Assembly privacy committee advances bills on algorithmic price-fixing, workplace surveillance, insurer drone use and work‑zone speed enforcement

The California State Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee advanced a slate of bills on Monday addressing how technology is used in commerce, law enforcement and workplaces, voting to send multiple measures to the Appropriations Committee for further review.

The measures — which ranged from a bid to update antitrust law to cover algorithmic price‑fixing to proposals that would limit certain types of employer surveillance — reflect growing legislative attention to the intersection of consumer protection, privacy and novel technologies.

Why it matters: Committee members and witnesses framed the bills as attempts to protect consumers, workers and public safety amid rapid technological change. Supporters said existing law and practice has not kept pace with algorithmic tools that can coordinate behavior across markets or monitor people in real time; opponents warned the legislation as written could sweep too broadly and create operational or safety problems.

Algorithmic price‑fixing (AB 3 25) Assemblymember Aguiar‑Curry said AB 3 25 aims to update California’s antitrust law to address modern tools used to coordinate prices. "It doesn't matter if price fixing happens as a direct agreement between people or through artificial intelligence. Either way, it's wrong," she told the committee.

Supporters including Lee Heffner of the American Economic Liberties Project said courts and enforcers face difficulty proving collusion that occurs through software rather than in overt agreements, urging lawmakers to give courts clearer factors to infer an illegal agreement. "Just because it happens through code instead of conversation does not change the violation or the harm," Heffner said.

Opponents argued the bill as written could outlaw benign uses of shared commercial software (for example, revenue management tools used by rental housing owners) and could harm small businesses that rely on off‑the‑shelf tools. Whitney Propp of the California Apartment Association said the measure "would outlaw this even when no rules are being broken."

The author said major amendments include safe harbors for good faith software use and carving out end users who are not part of price‑setting schemes. The committee moved AB 3 25 forward to the Appropriations Committee.

Workplace surveillance and worker data (AB 1221) Assemblymember Brian presented AB 1221 to prohibit or limit certain automated workplace monitoring and to create data protections for worker information. He described new technologies that analyze voice, facial expression and gait as increasingly common and potentially discriminatory. "We don't want the humanity in the workplace to be lost," Brian said.

The bill would bar use of certain technologies (including facial, gait and emotion recognition) to infer protected characteristics, require notice to workers when surveillance is introduced, and require human corroboration before automated outputs can be used for discipline.

Union and labor witnesses — including Yvonne Fernandez of the California Federation of Labor and Shane Guzman of the Teamsters — described physical‑safety, privacy and bias concerns with some surveillance systems. Business groups including SHRM and the Security Industry Association opposed the bill as drafted, saying it is overly broad and could hinder legitimate security, safety and workforce‑management uses.

Committee members pressed the author about carve‑outs for safety uses (for example, devices that detect driver drowsiness) and exemptions for de‑identified aggregate reporting for research. Brian said he would continue working with stakeholders to refine implementation details; the committee advanced the bill as amended.

Insurer use of aerial imagery (AB 75) Assemblymember Calderón presented AB 75, which would require insurers to notify homeowners before obtaining aerial images (from drones, aircraft or satellites), to provide homeowners the right to receive those images, and to require images used to cancel or nonrenew a policy to be no more than 45 days old. "Policyholders shouldn't have to fight to know when their property is being surveyed," said Claudia Milner of the California Department of Insurance in support.

Privacy advocates asked for stronger data‑minimization and downstream‑sharing limits; industry representatives warned that requiring more in‑person inspections could raise underwriting costs and reduce market capacity. The sponsor said continuing negotiations are under way; the committee advanced the bill to Appropriations.

Automated speed enforcement in construction zones (AB 289) Assemblymember Haney said AB 289 would authorize automated speed enforcement in active highway construction zones to reduce crashes and vehicle intrusions into work areas. Contractors and unions testified in support. Jeff Lister, vice president of operations at a contractor, described a worker who was struck years earlier and urged the committee to act.

The bill includes privacy safeguards carried from earlier pilot programs: restrictions on facial recognition, rear‑plate‑only captures, and limited sharing of citation records. The committee advanced AB 289 to Appropriations.

Ticketing proof of purchase (AB 1291) Assemblymember Lee presented a bill that would require ticket sellers to electronically deliver a verifiable proof of purchase at the time of sale and allow that item to be used for venue entry if a purchaser cannot access the ticket itself. Supporters called the measure a "modest" consumer‑protection reform for buyers who receive tickets close to an event.

Venue operators and major teams strongly opposed the measure, saying a proof of purchase is not equivalent to a ticket and that accepting arbitrary outside proofs would increase fraud and create operational chaos for large events. The author said the bill aims to give consumers an assurance they can get into an event if ticket delivery fails and that he will continue negotiating with venues.

AI energy transparency and data centers (AB 222) Assemblymember Bauer‑Kahan said AB 222 seeks to improve transparency about the energy demands of large AI models and data center operations, and to require notice to the California Energy Commission and utilities to help planning. Evelina Arapetyan of the Center for AI and Digital Policy told the committee that the energy and water footprint of large models can be significant.

Data center industry groups opposed the bill, saying data centers are already regulated, that the bill could expose sensitive or proprietary operational data, and that additional mandates could disincentivize continued investment. The committee advanced AB 222 as amended.

Autonomous aerial firefighting pilot (AB 270) Assemblymember Petrie‑Norris introduced a bill to create a pilot project to evaluate autonomous aerial firefighting helicopters. Advocates described previous statewide investments in real‑time fire intelligence and urged a limited pilot to test feasibility, cost and safety. The committee advanced the pilot to Appropriations.

Law‑enforcement drone data storage (AB 1160) Assemblymember Wilson presented AB 1160, which would require law enforcement agencies that use drones to store data with U.S.‑based companies, prohibit vendors from selling or sharing that data, and allow local control over de‑activation of unnecessary data collection. Wilson said the bill responds to stakeholder concerns about foreign‑manufactured hardware and data stewardship; the committee advanced the measure.

Votes at a glance - AB 3 25 (Aguiar‑Curry): Advanced to Appropriations (committee action taken; sponsor accepted major amendments). (Vote recorded in minutes: 6–2 at the time of roll call.) - AB 1221 (Brian): Advanced to Appropriations as amended (7–1 recorded at roll call). - AB 75 (Calderón): Advanced to Appropriations (roll call reported 7 ayes at time of vote; roll held open for absentees). - AB 289 (Haney): Advanced to Appropriations (privacy safeguards added; roll call at time of vote reported in committee minutes). - AB 1291 (Lee): Advanced to Appropriations (author and venues to continue negotiations; opposition from major teams cited concerns about fraud and operational burden). - AB 222 (Bauer‑Kahan): Advanced to Appropriations (committee accepted amendments; industry raised proprietary‑data concerns). - AB 270 (Petrie‑Norris): Advanced to Appropriations (pilot authorized to evaluate autonomous aerial firefighting helicopters). - AB 1160 (Wilson): Advanced to Appropriations (requires U.S.‑based storage and contractual safeguards for law enforcement drone data).

What’s next All advanced bills were referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee where fiscal and implementation details will be examined; several authors said they will continue working with industry and civil‑society stakeholders to refine technical language. The committee kept several rolls open for absent members, a common practice for floor scheduling and finalizing vote tallies.

Ending Committee members said they would continue negotiations outside the room to narrow language, preserve public‑safety uses of technology and avoid unintended operational consequences while protecting consumers' privacy and worker rights. Several sponsors invited opponents to return with technical fixes before Appropriations consideration.