Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CPPA board backs three state privacy bills after staff recommendations; several recusals noted
Summary
The CPPA board authorized staff to support AB 15 42 and SB 1106 and to support AB 883 if amended. Votes passed (AB 883 4–0 with 1 recusal; AB 15 42 3–0 with 2 recusals; SB 1106 4–0 with 1 recusal). Several board members recused where conflicts were disclosed.
At its May 1 meeting in Sacramento, the California Privacy Protection Agency board considered staff recommendations on pending legislation and took formal positions on three bills.
Deputy Director Maureen Mahoney reviewed multiple federal and state proposals and recommended the board authorize staff to support AB 15 42 (a bill to prohibit sale or sharing of sensitive personal information under the CCPA), support SB 1106 (shortening data broker response time from 45 to 30 days), and support AB 883 "if amended" (a bill to provide an expedited deletion process for certain elected officials and judges, subject to amendments addressing security and implementation concerns).
After discussion, Chair Urban called motions and the board voted. The roll‑call outcomes as recorded in the meeting transcript are:
- AB 883 (support if amended): Motion passed with 4 yes, 0 no and 1 recusal. Board member Alastair Mactaggart recused himself from this vote. (Motion: Hamer; Second: Ozer.)
- AB 15 42 (support): Motion passed, recorded as 3 yes, 0 no with 2 recusals; Board member Liebert and Board member Ozer were recorded as recusing themselves on AB 15 42. (Motion: Hamer; Second: McTaggart.)
- SB 1106 (support): Motion passed with 4 yes, 0 no and 1 recusal. Board member Liebert recused himself on SB 1106. (Motion: Mactaggart; Second: Hamer.)
Board members asked staff to continue negotiating technical and operational amendments to address implementation risks for bills that create agency tasks, including AB 883's five‑day deletion turnaround and any security implications of mass list transfers. Mahoney described staff ideas such as minimizing data transferred and requiring elected officials to opt in or verify requests.
The board’s formal votes authorize agency staff to proceed with advocacy and to change positions if amendments materially alter whether the bill meets the objectives described in the staff memos presented to the board.
What’s next: staff will continue to track amendments and liaise with authors to refine implementation language and may return to the board for updated positions.
