Assembly committee hears experts on online violence against women, Section 230 limits and AI threats

The California State Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection convened an informational hearing to examine technology-facilitated violence against women and girls, including nonconsensual intimate-image distribution, platform liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and emerging risks from generative AI and the manosphere.

Experts told the committee that the harms are longstanding but now amplified by the speed, scale and monetization of online platforms. "Violence against women online, particularly by men, is a strategy to silence and erase women and girls from their fullest potential and possibilities," Professor Noble, a MacArthur Fellow and professor of Gender Studies, African American Studies, and Information Studies at UCLA, said in opening testimony. Moira Donegan, writer in residence at Stanford’s Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research and an opinion columnist at The Guardian, said the Internet makes older forms of image-based abuse far more durable and widespread: "What is new is that the Internet and its technologies enable a greatly expanded impact for this abuse."

Attorney Carrie Goldberg, founder of a victim-rights law firm that litigates technology-facilitated sexual violence cases, described the litigation challenges that victims face because of courts' broad readings of Section 230. Goldberg told the committee she sued platforms using product‑liability and other theories in cases including Herrick v. Grindr and a case against Omegle that succeeded in the District of Oregon. She urged careful drafting of any state proposals to avoid creating legal standards that would actually make civil remedies harder for victims to pursue.

Panelists described several concrete, recurring concerns raised during the hearing: - Nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII) and deepfakes: Speakers said NCII remains widespread and that generative AI compounds harms by producing realistic forged imagery. Researchers and advocates cited industry and academic estimates that deepfake porn is largely nonconsensual and disproportionately targets women and girls. Panelists urged treating forged and nonconsensual imagery on equal footing for purposes of redress and removal. - Platform design and business models: Testimony argued the platforms’ algorithms, moderation choices and monetization incentives amplify abusive content. Panelists recommended disambiguating the term "content" in law and policy so rules distinguish illegal material (for example CSAM) from other categories of speech and design choices. - Section 230 and legislative design risks: Goldberg and others described current federal immunity (Section 230) as a major constraint on state-level regulatory options. They cautioned that draft federal bills (such as Stop CSAM or variants of the Earn It Act) can shift standards among negligence, recklessness or actual‑knowledge in ways that materially affect victims’ ability to sue. Several witnesses said litigation and targeted statutory fixes are both being considered nationally. - AI-enabled harms and products marketed to men and boys: Speakers described rapidly growing commercial AI "companions," "AI girlfriends," AI influencers and apps that attempt to undress or sexualize images of women. Adam Dodge, founder of NTAB.org, said many such offerings are explicitly monetized and accessible without effective age verification, calling them "true violence against women tech" because they are designed to serve men’s demand and are disproportionately harmful to female classmates and students. - The manosphere and radicalization of men and boys: Caitlin Tierney, cofounder of Diverting Hate, reviewed how online communities (men's rights activists, MGTOW, incel communities and pickup-artist networks) can escalate grievance and normalize misogyny and violence. She cited research showing sizable youth exposure to influencers associated with that ecosystem and described prevention work that seeks to redirect isolated men to prosocial communities. - Prevention, education and public health responses: Panelists recommended earlier, age‑appropriate media literacy and healthy-relationship education in schools; greater investment in research at public universities; use of advertising and outreach to "meet men where they are" online; and funding to scale restorative and trauma-informed interventions. Several witnesses pointed to international models (Australia’s eSafety public education and PSA campaigns) as examples.

During Q&A, Assemblymember Brooks (who said she authored an age-appropriate design code and AB 1394 targeting CSAM) asked for concrete options state government could pursue if Section 230 remains unchanged. Panelists gave a range of near-term ideas: tighter definitions separating categories of platform "content" for regulatory purposes; regulations aimed at marketplaces (app stores) rather than publishers; state-level requirements for age verification in certain product classes; public‑education campaigns using school distribution channels; and targeted grants to fund university research on platform harms.

Panelists repeatedly emphasized the difference between describing the harms and designing legally effective remedies. Goldberg cautioned that small changes in statutory language (negligence vs. recklessness vs. actual knowledge) can entirely change whether a remedy helps or hinders victims. Several witnesses offered to consult with staff on bill text and to supply reading lists and research.

The hearing closed with a call for more research, clearer statutory drafting, and cross-sector prevention—combining legal, educational and community responses. The committee set aside time for public comment and adjourned.

Sources quoted in this article appear in the hearing record and include Professor Noble; Moira Donegan; Carrie Goldberg; Adam Dodge; Caitlin Tierney; and Dr. Saeed Hill, counseling psychologist.