[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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],{"_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",6566577,"mediaKeyId","3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26","parentId",3204340,"title","Assembly committee advances bill saying developers can’t blame AI to avoid liability","audioSeconds",2242,"startMs",1958000,"endMs",4200000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26&start=1958&end=4200","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26/thumbnail_1958000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6566577/California/Assembly-committee-advances-bill-saying-developers-cant-blame-AI-to-avoid-liability","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566577-4266e7577b45199f497d4972167fa114/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500539&Signature=N-ZTbvZa8U6FxgnFM4mH0fgWJwHqWYyFUowFEpJK4p0DKaTJh27Av6XoZy9ylNQHXLaO6VNrAlYPUBtmI30eTU70Z4oEiM7ymf~MpXy0VrsmIp8ssWJ1rFyzfH1Jz-48ThFqMu8a5SOttWc-czi7z4kXMOcFfN8JK~oo2~az~rvPKtnbM9NX4xNuppCFLDmIm7jYtyeYrpLBTw6lBZKhc4psoXuB92MjOBOZVf~o4FsRRGl6zFWpMC-0ndACI1GvenC4CMTQhfBay7DJpoMlaWF3~b-UNyOQktJKqHm4JzuxZmXc7-GmU9Y0vrlBIw~JVOp-oGEg4grcsE1lH4YIwg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Assembly","date","2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","article","Assemblymember Krell introduced Assembly Bill 316 on behalf of the Bridal and Consumer Protection Committee, asking members to approve a narrow rule clarifying that a developer or deployer of an AI system cannot avoid responsibility by asserting the AI acted autonomously.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill would preserve existing tort standards while removing a possible “escape hatch” for defendants who might otherwise claim that autonomous behavior absolves them of liability. Opponents urged caution, saying courts already possess tools to assign fault and the measure, as drafted, needs clearer definitions to avoid unintended liability.

Assemblymember Krell, the author, told the committee AB 316 “is a modest proposal… It does not change existing law in terms of liability. It does not create new ways to file lawsuits. What it does do is set up a guardrail… so defendants who could be sued by plaintiffs using existing theories of harm cannot use the excuse that the AI autonomously caused the harm.”

Two expert witnesses testified in support. Ken Wang, senior policy advisor with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy (a project of California Common Cause), said the bill “clarif[ies] that a developer or a deployer of AI cannot avoid responsibility for the harm the product causes by claiming the AI did it,” and stressed this does not create strict liability. Ed Howard, senior counsel at the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego, urged the committee to act quickly because, he said, harms driven by sophisticated AI “are about to get worse very fast,” and explained that allowing defendants to point to AI as the dispositive cause would leave many harmed people without a viable defendant.

Witnesses in support from organizations included Common Sense Media, UFCW Western States Council and the Consumer Federation of California. Speakers opposing or urging amendment included Robert Roepoikin of TechNet and Ronak Delami of the California Chamber of Commerce, who said courts already address causation and negligence and that the bill’s current language could blur established doctrines such as foreseeability, design diligence and comparative fault. Delami asked for clearer definitions distinguishing developers, modifiers and users and how affirmative defenses would apply to each.

During questioning Assemblymember DeMaio and others pressed the author on whether a company could currently attempt to deflect liability by pointing to the autonomy of an AI system; Krell replied that the bill preempts prolonged litigation over that specific defense and “preempt[s] that by saying right now… you’re responsible for the products that you create.” The author indicated she would accept committee amendments and work with stakeholders on clarifying language.

Action: The committee moved AB 316 out with a favorable vote. The roll call as recorded later in the hearing shows the bill passed the committee with a recorded tally of 11 yes, 2 no.

Where the debate landed: Supporters emphasized the bill preserves existing burdens of proof (duty, breach, causation, foreseeability, damages) while eliminating a single, categorical defense based on AI autonomy; opponents asked for more precise drafting to avoid sweeping away established defenses and to preserve comparative-fault analysis.

The author closed by repeating that AB 316 “sets up a minimal guardrail to prevent future harms… and prevents reckless actors from using AI as an excuse.”

Ending: The committee advanced AB 316 as amended; the author and stakeholders will continue working on clarifying language as the bill proceeds to later committee or floor action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee","oneSentenceSummary","Assemblymember Krell introduced Assembly Bill 316, a measure to bar developers or deployers of artificial intelligence from asserting the AI’s autonomy as a categorical defense in civil suits, and the Bridal and Consumer Protection Committee voted to advance the bill.","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":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},6566563,"Committee advances bill requiring upfront ‘real price’ for rental-car bookings",1358,4822000,6180000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26&start=4822&end=6180","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26/thumbnail_4822000.jpg","/articles/6566563/California/Committee-advances-bill-requiring-upfront-real-price-for-rental-car-bookings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566563-fd0c6d5ef09e4157df748547f30966b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500539&Signature=QJwrTnZ3VSKDYot3D5UWjFelstGJ8JSZOcsDkXK~E9fsenuTuxMsADl3MzshkhkA8yPmRcj9UnQFtcOTavgHb690oJFOV-srM5wWI0LrxrFK9NBdFTmvpZWGM861RqN~qo8vcQhH2k5je4I2TG~~IHTK49JKU5JQehn0GAwhN1P3Egh2Y8hYmznjUOGfZgTh7H1x~h2fkEO9KgNZI1p7dvhygTxSIjgTZbarmlnmAlU836OKOERrh1-H8bRuOFGjTe4BeSXaY11B6siMV~2gQa-bGBni4f5oYmBthRmLOFzIlurPiagRI-1Pc9Ojx0p9NKq~JmKS2wJIAumBL3o5RQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assemblymember Berman presented AB 1374, legislation to require rental-car businesses and third-party sellers to disclose an estimate of the total charges for a rental as soon as consumers select dates, location and vehicle type.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill prevents deceptive or confusing price displays that hide mandatory fees until late in the checkout flow, while industry representatives said existing California law already requires price disclosures and warned the proposed revisions could invite litigation if worded imprecisely.

Berman said hidden fees and last‑minute add-ons frustrate consumers and cited a secret-shopper review and screenshots in the sponsor letter showing discrepancies between advertised prices and ultimate totals; in one example a five‑day rental’s total increased by more than $100 after fees were added. Robert Hurrell of the Consumer Federation of California supported the bill and summarized the sponsor’s secret‑shopper findings.

Opponents urged caution. John Moffitt of Enterprise Mobility said California’s rental-car disclosure law has been in place for over a decade, companies know how to comply, and small wording changes—such as replacing a known legal term like “good‑faith estimate” with “total charges estimate”—could create new private‑claim exposure. He and others suggested that the bill should target noncompliant third‑party platforms rather than impose broad changes that invite litigation against compliant rental firms.

During discussion the author and industry witnesses traded examples of where consumers saw a final total before payment and where companies’ flow hid fees until the last page. The author argued that the bill targets the psychology of checkout flows and seeks an apples‑to‑apples comparison for consumers, and said she had adopted author amendments after stakeholder conversations.

Action: The committee passed AB 1374 as amended. The roll call recorded during the hearing showed the motion carried (committee summary roll call recorded 13 yes, 0 no).

Ending: The committee advanced AB 1374 with amendments intended to improve transparency for consumers and to address stakeholder concerns; the author said she will continue discussions with industry to refine language and implementation details.
","AB 1374 by Assemblymember Berman would require rental companies and third-party sellers to disclose the total estimated charges once a consumer has selected dates, location and vehicle type. Supporters said the change prevents last-minute price surprises; industry warned vague language could invite litigation.",{"_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},6566567,"Committee advances rental-car bill to allow limited geofencing, tighten 'keys' rule",734,4066000,4800000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26&start=4066&end=4800","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26/thumbnail_4066000.jpg","/articles/6566567/California/Committee-advances-rental-car-bill-to-allow-limited-geofencing-tighten-keys-rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566567-4e2e3f42ee30b10fcb8f05b4f9da57c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500539&Signature=RRLLi8Eo3IvM2ZhyK~vkHAPKB60TFNPuDBbVV0kUEO5qUPOQOc3FZI2VowSbclamnPWXf0LgZuk1BQ5-a~kkxuQtNUZRmwQtQOLUUq7EKAdX1haLebNDDEMch3OOuLOQqpl5Zn6K2ribNJsLqPWvXYBPsAxGIWuzcXDkqSjvIDfTtgg9Fs7WVzuMlMAdCr5ZBIIB-RQ5XrAnxd1JyFP~Xi0qQ5nIGI-BQWJyl6FAxfJAii7ncuXkKy1PVgcmod8p3-f2oQ8X-McjBO2qfC5anw~SS0BTbblXKiqCepVEmzmBvGZLtwmOVD61qYrzBSUmSw1BgXBCwUjAxSY3jE1vFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assemblymember Calderon presented AB 1197, a bill that the committee advanced to modernize rental-car law and discourage organized theft and fraudulent schemes that target rental vehicles.

Why it matters: Witnesses said rental cars are frequent targets for theft and that current law contains loopholes that encourage bad actors. The bill would allow limited use of location-based technology (geofencing) in narrowly defined scenarios and would revise a ‘‘keys’’ presumption that affects renter liability.

Calderon told the committee that each year 400 to 500 rental cars are reported stolen and that current law, as written, can leave rental companies unable to recover losses. She said committee amendments narrow location-based tracking to geofencing and limit its use to specific scenarios such as detecting unauthorized cross-border movement or when a vehicle has been abandoned in a tow yard for more than 24 hours.

John Moffitt, testifying for Enterprise Mobility, described problems the industry faces and argued the bill would allow recovery and reduce fees incurred while vehicles sit in tow yards. Moffitt said current law gives certain renters a de facto shield if they claim they returned a key; AB 1197 ties the presumption to the actual return of a key and a police report so companies can better distinguish genuine renters from organized theft rings. Moffitt also described an average loss rate of about two cars per day in the state under current practice.

Supporters in the room included Enterprise, Hertz and Avis Budget Group. The Consumer Federation of California’s Robert Hurrell expressed guarded support for the intent and amendments but warned of potential unintended consequences, such as rental companies geofencing many impound lots or the presumption shifting unfairly when consumers’ property (for example, a purse containing keys) is stolen.

Committee members probed the geofencing and keys provisions. Members asked whether companies could geofence every tow yard; Moffitt said geofencing would be narrowly targeted and that in practice rental companies would not (and likely could not) geofence every facility. The author and witnesses emphasized that the bill’s amendments attempted to balance consumer privacy with the need to recover stolen assets and limit predatory tow-yard practices.

Action: The committee voted to pass AB 1197 as amended. The roll call recorded later in the hearing shows the bill passed the committee (recorded at 14 yes, 0 no in the summary roll call).

Ending: AB 1197 moves forward with amendments intended to permit limited geofencing and to revise the keys presumption while preserving consumer safeguards; the author committed to continue working with stakeholders on narrowly tailoring privacy protections.
","Assemblymember Calderon’s AB 1197 would modernize rental-car law to discourage organized theft by permitting geofencing in narrow circumstances and by clarifying a 'keys' presumption. Support from major rental companies; consumer groups asked for consumer protections.",{"_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},6566572,"Committee advances bill to make it easier to delete social media accounts and data",651,3009000,3660000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26&start=3009&end=3660","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204340-e8d92e25bec8b62062fa8e17a238af26/thumbnail_3009000.jpg","/articles/6566572/California/Committee-advances-bill-to-make-it-easier-to-delete-social-media-accounts-and-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6566572-191e70a12fb036453e02b5349fd8ec28/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500539&Signature=OBy7V2oYDIqvzoOys9aO-sDDnr2bjej~2pMPBIYRwNmXvpTCKgWVd7Q8YNmvwRlQPcEOn1fr~KJpowJONN2tDU6Db4BhujHmfX5uSIOtJ23euR535dITBmJBf4-p9kokYKa9jH-PWsVTr8ntlz26MTLrWCqBa1wO2c~yf-S6mspobLZNI-JBniQeIVew1O7jIQMjRai3XKOxhaAEZ6zE7cogDTKOxyES0d7QnVfW5ykPFBKwAEKX~1I4tFQyG-9xRm~faWcihyhVXR7KV2gjVFkvW2TPnML3LAPCU99U-wmLsvJ064EoMn9eya~OylNMWyCiYLvClcBOaBnwYbiYww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Assemblymember Schiavo presented Assembly Bill 656, a measure that would make it simpler for users to delete social media accounts and require platforms to delete associated personal information when requested.

Why it matters: Supporters characterized the bill as consumer-protection legislation that breaks ‘‘dark patterns’’ companies use to keep users on platforms and to make deletion difficult. The committee adopted amendments that narrowed the user-interface requirement so platforms must provide a clear delete option (for example, a prominently placed button in settings) rather than persistent messages on every screen.

The author described evidence that social media use takes a toll on youth mental health and cited research that as many as one in five users could not find a delete option or gave up because the process was too tedious. Robert Hurrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California and the bill’s sponsor, said the measure would make deleting an account “much simpler and easier for consumers to do.” Becca Kramermauder (Kaiser Advocacy/California Low Income Consumers Coalition) also spoke in support.

Opposition testimony was limited and collaborative. Robert Boykin of TechNet said he opposed current language but was working with the author toward a workable solution; he urged more clarity about how the bill would treat edge cases. Committee members raised concerns about accidental deletions and the implications for intermittent users, and Assemblymember Ward asked about safeguards for people who might unintentionally delete accounts. The author said committee amendments addressed some of those concerns by moving the requirement from messages on every screen to a prominent button within settings.

Committee members also asked about interactions with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The author and counsel said the amended language is intended to make the right to delete personal information consistent with the CCPA’s timelines and that the bill excludes ‘‘personal information’’ from the delete-right where appropriate to align with existing law. The author said she will continue to work with staff and stakeholders to harmonize timelines and technical details.

Action: The committee voted to pass AB 656 as amended; the roll call recorded during the hearing showed the motion carried (recorded tally shown as 9 yes, 0 no at the roll call). The author accepted committee amendments and said she would continue working with stakeholders.

Ending: AB 656 was advanced by the committee with amendments intended to make the delete option discoverable while aligning deletion of personal information with CCPA procedures. The author said the bill seeks to make it straightforward for users to exit platforms and remove data that companies have monetized.
","AB 656, presented by Assemblymember Schiavo, would require social media platforms to provide a clear, accessible delete-account option and to delete personal information when requested. Committee amendments narrow the user interface requirement and align deletion of personal information with CCPA timelines.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Assembly committee advances bill saying developers can’t blame AI to avoid liability

Committee advances bill requiring upfront ‘real price’ for rental-car bookings

Committee advances rental-car bill to allow limited geofencing, tighten 'keys' rule

Committee advances bill to make it easier to delete social media accounts and data