[{"_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",6570607,"mediaKeyId","3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa","parentId",3204339,"title","Assembly committee advances bill to ban 'surveillance pricing' after lengthy debate","audioSeconds",1639,"startMs",2929000,"endMs",4568000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa&start=2929&end=4568","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa/thumbnail_2929000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6570607/California/Assembly-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-surveillance-pricing-after-lengthy-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6570607-1058af9db8098c0b4a21e8c519642839/orig.mp4?Expires=1770644567&Signature=erluWUtRS7cp60xjrdXSAaWf7WYuG6JY4R9vRDcwVpbNZw39XB9Y8WHaYjV91jRgJJD0cvHC6dJQsa~Fh-H5JCvr927m46ERGauNjmhkBYwmxqzmeXoCVFLmuld91j6bQBKK835GnLtyIjcV3MN0Ew55EL26z7-QI3Qx~TT0869psxxvqSCxwFb6WaG8f2zSETTGAqeSt5GIqn-b5zmR43QeAA~g-w3g0bAjmX6GaAT2yL4Z9HAWfueP8TRjOgFz~0mvriXtTbIOOi7CPjXP~khVuGtjt7G9GuGIwHNo59rV1Qxubqqw3PoR27INhPZvz9H0FSKSp26TGvJf4yMMDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California State Assembly","date","2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","article","The Assembly Judiciary Committee on a voice vote advanced AB 446, the Surveillance Pricing Protection Act, which would prohibit businesses from using individualized surveillance-derived personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Jesse Ward, said the measure addresses “predatory” uses of technology that allow retailers and other businesses to raise prices for specific customers: “This is about ensuring fairness in pricing. It’s not just about economic justice. It’s about preventing a new form of digital exploitation,” Ward said during his presentation (remarks at 2929.8–3095.16 in transcript).

Consumer and labor witnesses framed the bill as a response to public reporting and company pilots that use geolocation, facial recognition and other profiling to customize pricing. Kim Stone of Consumer Watchdog, a cosponsor, told the panel, “If we don’t stop this, we’re not going to put this genie back in the bottle,” and cited examples in travel and retail pricing studies (3096.28–3140.57).

Supporters said the text includes explicit exceptions for common and accepted discounts — loyalty programs, promotional offers and price differences offered for defined groups such as veterans or students — and excludes insurance and credit pricing rules. Kristen Heidelbach of UFCW described retailers’ adoption of electronic price displays and facial analytics as a present reality that can be used to extract higher prices from shoppers (3220.23–3310.835).

Opponents, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Retailers Association and multiple trade groups, said the bill’s language was overly broad and risked unintended litigation. Chamber representative Robert Muthrie said the bill initially reached beyond “personal data” and could sweep in aggregate decisions and routine discounts; he warned that the private right of action in the draft could produce costly defense litigation (3395.115–3521.8).

Committee members pressed about enforcement options and the private right of action. Ward said the Legislature could explore parallel enforcement by public prosecutors or the attorney general but maintained that a private right of action helps an injured consumer recover and deters abuse (3760.2449–3824.2). Assemblymember Hari Bedi and others suggested a state enforcement alternative or a claims fund as a middle ground; Ward agreed to keep negotiating with stakeholders (4218.62–4258.9097).

Committee discussion also focused on how to protect legitimate discounts and inventory-based pricing while preventing “inflated” pre-discount prices used to disguise discriminatory targeting. Ward stressed that the bill’s goal is to stop technology-driven segregation of customers that treats similarly situated shoppers differently on the basis of surveilled characteristics (4409.405–4431.105).

Outcome and next steps: Committee members moved the bill forward; the author and stakeholders agreed to continue negotiations on the bill’s details, including the scope of exemptions, the private right of action and carve-outs for academic or noncommercial uses. The committee report and roll call show the measure was passed out of committee for the next house committee or fiscal review.

Why it matters: The bill would create a state-level guardrail against targeted pricing using biometric or behavioral surveillance, a practice supporters say disproportionately harms lower-income shoppers. Opponents contend the draft as written could chill legitimate marketing and require costly litigation to resolve ambiguities.

Votes and procedure: The committee recorded a motion and roll-call sequence and advanced the bill as amended; sponsors and opponents left open further negotiations on technical exemptions and enforcement mechanisms.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Assembly Judiciary Committee (1)","oneSentenceSummary","The Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced AB 446, the Surveillance Pricing Protection Act, after a lengthy hearing that split consumer and labor advocates, who called the measure necessary, from businesses and trade groups, who warned it is overly broad and could trigger litigation.","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},6570599,"Votes at a glance: Assembly Judiciary Committee actions and outcomes",11141,2158000,13299000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa&start=2158&end=13299","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa/thumbnail_2158000.jpg","/articles/6570599/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Assembly-Judiciary-Committee-actions-and-outcomes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6570599-e102388e6082aaa68ee020c18d557bc4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770644567&Signature=KcKawlu4xsh7mxHsifrnLyYIyholp9HPY4cGSNfjt~Rt1XPIk8f4M0svecWWZvf02e-jgK1uDcv63iDW2237cM0HCf-ke~qXzYSV0WQPCJmIdt4VW9MQqQl2FnW4UXDF8tBzU1dobjNWyB8zkbp3G9zLERHzXqkvatFGbbkfEUhIYknCM0K6-9d82j9Rk437-Lhv3YX10c9qctTeUd8deNdnstLxxsS4O7JuDv~BNmFDtDJcd2JMuo8BEHK0WY3nbD-3WBdPDFw0h5pRrYDWB-7v9rP~Ij997DruiDRSBcpK0TPEnPnpMnXXJpLxLOkOVj2GxPOrfBMrly6r1WEnFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Judiciary Committee met for an extended hearing and took formal action on several bills. Below is a concise “votes at a glance” roundup listing each bill acted upon in the hearing, its outcome in committee, and the core subject.

Votes and key details

- AB 416 (Krell) — Outcome: Passed (out of committee, amended). Summary: Allows emergency room physicians to initiate 5150 holds for patients in behavioral health crisis; committee accepted amendments to allow counties to set eligibility and oversight (presentation and roll-call recorded; motion passed and bill advanced). (Topic intro: 2235.66; roll-call recorded at 4604.8247.)

- AB 446 (Ward) — Outcome: Passed (out of committee, amended). Summary: Surveillance Pricing Protection Act; prohibits using surveillance-collected personal data to set individualized, higher prices; includes exemptions for loyalty programs and certain discounts; private right of action remains a point of negotiation. (Topic intro: 2929.8; action recorded at 4544.625.)

- AB 632 (Hart) — Outcome: Passed (out of committee). Summary: Provides local governments with an expedited civil procedure to obtain money judgments for unpaid administrative fines for egregious code violations (e.g., unsafe housing, large-scale illegal cannabis operations); also codifies ordinary priority lien authority. (Topic intro: 4632.7446; vote recorded at 5001.1147.)

- AB 649 (Lowenthal) — Outcome: Passed (out of committee, amended). Summary: Creates a pilot “small business right to cure” program tied to CASp inspections: businesses that obtain CASp inspections and fix construction-related violations get a six‑year window and 120‑day cure periods for later notices; bill includes a sunset and reporting. (Topic intro: 5166.89; motion passed at 7814.815.)

- AB 806 (Connolly) — Outcome: Passed (out of committee). Summary: Mobile home park residents would have the right to install cooling systems and parks may be required to provide cooled common areas during extreme heat events where feasible; committee accepted some master‑meter and feasibility language after opposition from park-owner groups. (Topic intro: 10853.489; motion passed at 11853.415.)

- AB 863 (C. B. -- tenant-language access) — Outcome: Passed (out of committee). Summary: Requires eviction notices, complaints and summons to be provided in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese or Korean when the lease was negotiated in one of those languages or a landlord has been notified the tenant’s primary language is one of those five; committee discussion highlighted implementation concerns and raised the possibility of using court/official translations. (Topic intro: 11893.7; committee roll-call recorded at 12947.601.)

- AB 412 (Bauer-Kahan) — Outcome: Passed (out of committee, amended). Summary: AI Copyright Transparency Act; grants creators a right to request disclosure whether a specific copyrighted work was used to train a generative model. Committee adopted amendments that carve out certain noncommercial academic models and adjust timelines; industry groups urged delay pending federal guidance and litigation. (Topic intro: 8362.06; committee passed at 9806.415.)

- AJR 5 (Lee) — Outcome: Passed (committee adopted resolution). Summary: A state resolution reaffirming birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment in response to a federal executive order; sponsors framed it as clarifying long-standing constitutional precedent. (Topic intro: 9867.575; motion adopted at 10807.395.)

Other actions

- AB 1523 (Judiciary Committee bill) — Outcome: Passed (out of committee). Summary: Increased the “amount in controversy” threshold for mandatory referral to mandatory mediation from $50,000 to $75,000 and added safeguards. (Topic intro: 12982.05; motion passed at 13069.615.)

How to read these entries

All items above were discussed and then moved by motion in committee. Several measures were advanced with committee amendments; authors and stakeholders signaled ongoing negotiations on technical language, enforcement mechanisms and exemptions. For bills that drew opposition, committee transcripts record the testifying organizations and the substantive areas of dispute. For procedural details and the full roll-call tallies, consult the committee minutes and the official legislative record.","The Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced and voted on a slate of bills covering police, consumer protection, accessibility, AI transparency and immigration policy. This roundup lists each bill the committee acted on, the formal outcome, and one-line summaries of key provisions.",{"_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},6570602,"Committee approves limited 'right to cure' for businesses that obtain CASp inspections under AB 649",2664,5166000,7830000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa&start=5166&end=7830","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa/thumbnail_5166000.jpg","/articles/6570602/California/Committee-approves-limited-right-to-cure-for-businesses-that-obtain-CASp-inspections-under-AB-649","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6570602-a77a0d285487d421d09c454d6748b390/orig.mp4?Expires=1770644567&Signature=Xwpbt5dDhhfX1RWoSnXFmu52doLU4xWqZHfeTiAnrgaczBLd1z3iSwUK0TyjgOF1~sWKeNNMA43rhCJueHU2uOJEUTaoFg8wwZ2wOt7MFxjEELA6P9f3zcLPOwcAwIOiFpJ2-PmrZCIV7aI9eIQ4-Cdt8wzBgTeg-chkuM6tVEUJIF6yLPNiBRcwFDpvMYMMXY55WlZNXByoyQ4JFY3c1OzevgDg7GFdi220EMk7zvnoiCGFHMV5aZcB0XAL4~XivuxCqLfaXBTfu3mcKLk7G0FTKf4VaSLgxj0AkzM7NL3MvO4DPMYokouIipGY0RcQTEMOkKPd4pbg7xyCPz9VXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced AB 649, intended to incentivize businesses to obtain voluntary Certified Access Specialist (CASp) inspections and remediate construction-related accessibility violations by offering limited legal protections.

Author Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal said the bill balances the rights of people with disabilities and the realities faced by small businesses, who often contend with surprise accessibility suits and settlements that do not remediate barriers. \"We want more businesses to take ADA compliance seriously and proactively make their businesses accessible to all members of the public,\" Lowenthal said (5166.89–5205.065).

Under the bill as amended in committee, a business that obtains a CASp inspection and corrects construction-related violations would be allowed a six-year window during which, if notified of a new construction-related violation, the business would have 120 days to cure it before litigation proceeds. The bill is explicitly a pilot with a sunset, and proponents said the aim is to encourage remediation and reduce serial filings by so-called high-frequency litigants.

Supporters included business owners who said they were sued shortly after cooperating in community relief or without meaningful notice. Chris Sweeney, a restaurant owner, described receiving an ADA demand that sought several thousand dollars despite very small, fixable issues and said settlements often cost him payroll dollars and survival capital (5887.065–5991.505).

Disability advocacy groups — including Disability Rights California and the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers — testified they were neutral on the amended bill, indicating committee amendments addressed some concerns while noting the need to preserve meaningful injunctive relief to secure access. Committee staff clarified that federal ADA claims are tied to the same access violations and that remediating a violation would generally address potential federal exposure (6098.74–6116.93 and 6695.605–6733.96).

Committee discussion focused on procedural safeguards, ensuring the program does not inadvertently remove incentives for proactive compliance, and how the pilot would be monitored. Several members praised the approach as a “scalpel” rather than a sledgehammer — a narrowly tailored pilot to incentivize remediation while preserving legal remedies for noncompliance.

Outcome and next steps: The committee passed AB 649 as amended, and sponsors and disability advocates indicated ongoing work to refine implementation, recordkeeping, and data collection requirements for the pilot.

Why it matters: The bill attempts to reduce settlements that do not fix underlying access barriers by rewarding businesses that proactively identify and remediate construction-related access issues. Supporters argue it will increase actual accessibility; advocates asked for careful monitoring to ensure rights to injunctive relief and federal protections are preserved.

Next steps: The bill advances with a sunset and reporting requirements; the committee requested additional work with disability advocates and business groups on implementation details.","AB 649 would create a pilot six-year window and a 120-day cure period for businesses that obtain certified-access-specialist (CASp) inspections and correct construction-related violations, aiming to reduce exploitative high-frequency ADA litigation while preserving access rights for people with disabilities.",{"_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},6570605,"Committee advances AB 412, requiring AI makers to disclose whether models were trained on copyrighted works",1469,8362000,9831000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa&start=8362&end=9831","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3204339-c2f888b5dc0b45890214c8e1ae143bfa/thumbnail_8362000.jpg","/articles/6570605/California/Committee-advances-AB-412-requiring-AI-makers-to-disclose-whether-models-were-trained-on-copyrighted-works","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6570605-cf14ab882de06dd7a6b7be8badd94bad/orig.mp4?Expires=1770644567&Signature=LcRuFV96UFQUmdBcscZEwpyA5SHALWmroILuhaVyT~pWCw97-Ny9gI-pj1-5K0N5ajaLbooy8zZPCiwl4989ZC6ff3IzdUz2pHi1trQtWR~SgYMf6hIp8-IP1B~UovGfxf1yeCCSLyvQxJhdClOEhpyC-5delAMcFLOWF6E69CyXH0PiE65cirvndMKJoyhMfegOYmdNGpJS4qj7Q0R30tF8WJI2Dgjr5TWGAzKnCj2F8oFYPjifTZxvRYrWE1kMkZ6knpAGHruDSLVQuqwLIJJwmPg6LVZ61BsfsBw5Le8-tUfQND1tEJAWjNtFMQySN4dg~LpQptlVpQ1fDTRmzw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Judiciary Committee moved forward AB 412, the AI Copyright Transparency Act, which would create a state process for copyright holders to learn whether copyrighted works were used as training data for generative AI models.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, the bill’s author, framed the measure as a narrow tool to give creators the information they need to pursue their rights: “...what are long held rights that we believe Californians have and how are those changing in the face of this modern technology,” she said (8362.06–8429.295).

Voice actors, authors, concept artists and other creators gave extensive testimony in support, saying they lack visibility into whether their work trained commercial models. Tim Friedlander, president of the National Association of Voice Actors, said AB 412 “gives copyright holders the right to know if the materials, if their materials, have been used to train generative AI models” (8525.431–8565.18). IP attorney Travis Manfredi told the committee that without a way to identify training use at the outset, many claims are dismissed before discovery: “If a rights holder cannot show at the outset that their work was included in the training data, their claim will be dismissed before any discovery can be taken,” he testified (8711.025–8762.42).

Opposition from industry groups focused on federal preemption and trade-secret concerns. The California Chamber of Commerce and technology trade associations argued that federal copyright law and ongoing litigation make the issue inappropriate for state-level legislation. Several witnesses urged the Legislature to wait for a forthcoming U.S. Copyright Office report and for court decisions in major fairness-use litigation before adopting a disclosure regime (9041.62–9170.445).

The author accepted committee amendments carving out noncommercial academic research and clarifying certain compliance timelines; those amendments prompted additional discussion from rights-holders and the recording industry, which asked the author to revisit an academic exemption that could be exploited (9396.971–9489.53).

Outcome and next steps: After extended testimony from creators and industry opponents, the committee advanced AB 412 as amended. The author and stakeholders indicated they will continue negotiations in subsequent committees on narrow points, including the academic exemption and potential preemption issues.

Why it matters: The bill aims to give creators a practical mechanism to learn whether their copyrighted works were used to train commercial generative models so they can evaluate potential legal claims or seek licensing. Opponents argue it may be preempted by federal law or reveal trade secrets.

Proponents and opponents are likely to continue discussions as the bill proceeds. The committee vote sent AB 412 to the next step with amendments and further stakeholder work.","AB 412, the AI Copyright Transparency Act, would give copyright holders a right to ask model creators whether their works were used in training. Authors, voice actors and artists strongly supported the bill; tech and industry groups urged delay or federal action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Assembly committee advances bill to ban 'surveillance pricing' after lengthy debate

Votes at a glance: Assembly Judiciary Committee actions and outcomes

Committee approves limited 'right to cure' for businesses that obtain CASp inspections under AB 649

Committee advances AB 412, requiring AI makers to disclose whether models were trained on copyrighted works