Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy And Free Speech topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee advances Shield Act to require notice for certain federal administrative subpoenas
Summary
The Assembly Consumer Protection Committee voted to move SB 957, the Shield Act, which would require social media companies to notify users when the federal government seeks their information via certain administrative subpoenas and allow a 30‑day response window, sending the bill to Judiciary as amended.
The California State Assembly Consumer Protection Committee voted to advance SB 9 57, the Shield Act, which would require social media companies to notify account holders when a federal administrative subpoena seeks their personal information, give users 30 days to respond or challenge the demand, require companies to disclose what information was shared and establish reporting to the attorney general.
Senator Perez’s presenter (speaker 4) emphasized that administrative subpoenas do not require judicial approval and said they have been used to obtain identifying information about people who criticize federal agencies. Supporters included Symphony Barbie of ACLU California Action (speaker 27) and Becca Kramer of Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (speaker 28). Kramer said the bill provides "very basic consumer protections" and noted that while some companies promise notice, the practice is inconsistent: "A mere promise from a tech company is no longer enough." Symphony Barbie told the committee the subpoenas can function as "intimidation dressed up as law" and urged an I vote.
Opponents were scarce in the hearing; one committee member voiced concern that the bill could tie the hands of federal law enforcement and suggested guardrails or a sunset. Committee members discussed the balance between user notice and legitimate law‑enforcement needs. The motion to pass SB 9 57 as amended to the Judiciary Committee carried; the secretary completed a roll call with most members voting to advance the measure, and the roll was left open for absent members.
The Shield Act’s supporters said the bill would improve transparency for Californians who use social media as a tool for activism and political expression, and provide more meaningful opportunity to challenge subpoenas that may infringe on First Amendment activity. The author said she would continue to work with stakeholders on technical fixes and guardrails before the bill proceeds to the floor.
The committee left the roll open for absent members and adjourned after completing its calendar.
