Assembly Judiciary Committee advances package of bills including AB 2 on social media liability; several consumer, housing and court-record measures move on

Assembly Judiciary Committee members on Monday advanced a slate of measures after hours of testimony on issues ranging from social media and children’s safety to housing preferences for voucher holders, court reporting shortages and fees charged to merchants when they collect sales taxes.

AB 2 — carried by an assemblymember who presented the bill to the committee — would create enhanced financial liability for large social media platforms when a court finds negligence that caused harm to children and teenagers. The author said the bill does not change the underlying burden of proof; it would only create calibrated penalties to make negligence claims financially meaningful in an effort to prompt changes in platform design and moderation. “AB 2 will hold social media platforms accountable for their failure to exercise ordinary care that results in harm to children and teenagers,” the author said.

The bill drew support from child-safety groups and Common Sense Media. Nicole Rocha of Common Sense Media told the committee: “Social media companies are already subject to this statute and are litigating cases under this section in both state and federal courts. . . . AB 2 builds upon existing law and creates enhanced financial penalties for large social media companies who have breached the ordinary standard of care causing harms to children through their negligence.”

Opponents — including representatives of TechNet and industry trade groups — warned the panel that the measure could chill innovation, invite new rounds of litigation and potentially conflict with federal protections such as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Dylan Hoffman of TechNet said platforms have taken voluntary steps to reduce harm and argued the bill could incentivize broad, blunt actions that limit access or weaken encryption rather than solve child-safety problems.

Committee members urged continued negotiation. One member urged the author to work with groups that represent youth-serving services to ensure the law does not create perverse incentives to block access to helpful resources. The author said she would work with stakeholders and stressed the bill was narrowly aimed at negligence-based claims, not the content-based immunities available under federal law.

Votes at a glance - AB 2 (social media negligence / child safety): advanced out of committee (forwarded). (See provenance below.) - AB 282 (housing preference for voucher holders): passed to appropriations (as amended) to allow providers to prioritize voucher recipients without running afoul of source-of-income protections. - AB 882 (court reporting / temporary expansion of electronic recording): advanced as amended with an urgency clause to appropriations; the bill would temporarily expand the use of electronic recordings in limited case types while the state addresses court reporter shortages. - AB 325 (algorithmic price fixing / antitrust update): advanced as amended to the committee handling business/consumer protection; bill would clarify that algorithmic collusion can be treated as price fixing under state antitrust law and update pleading standards and evidence rules. - AB 1065 (prohibit swipe fees on tax collections): advanced to banking and finance (as amended) after extended debate; the bill would bar card-network interchange fees on the tax portion of a card transaction and drew broad support from merchants and strong opposition from many state-chartered banks and credit unions.

What the committee heard Supporters of AB 2 stressed recent research and leaked internal platform documents as evidence that platform design can materially affect youth mental health and risky behavior. Opponents disputed the scope and argued the bill could indirectly incentivize platforms to take safety steps that reduce access and privacy protections (for example, threats to end-to-end encryption) rather than targeted, evidence-based fixes.

On housing, AB 282 sponsors said the measure is intended to help housing authorities and mission-driven affordable housing providers fully use federal voucher funding and make housing search outcomes for voucher holders more successful. Housing authority witnesses said many voucher households currently struggle for months to find units; lenders and some landlords spoke in favor of giving housing providers an explicit, voluntary tool to prioritize voucher recipients.

AB 882’s supporters — including court reporters and unions — told the committee the bill is a stopgap to ensure litigants can obtain official records while the state recruits and licenses more court reporters. Opponents, including trial bar groups and some courts, argued the bill is too narrow or imposes procedural hurdles that could curtail access to recorded records for litigants who lack resources.

On AB 1065, business witnesses — particularly grocery, restaurant and convenience-store groups — urged the state to end what they called “double charging” when payment processors assess interchange fees on tax amounts that merchants collect on the state’s behalf. Representatives of community banks and many state-chartered credit unions warned the bill would disproportionately harm smaller financial institutions and could shift costs to consumers if interchange revenue is constrained.

Why this matters Taken together the measures reflect lawmakers’ focus on consumer protection: platform accountability for harms to minors, improving housing access for subsidized renters, and modernizing court records and payments policy. Each bill will proceed to follow-up committees for fiscal review, further amendment, and additional stakeholder negotiation.

What’s next Several bills advanced to appropriations, banking and finance, or other policy committees where fiscal impacts and technical amendments will be considered. Sponsors said they will continue to negotiate language with opposing stakeholders to address constitutional and implementation concerns flagged during testimony.

Provenance (selected excerpts from the committee transcript) - AB 2 topic intro: excerpt from committee transcript where the author opens presentation: “Thank you, mister chair and members. I am pleased to present a b 2, which will hold social media platforms accountable for the harm they cause children and teenagers.” (transcript span starting at 2123.255) - AB 2 supporting testimony: Nicole Rocha, Common Sense Media: “Social media companies are already subject to this statute and are litigating cases under this section in both state and federal courts. . . . AB 2 builds upon existing law and creates enhanced financial penalties for large social media companies who have breached the ordinary standard of care causing harms to children through their negligence.” (transcript span starting at 2597.2148) - AB 2 opposition testimony: Dylan Hoffman, TechNet: “. . . I wanna just finally reiterate, it's not clear entirely how a company would limit that liability without taking some of these aggressive actions to, either limit access for teens or to limit the content itself.” (transcript span starting at 2808.8198) - AB 2 procedural outcome excerpt: roll call and clerk text indicating the bill advanced out of committee: “That bill is out.” (transcript excerpt starting at 4130.19)

Speakers (selected, first reference: name — role/affiliation as given in transcript) - Mister Gonzales — Assemblymember (author/presenter of AB 2) [first referenced at 2112.93] - Nicole Rocha — State policy witness, Common Sense Media [first referenced at 2597.2148] - Dylan Hoffman — Representative, TechNet (opposed) [first referenced at 2808.8198] - Aidan Downey — State policy manager, Computer and Communications Industry Association (opposed) [first referenced at 2956.75] - Kim Stone — Stone Advocacy, on behalf of Children's Advocacy Institute (support) [first referenced at 2736.425] - Pamela Gibbs — Los Angeles County Office of Education (support) [first referenced at 2746.905] - Jenny Panetta — Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz (witness for AB 282) [first referenced at 4321.505] - James Johnson — General Counsel, Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (witness for AB 282) [first referenced at 4436.99] - Stacy Gaskill — licensed shorthand reporter / voice writer (support for AB 882) [first referenced at 4903.3853] - Sandra Barrera — SEIU California (support for AB 882) [first referenced at 5106.17] - Louis Brown / business owners and representatives — witnesses in support of AB 1065 (merchant groups) [see transcript around 10437.37]

Authorities (legal sources explicitly discussed in committee) - Section 230 (federal Communications Decency Act / referred to in transcript as “section 230”) — referenced by witnesses on AB 2 as a federal immunity provision that opponents said could constrain the state’s approach. - California Civil Code / common-law negligence (referred to in testimony as the civil code obligations of reasonable care) — cited by supporters of AB 2 as the existing negligence framework the bill builds upon. - SB 329 (2019; source-of-income statute expansion) — referenced during AB 282 testimony as the law that made source-of-income discrimination unlawful in housing and provided context for the proposed preference language. - Reproductive Privacy Act (2002) — discussed later in the hearing (in separate item AB 67) as the statutory right the attorney general seeks authority to enforce; noted here because the committee heard that item in the same hearing.

Clarifying details (selected factual items raised in testimony) - Supporters of AB 2 cited empirical trends in youth mental-health indicators and internal platform research as motivating the bill; proponents said the bill would not alter the civil burden of proof required in court, only the scale of penalties applied after negligence is established. - For AB 282, witnesses said about 40% of vouchers in Los Angeles are not used because participants cannot find rental units; proponents described this bill as a voluntary tool for landlords and mission-driven providers to prioritize voucher holders. - On AB 882, proponents described a recent 250% increase in newly licensed court reporters but said gaps remain; the bill would temporarily authorize expanded use of electronic recordings in specified family/probate/limited civil contexts when a public reporter is unavailable. - On AB 1065, merchant witnesses said California merchants paid approximately $1.7 billion in swipe fees on sales tax in 2023; many community banks and credit unions warned that limiting interchange revenue could force them to alter business models or shift costs to customers.

Topics and tags - Topics: social media regulation, child safety, consumer protection, housing vouchers, court reporting, payments/swipe fees, antitrust, algorithmic collusion. - Searchable tags: AB2, AB282, AB882, AB325, AB1065, Assembly Judiciary Committee, Common Sense Media, housing choice vouchers, court reporters, interchange fees, Section 230.

Ending Committee members and witnesses said they expected continued negotiations and technical amendments as each measure moves to its next committee assignment. Several sponsors committed to further stakeholder meetings to address constitutional, technical, or fiscal concerns raised during testimony.