of CDCR staff who have confirmed findings of sexual misconduct; more robust reporting and notification requirements; limits on transfers of victims without consent (except for safety); and other anti‑retaliation steps and administrative protections.

Witnesses and many committee members described the reforms as urgently needed. Supporters included several advocacy groups, prosecutors’ associations and members of victim‑survivor networks. Assembly members from both parties praised the courage of survivors who testified and discussed adding coauthors to the bill.

Several members asked about the length of the monitoring period; the sponsor said the 90‑day standard was based on federal guidance but allowed for continuing reporting when circumstances change. After discussion the committee moved AB 464 as amended to the Appropriations Committee, with multiple co‑authors offered by members.","AB 464 would expand reporting timeframes, add anti‑retaliation monitoring, bar rehiring of staff found to have committed sexual abuse, and toll statutes for claims — reforms supporters say are urgently needed after repeated survivor testimony about retaliation in CDCR settings. The committee passed the bill to appropriations as amended.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel advances bill to incentivize nonprofit home‑sharing for older adults with guardrails on tenant protections

Assembly panel advances bill barring companies from blaming AI for civil harms

Votes at a glance: key Assembly Judiciary subcommittee measures moved on May 20, 2025

Bill would create presumption of unsupervised family time in dependency cases; committee advances measure

Committee advances bill to extend protections, anti‑retaliation and reporting for prisoners who report staff sexual assault