Newsom Vetoes AI Bill
California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed SB-1047. The controversial bill was intended to establish safety guidelines for artificial intelligence models and would have been the first significant piece of state AI legislation in the country. Though it had many high-profile supporters, the Governor ultimately felt the bill went too far and would hamstring the state’s growing AI industry. In a statement to the Senate, Newsom wrote: “While well-intentioned, SB-1047 does not take into account whether an AI system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions — so long as a large system deploys it. I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” He also announced that the state will partner with several industry insiders, including Dr. Fei-Fei Li (who opposed the legislation), to develop guardrails around powerful AI models. State Senator Scott Wiener, who introduced the original bill, has vowed to continue the fight.
AI technology is evolving far too quickly for reactive legislation. Will lawmakers emerge who understand the intricacies and implications of artificial intelligence, but also have the political clout to push proactive bills through legislatures? That’s a lot to ask of anyone. Time will tell.
SB-976 Becomes Law in California
There’s no shortage of news coming out of California. Governor Newsom has signed the Protecting Our Kids From Social Media Addiction Act (SB-976) into law, mandating that algorithm-based social media feeds will be inaccessible to children without parental consent. The law also stipulates that social media entities may not send notifications to children overnight or during school hours without express parental permission. The state attorney general is now tasked with outlining a process by 2027 to determine if users are children, which will certainly be controversial. This bill is very similar to legislation recently passed in New York and may be a harbinger of things to come on the national stage. As we’ve previously reported, parental consent rules run the risk of isolating vulnerable teens, while age-verification requirements may trigger privacy, bias, accuracy, and other concerns (including litigation). We’ll continue to pay close attention as this unfolds.
California Deepfake Law Blocked
Should political deepfakes be protected as satire? In Kohls v. Bonta, Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that it should. Despite being signed into law on September 17, 2024, AB-2839 was blocked in Judge Mendez’s court just two weeks later on grounds that the law does not meet the high standard for legislation that may burden protected speech. In rejecting the state’s argument that the law is akin to restrictions on defamation, Judge Mendez wrote: “YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and X tweets are the newspaper advertisements and political cartoons of today, and the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak regardless of the new medium these critiques may take.” Read Judge Mendez’s extensive ruling in its entirety.
Privacy Rights Bill Vetoed
Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto pen was working overtime as a number of tech-related bills recently landed on his desk. In addition to the aforementioned AI bill, Newsom vetoed AB-3048. This law would have mandated that internet browsers and mobile operating systems provide Californians with a simple, single-click option to block the use and sharing of their data. Unsurprisingly, the bill was aggressively opposed by major tech entities who argued that implementing such functionality presented too many technical hurdles and would be disruptive to operations for both the companies and the end users. Consumer and privacy rights activists strongly disagreed. In his veto statement, Governor Newsom wrote: “I am concerned… about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time. No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it’s best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators.”
Though AB-3048 overwhelmingly passed in both chambers, the California Legislature has not overridden a gubernatorial veto since 1980. As tech is a major economic engine of the state, a veto seems extremely unlikely in this case – despite the Legislature having more than enough votes to do so.
X Ordered to Honor Severance Agreement
A former Twitter employee who was terminated and offered a reduced severance package after Elon Musk purchased the platform for $44 billion in 2022 has prevailed in arbitration. The company, now rebranded as X, was ordered to pay the unnamed employee the full amount owed under the initial severance agreement. It’s possible that this settlement may result in additional severance adjustments for the more than 2,000 former Twitter employees who have filed arbitration grievances after allegedly being denied their contractually agreed severance. Legendary Los Angeles punk band X was unavailable for comment.
[View source.]
