[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6592514,"mediaKeyId","2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391","parentId",2843494,"title","Panel advances SB 11 to restrict nonconsensual AI-generated likenesses and require provenance warnings","audioSeconds",249,"startMs",2268000,"endMs",2517000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391&start=2268&end=2517","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391/thumbnail_2268000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6592514/California/Panel-advances-SB-11-to-restrict-nonconsensual-AI-generated-likenesses-and-require-provenance-warnings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592514-1fa1f0c400f4a9f3456d84cd92927776/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084460&Signature=cZM6ESL~zV5dkXpPI2YIcJvD-FWV-qLd4BOnxfewHrUgjCT63qRWW5xZiBflutWa~b7Rdf76Okpve1yUnQKCkyyzgYRAB9SgahRTwqMvADBCGjGvN3rX70ulx~hJpm3zCeoRQxoeekV1XrsUfTIBg5WlF5054FgrpMQz2aCB4~EuMmUBYbMpiAaRPk85V1A6oa9jwBCg1QkCfcRC~I~OqjAUrIJ41uxfl2R4EGn8OpHd~CP6b8uNfs7mAhWerQPNvbqdiAcjVf1H922vBGeOnr34FWqqIS8UdN7~82pLiY3ZnzVZWAkVhHmUWgR7uX72eZcbcrysncssc5YaD9I5JQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Senate","date","2025-04-01T00:00:00Z","article","A Senate Judiciary subcommittee voted to advance SB 11, the AI Abuse Protection Act, which the author said would expand legal protections against nonconsensual \"deepfake\" images, video and voice cloning and require provenance and consumer-warning measures for AI-generated likenesses.

Senator Ashby, the bill's author, described the rise of generative AI as both an innovation and a source of consumer harm, saying the technology has \"disproportionately impacted women and young girls\" through nonconsensual sexualized images and that the bill would clarify that \"likeness\" includes AI-generated content. She described the measure as establishing \"guardrails that protect consumers from harm.\"

Proponents testifying included Jay Jaisima of Transparency Coalition AI, who urged the panel to require consistent provenance information to document how a piece of content was created and transformed, and Shane Guzman of SAG-AFTRA, who said performers are often victims of voice- and image-cloning abuse. Brandon Knapp of Chamber of Progress also testified in support.

Opposition or \"oppose unless amended\" positions were presented by business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce and trade groups, which said they were negotiating language on consumer-warning provisions and asked for clarity on scope and enforcement. Carl London of the Recording Industry Association said RIAA and artist partners had submitted amendment requests.

Committee members recorded unanimous support on the roll call in committee for SB 11 to proceed to the Senate Public Safety Committee.

Why it matters: Supporters say the legislation would give victims clearer remedies and require provenance labeling or warnings that can help consumers and courts evaluate content authenticity. Industry groups signaled interest in technical and scope negotiations.

What's next: SB 11 was moved to Senate Public Safety, where proponents and industry groups expect to continue negotiating amendments on warning language and evidentiary provenance standards.

Votes at a glance: Committee roll call recorded the motion to pass SB 11 to Senate Public Safety as unanimous among members voting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary Committee","oneSentenceSummary","A Senate Judiciary subcommittee voted unanimously to send SB 11 to Senate Public Safety; the bill would expand protections against nonconsensual AI-generated images, voice and video cloning and require provenance and warning disclosures.","taxTitle","California State Senate, Senate, Legislative, California","taxId",77650,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6592517,"Senate subcommittee advances bill to make pain-and-suffering survival damages permanent",1256,1037000,2293000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391&start=1037&end=2293","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391/thumbnail_1037000.jpg","/articles/6592517/California/Senate-subcommittee-advances-bill-to-make-pain-and-suffering-survival-damages-permanent","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592517-f1ac91a2a7a14636f08ff57c3d353de3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084460&Signature=NT17V5nZBzrXcenRhKJ4p7ONdBHYmkTBGG2ehKdqmaPC4eg8En85hEdNhEx7Jw1XjG7vqxZwMBNqPV8FgsrBrq3JxITp9UJe2woNRMK385xdKgaM3XP5X0KiuKFnSbFFLLl-rMzt7Z8Sk6z8h3~AxILDd9nxvBv3FQ7KhA5izD9jDSCoPT1nLHPD0bhgnZe5s7mAC-7TUMUBwn5rLqqpBiH-4CaNWTFylCAYGmt5rDS92H7PIa~MbPPoACwfq5iL6qttG6uhpqmeDuZTP2dY6QJFFd84AelO6OEds~wh-usc9jZk~YDmw4mQJaaRygZ8PhQOojzRWjXfBLGYTUWYdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Judiciary subcommittee approved SB 29, which would remove the sunset and make permanent the 2021 reform allowing recovery of pain-and-suffering damages in survival actions, sending the measure to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Senator Bill Laird, the author, said the law enacted in 2021 corrected an \"injustice\" by ensuring victims who die before litigation concludes do not lose the right to damages for pain and suffering. \"SB 29 just ensures victims who endure immense pain and suffering are not denied justice simply because they don't live long enough to see their day in court,\" Laird said.

Proponents included Jeff Wells, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, and Amy Martel with the Consumer Attorneys\u000board, who brought her client, Erica Cole. Cole described her mother's death after a retained medical item was found lodged in her airway and urged lawmakers to preserve survivors' rights. \"What happened to my mom highlights the need for Senate Bill 29,\" Cole said, describing a months-long decline that culminated in her mother's death.

Opponents and \"oppose unless amended\" groups included the California Medical Association, hospital associations, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, nursing and provider groups, and health-care coalitions. Stuart Thompson of the California Medical Association said the association was concerned about effects on health care costs, malpractice insurance premiums and the broader affordability of care. \"By increasing some of these policies, it does increase health care costs on the back end,\" Thompson told the committee.

Several senators said the bill raised difficult trade-offs between compensating victims and containing medical costs. Some members said they would support the author continuing negotiations and exploring amendments, including proposals to exempt medical-malpractice claims from the change; other members opposed making the change permanent without further agreement.

The committee voted to pass SB 29 to Senate Appropriations by recorded roll call. The recorded tally at the motion was nine in favor and two opposed.

Why it matters: Supporters argue survivors and families are entitled to compensation for pain and suffering even if the injured person dies before a case resolves. Opponents warn that expanding recoverable damages could increase malpractice costs and insurance premiums, with potential effects on health-care affordability and supply.

What's next: SB 29 proceeds to the Senate Appropriations Committee; the author said he would continue discussions with stakeholders.

Votes at a glance: The subcommittee recorded the motion to pass SB 29 to Appropriations with a 9-2 tally on the roll call during the hearing.","SB 29, carried by Senator Laird, would remove a sunset enacted in 2021 that currently limits recovery of pain-and-suffering damages in survival actions; proponents cited victim justice while medical and provider groups warned of potential cost pressures on health care and urged carve-outs for medical malpractice.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6592519,"Subcommittee advances bill clarifying California jurisdiction for confirmatory adoptions",635,360000,995000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391&start=360&end=995","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391/thumbnail_360000.jpg","/articles/6592519/California/Subcommittee-advances-bill-clarifying-California-jurisdiction-for-confirmatory-adoptions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592519-7b04d23bd494273945c1f7679627db0c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084460&Signature=VIWQ744-hFKGc0801kSceoe8PJTuDPxBCEeHgYzfMnENhKSqIrIX~6Y9N~rfAnJunCJql1nMAWUeZLhHGX-wnK-RqcS8R4XnmBGM1G3E7sgjz456krMYK37AEGL57JZxC2KeMIlysYg2yjuWJbtjctEn~JaixRb3LVyGupazsu0JMHfvEVPEn0NeZALNJXsnXbBfPVkbBWzt9beUD0w11VLMUEuevch5ylr0CAn5JIrYNDHEU20dHqeLbgYqrfTjnnTIMSZ88CtF42DW67bLrgZE4QmK1BwvlBGYlCgPdXddq3NgWiTgJjn49r-RnDwoh2F6JxkxHSHBwKcfq9Re~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A State Senate Judiciary subcommittee moved SB 450 to the Senate Appropriations Committee after author Senator María Menjivar told the panel the bill clarifies California\fourt jurisdiction over confirmatory adoptions for children born in the state even when adoptive families no longer reside here.

\"SB 450 will clarify and reaffirm California's longstanding jurisdiction for adoption proceedings including confirmatory adoptions,\" Menjivar said. She said the change is intended to ensure that families who relocate to less supportive states retain access to California's streamlined confirmatory-adoption process when the child was born in California.

Proponents included Craig Polster of Equality California, who described the measure as a safeguard for LGBTQ+ parents who may face legal uncertainty if they leave the state. \"One of the most important things LGBTQ parents can do to protect their families is to secure a court ordered adoption decree,\" Polster said, arguing the bill ensures that legal recognition established in California remains available to children born in the state.

Alice Kessler, representing the Academy of California Adoption and Assisted Reproduction Lawyers, also supported the bill and offered to answer technical questions about adoption law.

There were no primary opponents at the hearing. Committee members asked no substantive questions after testimony. The subcommittee moved SB 450 to Senate Appropriations; the committee roll calls recorded the measure passing on party-line-free votes.

Why it matters: The bill aims to remove ambiguity in the Family Code about when California courts can issue confirmatory adoption decrees for children born here, a change proponents say will protect families who relocate.

What's next: SB 450 goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee for further review; the author requested an \"aye\" vote at the subcommittee.

Votes at a glance: Committee roll calls recorded the measure advancing to Appropriations with unanimous committee support on the day of the hearing.","SB 450 would clarify that California courts may adjudicate confirmatory adoptions for children born in California even when the adoptive parents no longer live in the state; the subcommittee advanced the measure to Appropriations after proponents from Equality California and adoption law groups testified.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6592520,"Senate panel advances bill requiring faster data-breach notices to Californians",770,174000,944000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391&start=174&end=944","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391/thumbnail_174000.jpg","/articles/6592520/California/Senate-panel-advances-bill-requiring-faster-data-breach-notices-to-Californians","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592520-5db057f8481af3aa16926e7e5682a246/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084460&Signature=dyAiLo~u-K0V~czpmbvu7llaedl173RNEefXteuRa2AyECBeCIURUUYuPs9piRLczAMLSB4HcrIJdL1ndgNbqKm0~rrTJ~H5WPjStHihBuCkX1BV698ikBiBtHAsmY6SvicTm-Q9fpEGAmYf7CmywYC8kwajeGDM2m~QembXDRurPkP-7HB7WUVd3mMmWLeGT7AxPwzL5TBfbwvnWlh9AlqjDiqcYTftXHhFew0T2lFu2MGUMK3VwTNbUfepdjNX0NM~1BMNWjAm1ccf2RcaaoKfMsUUyMnpNl0U1FjaucKnPUUIeBSPpVP6PzKwnkhJl4BnQxW5l6g~Bt13tw7Ffg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A California State Senate Judiciary subcommittee advanced SB 446 on a voice-and-roll vote, sending the bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Lena Hurtado, the bill
uthor, told the panel SB 446 would require businesses and other data holders to notify California residents of security breaches within 30 days and to notify the Office of the Attorney General within 15 days.

The bill would not change the existing threshold for when notification is required; Hurtado said current law already requires reporting when a breach affects more than 500 residents but lacks a specific disclosure deadline.

\"SB 446 would protect consumers by requiring a data breach disclosure be made to California residents within 30 days and it expands on existing law by requiring individuals and businesses to notify the Office of the Attorney General within 15 days of a security breach,\" Hurtado said during her presentation. She acknowledged industry concerns about the speed of the required AG notice and said she would continue to \"assess and work on those concerns.\"

At the hearing the subcommittee opened the floor for primary support and opposition witnesses but none approached to testify. Committee staff then called the roll; the measure was carried forward on the committee\falendar and, in the full committee roll calls recorded later in the hearing, passed out of the Judiciary Committee without opposition.

Why it matters: Supporters say a fixed deadline would reduce the window in which consumers and affected organizations remain unaware of breaches. Opponents (who did not present in-person testimony at this hearing) have flagged implementation concerns and the short timeframe for notice to the Attorney General.

What's next: SB 446 was moved to the Senate Appropriations Committee; the author indicated willingness to negotiate technical changes.

Votes at a glance: The motion to pass SB 446 as amended to Senate Appropriations was moved on the record; committee roll calls recorded the measure advancing without recorded dissent (final roll notation: passed out of committee).","A Senate Judiciary subcommittee voted to send SB 446 to the Appropriations Committee after author Senator Hurtado said the bill would require residents be notified of data breaches within 30 days and the Attorney General within 15 days; no public witnesses testified for or against the measure at the hearing.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6592510,"Senate panel adopts resolution to rescind California's calls for an Article V constitutional convention",475,2525000,3000000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391&start=2525&end=3000","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2843494-b033c7eb5a488960df5b201b75be0391/thumbnail_2525000.jpg","/articles/6592510/California/Senate-panel-adopts-resolution-to-rescind-Californias-calls-for-an-Article-V-constitutional-convention","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6592510-da7dbc847d3c6806b69a4b406ab4cb60/orig.mp4?Expires=1771084460&Signature=KYORZ8NVCZ9mnreRWKRecgaC4ESzJJJtPB3m611yFzTL2Al8mWtXHAyH0aT54emvRxO-KT-SMy-qXsIbFt9DVGJrEXv7ldxUzpfmABTBenda-5T1hZwz3mZlZxYordNFLlLXnWgCs0P-1XXd~jwqhR62mgB0-PXla-GcJ7hZRTWNWd74Lo6FEkEiTrnZBWg35kZJvZKbDP~ljoCTCjXFF7WFh40U9xIwJs2rwVliqwn~0OMAeSeEygbRp~pyDGAsuJLVOPpdYPE9DkYaplbhYBnKJib1mWppO2SMPHZFKgEkfw9njEbeX0LDpTgDQns-MKJ30kfVeP8C8lAAOstHvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Senate Judiciary subcommittee voted to adopt SJR 1, a resolution rescinding California's past calls for a federal constitutional convention under Article V, saying the state should not remain on record in favor of an open-ended process that could threaten civil liberties.

Senator Wiener, who introduced the resolution, argued that Article V provides no rules for how a convention would be run and said there is a real risk that a narrowly focused convention could morph into a broader slate of changes. \"There are no rules in the Constitution about how the convention is convened, who decides who gets to be a delegate, whether they are or aren't constrained,\" Wiener said.

Dora Rose, deputy director of the League of Women Voters of California and a sponsor of SJR 1, told the committee that the League has long warned against the perils of an Article V convention. She said rescinding prior calls would help protect voting rights, reproductive rights, and other constitutional protections that could be at risk if a convention exceeded its original scope.

McKay Cunningham, a constitutional law professor testifying in support, said the legal questions about what counts as a valid state call and whether calls can be rescinded remain unsettled and that the uncertainty itself puts rights at risk.

No witnesses testified in opposition at the subcommittee. The motion to adopt SJR 1 passed on the committee roll call; the recorded tally was unanimous among members voting.

Why it matters: Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows states to call for a convention to propose amendments, but the Constitution does not specify procedural limits for such a convention. Proponents of SJR 1 argued that rescinding California's earlier calls reduces the risk that the state would be complicit in a convention that removes or curtails constitutional protections.

What's next: With subcommittee approval, SJR 1 proceeds through the Senate; sponsors urged immediate adoption to remove California from the list of active calls.

Votes at a glance: Committee roll call recorded the resolution adopted unanimously among members voting.","The subcommittee adopted SJR 1, a joint resolution that would rescind California's prior calls for a federal constitutional convention under Article V; sponsors warned a convention could become a \"runaway\" event without constitutional guardrails, and supporters from the League of Women Voters and constitutional scholars testified in favor.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel advances SB 11 to restrict nonconsensual AI-generated likenesses and require provenance warnings

Senate subcommittee advances bill to make pain-and-suffering survival damages permanent

Subcommittee advances bill clarifying California jurisdiction for confirmatory adoptions

Senate panel advances bill requiring faster data-breach notices to Californians

Senate panel adopts resolution to rescind California's calls for an Article V constitutional convention