Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Platform Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee advances SB 771 to hold platforms liable when algorithms 'aid and abet' online harms
Summary
SB 771, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener and presented by Sen. Scott Wiener? (presenter Senator Stern), was passed by the committee after a long hearing with major civil-rights groups supporting the bill and tech and industry groups opposing it on First Amendment and Section 230 grounds; the clerk recorded an 11-1 vote.
The committee voted to pass SB 771, a measure intended to make social platforms more accountable when algorithmic design or conduct materially facilitates hate, harassment or real‑world harms.
Sen. Henry Stern presented the bill and said it clarifies that platforms can be liable under existing California statutes — including civil rights and anti‑harassment laws — for their design choices or algorithmic distribution when those choices foreseeably contribute to violence, intimidation, or organized harassment. Stern argued voluntary self‑regulation has failed and that stronger legal incentives are needed to change platform behavior.
Supporters included the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Islamic Networks Group. Vlad Haikin of the Simon Wiesenthal Center testified that ‘‘most companies received D’s and F’s’’ in the center’s report card on extremism and that online amplification materially contributes to real‑world violence. Maha Aljaneidi of the Islamic Networks Group described receiving online threats and urged accountability for algorithmic amplification that targets marginalized groups.
Tech and communications trade groups, including TechNet and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, opposed the bill and warned it would raise severe First Amendment and federal preemption issues under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. TechNet’s Robert Boykin said the bill ‘‘risks sweeping and protected speech and imposing extraordinary penalties based on subjective judgments about user content.’’ CCIA’s Aden Downey said the threat of large penalties could pressure platforms into over‑removal of lawful expression.
Supporters pointed to recent court decisions distinguishing platform distribution choices from third‑party content and argued the bill follows those precedents. Opponents countered that the bill’s broad definitions could chill lawful speech and invite costly litigation.
After extended questioning and debate, the committee approved the motion to pass SB 771 to the Judiciary Committee; the clerk announced the vote as 11‑1.
