California Lawmakers Advance but Seek Edits to Net Neutrality, Surveillance Bills
A net neutrality bill marched forward in the California Legislature amid questions about if it can recover from cuts by an Assembly Committee last week. Lawmakers there advanced a surveillance transparency bill and positioned a comprehensive privacy proposal for possible enactment Thursday. Industry groups prefer the privacy bill to a ballot initiative that’s to be withdrawn if the legislation is enacted.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee voted 8-2 Tuesday to advance the version of SB-822 that got cuts in the Communications and Conveyance Committee. Sponsor Sen. Scott Wiener (D) asked the Privacy Committee not to change it further so talks could continue with Communications Committee Chair Miguel Santiago (D), Sen. Kevin de Leon (D) and others (see 1806260015). Wiener warned he will withdraw the bill if the final product doesn’t provide strong protections. The Appropriations Committee has until Aug. 17 to clear the measure for Assembly vote.
The same committee voted 7-3 for a transparency bill to require local law enforcement to have public notice and comment before using new surveillance technologies (see 1805310050). Committee members who supported the measure wish SB-1186 would give more weight to public safety interests and exempt elected sheriffs and district attorneys, like last year’s version. SB-1186 goes next to the Appropriations Committee, which never considered the 2017 bill. Law enforcement groups opposed the bill in testimony, with California Police Chiefs Association lobbyist Jonathan Feldman saying requiring a public hearing is a nonstarter.
The Privacy Committee held an information-only hearing Wednesday on a privacy bill (AB-375) that Tuesday cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and is on a fast track for passage by Thursday (see 1806260061). It’s meant to obviate a similar ballot initiative planned for November. The Senate Appropriations Committee plans to weigh the bill Thursday at 8:30 a.m. It would need a full vote by the Senate, concurrence by the Assembly and the governor’s signature before 5 p.m., the deadline to withdraw the ballot initiative.
The privacy bill is better for cable ISPs than the ballot initiative, though they oppose both, said California Cable and Telecommunications Association President Carolyn McIntyre. “There is a possibility to amend some of the provisions that are being enacted in the legislation in the future, if needed, with a majority vote of the members of each house,” she emailed. “It would be much more difficult to amend the provisions of the initiative should it be approved.” The initiative’s “substantive provisions may only be amended with the approval of 70 percent of the members of each house of the Legislature,” she said. An Internet Association official agrees.
In other California developments, the Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee voted 6-1 Tuesday for SB-1001, which would make it unlawful to use bots that mislead Californians into believing they are speaking with a real person. It goes next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The Senate Public Safety Committee voted 5-2 Tuesday, with Republicans voting no, for AB-2448, which would require that minors in juvenile detention get computer and internet access for education and communication with family. It goes next to Senate Appropriations.
Net Neutrality
Santiago suffered backlash from net neutrality advocates after his committee stripped key provisions from SB-822 on interconnection and zero rating (see 1806200048). Fight for the Future Tuesday announced a campaign to crowdfund a billboard that would say, “Miguel Santiago is helping Trump kill net neutrality.”
The Privacy Committee got many calls from constituents asking to undo the changes, said Privacy Chair Ed Chau (D) in Tuesday’s livestreamed hearing. The legislative process doesn’t work “if the expectation is that amendments of one committee can be wholly undone in the next,” but committees should explore options while “respecting the committee process,” Chau said. A Privacy Committee proposal to require ISPs to comply with exact text of 2015 FCC rules (see 1806250033) may alleviate concerns that the bill goes beyond that order and remove the need for the legislature to synthesize the more than 300-page document, he said.
Wiener agreed “with the spirit” of that idea but cited logistical issues writing a state law that requires compliance with reversed federal rules. “We have to be more bright line in some respects than the FCC,” and some parts of the federal order -- unrelated to net neutrality or discussing public comments -- don’t need to be in the bill, he said.
Simply referencing the 2015 order intrigued Assembly member Ian Calderon, but the Democrat conceded possible complexities raised by Wiener. It’s inappropriate to undo actions of a previous committee, “regardless of how those changes happened,” Calderon said. California should codify “nothing more, nothing less” than what’s in the reversed order, he said. Calderon said he gets industry concerns about having to comply with a patchwork of state laws, “but what did you do to prevent this from happening?”
Santiago’s amendments addressed “overreach,” but SB-822 still exceeds the 2015 order, with restrictions on state procurement and a provision giving private right of action, testified McIntyre. ISPs face attorney general enforcement but under the bill also would be subject to lawsuits by district attorneys, city attorneys and consumers, the cable official said.