Calif. Social Media Bills Near Passage in Legislature’s Last Month

The internet industry raised alarms with a California social media bill as state Senate appropriators teed up the bipartisan measure for possible vote next Thursday, at a livestreamed hearing Monday. The Appropriations Committee could also soon vote whether to advance to the floor three other website regulation measures focused on children, plus a bill to implement the national 988 suicide prevention hotline and a proposal to require standards for emergency alerts.

Appropriators considered moving bills to its “suspense file," a category reserved for bills deemed to be costly and that will be taken up later. The committee is expected to consider suspense bills Aug. 11. The California State Legislature is entering its final month of session. Fiscal committees face an Aug. 12 deadline to advance bills to the floor. Legislators will adjourn Aug. 31.

Social media sites would be required to post their terms of service, including an explanation about what types of behaviors would lead to users getting banned, under AB-587 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D). It would require quarterly reports to the state attorney general on terms and content moderation policies. Co-sponsors include Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D) and Jordan Cunningham (R), who each sponsored a website regulation bill focused on children. The committee agreed to put AB-587 on suspense.

AB-587 has “potential unintended consequences,” Computer and Communications Industry Association State Policy Director Khara Boender wrote Friday to the Appropriations Committee. U.S. law limits liability for digital services for misconduct by users, she said. “Ambiguous and inconsistent regulation at the state level would undermine this business certainty and deter new entrants, harming competition and consumers.”

Requiring companies to disclose terms of service could give “nefarious foreign agents, purveyors of harmful content, and other bad actors a playbook for circumventing digital services’ policies,” warned Boender, who voiced opposition at Monday’s hearing: Reporting requirements and proposed penalties could “disproportionately impact smaller companies.” CCIA suggests including a 30-day right to cure, she said. The Internet Association opposed the bill last year (see 2104270095). The city of Los Angeles called into the hearing to support AB-587.

Appropriators also set up for vote next week a bill by Assemblymember Evan Low (D) to require social media platforms to disclose cyberbullying reporting procedures in their terms of service. AB-2878 would require a way for people without accounts to report the bullying.

The committee didn’t take up other internet and telecom bills by our deadline. Social media platforms could be held civilly liable for addicting children to their websites under Cunningham’s AB-2408 (see 2205030058). The California AG could seek an injunction or civil penalties against violators of Wicks’ AB-2273, which would set rules for businesses that provide online services likely to be accessed by children. Also, the Wicks bill would require the California Privacy Protection Agency to set up a task force to consider best practices and adopt regulations.

California would establish an 8 cent monthly surcharge on wireline, wireless and VoIP lines under AB-988 to fund the 988 hotline (see 2204010032). AB-2477 would require the Office of Emergency Services to adopt minimum operating standards by July 1, 2024, for companies that provide alert and warning services to localities.

If the internet bills and 988 measure pass the Senate, they will need to return to the Assembly to concur with the Senate amendments. The Assembly Appropriations Committee is scheduled to meet Wednesday to consider bills on broadband, social media and inmate communications.