Update on AB 3080 and AB 1949
AB 3080 (age verification for adult websites and online purchase of products and services not allowed for minors) and AB 1949 (prohibiting data collection on individuals less than 18 years of age) both officially have hearing dates for the California Senate Judiciary Committee.
The hearing date for these bills is scheduled to be Tuesday 07/02/2024. Which means that the deadline to turn in position letters is going to be noon one week before the hearing on 06/25/2024. It's not a lot of time from this moment, but I'm certain we can each turn one in before then
Remember that position letters should be single topic, in strict opposition of what each bill entails. Keep on topic and professional when writing them. Let us all do our best to keep these bills from leaving committee so that we don't have to fight them on the Senate floor. But let's also not stop sending correspondence to our state representatives anyway.
Remember, the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee is as follows.
"Bills amending the Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Evidence Code, Family Code, and Probate Code. Bills relating to courts, judges, and court personnel. Bills relating to liens, claims, and unclaimed property. Bills relating to privacy and consumer protection."
Best of luck everyone. And thank you for your efforts to fight this so far.
Below is linked the latest versions of the bills.
Bill Text (2024-05-29) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2020: collection of personal information of a consumer less than 18 years of age.
Bill Text (2024-05-29) The Parent’s Accountability and Child Protection Act. [Referred to Com. on JUD.]
Below are the links to the Committee's homepage which gives further information about the Judiciary Committee, and the page explaining further in depth their letter policy.
Edit: Was requested to add in information such as why these bills are bad and what sites could potentially be affected by these bills. So here's the explanation I gave in asks.
Why are these bills bad?
Both bills are essentially age verification requirement laws. AB 3080 explicitly, and AB 1949 implicitly.
AB 3080 strictly is calling for dangerous age verification requirements for both adult websites and any website which sells products or services which it is illegal for minors to access in California. While this may sound like a good idea on paper, it's important to keep in mind that any information that's put online is at risk of being extracted and used by bad actors like hackers. Even if there are additional requirements by the law that data be deleted after its used for its intended purpose and that it not be used to trace what websites people access. The former of which provides very little protection from people who could access the databases of identification that are used for verification, and the latter which is frankly impossible to completely enforce and could at any time reasonably be used by the government or any surveying entity to see what private citizens have been looking at since their ID would be linked to the access and not anonymized.
AB 1949 is nominally to protect children from having their data collected and sold without permission on websites. However by restricting this with an age limit it opens up similar issues wherein it could cause default requirements for age verification for any website so that they can avoid liability by users and the state.
What websites could they affect?
AB 3080, according to the bill's text, would affect websites which sells the types of items listed below
"
(b) Products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor under state law that are subject to subdivision (a) include all of the following:
(1) An aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.
(2) Etching cream that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.
(3) Dangerous fireworks, as referenced in Sections 12505 and 12689 of the Health and Safety Code.
(4) Tanning in an ultraviolet tanning device, as referenced in Sections 22702 and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code.
(5) Dietary supplement products containing ephedrine group alkaloids, as referenced in Section 110423.2 of the Health and Safety Code.
(6) Body branding, as referenced in Sections 119301 and 119302 of the Health and Safety Code.
(c) Products or services that are illegal to sell to a minor under state law that are subject to subdivision (a) include all of the following:
(1) Firearms or handguns, as referenced in Sections 16520, 16640, and 27505 of the Penal Code.
(2) A BB device, as referenced in Sections 16250 and 19910 of the Penal Code.
(3) Ammunition or reloaded ammunition, as referenced in Sections 16150 and 30300 of the Penal Code.
(4) Any tobacco, cigarette, cigarette papers, blunt wraps, any other preparation of tobacco, any other instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco, products prepared from tobacco, or any controlled substance, as referenced in Division 8.5 (commencing with Section 22950) of the Business and Professions Code, and Sections 308, 308.1, 308.2, and 308.3 of the Penal Code.
(5) Electronic cigarettes, as referenced in Section 119406 of the Health and Safety Code.
(6) A less lethal weapon, as referenced in Sections 16780 and 19405 of the Penal Code."
This is stated explicitly to include "internet website on which the owner of the internet website, for commercial gain, knowingly publishes sexually explicit content that, on an annual basis, exceeds one-third of the contents published on the internet website". Wherein "sexually explicit content" is defined as "visual imagery of an individual or individuals engaging in an act of masturbation, sexual intercourse, oral copulation, or other overtly sexual conduct that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
This would likely not include websites like AO3 or any website which displays NSFW content not in excess of 1/3 of the content on the site. Possibly not inclusive of writing because of the "visual imagery", but don't know at this time. In any case we don't want to set a precedent off of which it could springboard into non-commercial websites or any and all places with NSFW content.
AB 1949 is a lot more broad because it's about general data collection by any and all websites in which they might sell personal data collected by the website to third parties, especially if aimed specifically at minors or has a high chance of minors commonly accesses the site. But with how broad the language is I can't say there would be ANY limits to this one. So both are equally bad and would require equal attention in my opinion.