At its July meeting the California Privacy Protection Agency board voted to support AB 322, a bill that would amend the CCPA to restrict the collection, retention and sale of precise geolocation data, and to authorize staff to take a support‑if‑amended position on AB 302, a bill that would add a pathway for bulk deletion requests for public officials and judges.

Deputy Director for Policy Maureen Mahoney briefed the board on both measures and recommended the board consider formal positions. On AB 322 staff said the bill would (as amended) require businesses to collect and retain only geolocation data necessary to provide a requested service and would prohibit sale of precise geolocation information.

On AB 302 — a bill that had been gutted and amended — staff described four central provisions: the bill would (1) direct the agency to obtain and maintain lists of state and local elected officials to submit DROP deletion requests on their behalf by March 1, 2026 and after each election; (2) require the agency to accept a list of judges from the Judicial Council and submit deletion requests on their behalf; (3) require DROP to notify data brokers of these requests and require broker responses within five days; and (4) require a secure, confidential exchange for the information.

Staff raised concerns and suggested the board seek amendments that would assign list maintenance to an existing entity, add verification steps consistent with the rest of the Delete Act, and extend deadlines tied to technical development timelines. Mahoney told the board the author had indicated a willingness to work with staff on verification and other technical concerns.

After discussion the board voted separately on the bills. Board Member Worth moved to authorize staff to support AB 322; McTaggart seconded. The vote was 4 yes, 1 abstention (Board Member Liebert recused) and the motion carried. Chair Urban then called for a separate motion to authorize staff to take a support‑if‑amended position on AB 302, incorporating staff’s recommended amendment criteria and permitting staff to move to support or opposition if amendments are inconsistent with agency objectives. That motion passed 5‑0.

Board members debated both the merits and risks of AB 302. Some members said the bill’s goals — protecting public officials from targeted violence — were important, while others worried the agency lacked the legal or technical groundwork to manage large, government‑supplied deletion lists on the accelerated timelines proposed in the bill.

Why it matters: AB 322 would extend sensitive‑data protections to location information, a category advocates and staff said is particularly revealing of private life and activities. AB 302 raises procedural and technical questions about who should maintain lists of officials and how DROP should verify and process bulk deletion requests.

Outcome: The board signaled clear support for limiting commercial sale of precise geolocation data and authorized staff to negotiate specific amendments and positions on AB 302 that protect against fraud and meet technical requirements.

Ending: Staff will work with legislative offices and report back on negotiated amendments; board members asked staff to keep the board informed as amendments are drafted and votes advance.