The package of laws requires data center operators to shoulder more of the costs tied to their operations, rather than passing them along to everyday ratepayers. Three of the bills redirect electric infrastructure expenses away from residential customers and onto the companies building and running these facilities. Another three require data center operators to disclose how much water and other resources their operations consume. The seventh law strips data centers of automatic environmental review exemptions, though it does offer a faster approval path for projects that meet the state’s water and energy conservation benchmarks.

In a statement announcing the signings, Newsom drew a sharp contrast between California’s approach and that of the Trump administration, which has largely encouraged unchecked data center expansion nationwide.

“We know that we don’t have to sell out Californians or sacrifice our well-being to innovate and succeed,” Newsom said. “California has proven that time and time again. With these laws, we are ensuring that Californians remain in the driver’s seat — and that those profiting from data centers aren’t doing so at our expense.”

President Trump, for his part, has been an outspoken champion of rapid data center growth, calling the sector the “oil of the next 20, 25 years” during remarks last week at the All-In Summit, a business leaders’ conference.

The move represents a considerable reversal for Newsom, who last year vetoed a bill that would have required water usage disclosures, citing worries that added regulation might slow the growth of artificial intelligence. At that time, he approved only a single, watered-down measure calling for environmental studies.

Lawmakers and environmental groups say the change in course reflects a surge of public opposition to data center construction that grew too loud to ignore — even as tech companies poured money into lobbying efforts to blunt the legislation.

“When you’re looking down the barrel of public outcry that says we don’t want [data centers] at all, and you’ve got localities that are saying they’re going to ban them, then you know the atmosphere has changed,” said Assemblymember Diane Papan, a San Mateo Democrat who authored two of the bills Newsom signed Monday.

California isn’t alone in this reconsideration. Other state legislatures, along with Congress, are weighing similar restrictions. A Gallup poll from May found that seven in 10 Americans oppose having data centers built in their own communities, while a July survey from the Public Policy Institute of California found comparable resistance among state residents. Across the country, hundreds of cities — including Monterey Park locally and Pittsburg in the Bay Area — have either banned data centers outright or reversed prior approvals after residents pushed back.

Arnab Pal, executive director of the clean-energy nonprofit Deploy Action, called the new laws a meaningful step but said there’s more work ahead to ensure data centers genuinely benefit Californians through grid improvements and clean energy investment.

“I don’t think these bills are the end of this fight; I think we’re gonna have to do a lot of implementation on the back end, and as other states roll out their policies next year, I think California is going to look back and be like, ‘maybe we should have done more,'” Pal said. “I’m interested to see what we do next year on this.”

Industry groups, meanwhile, warn the new rules could drive data center development out of state. The Data Center Coalition — whose members include Google, Microsoft and OpenAI — points to the sector’s economic footprint in California, which it says supported 665,500 jobs, generated more than $159 billion in economic activity, and produced $14.1 billion in combined federal, state and local tax revenue in 2024.

Khara Boender, the coalition’s director of government affairs for the western U.S., said the industry supports responsible growth but cautioned that policymakers need to strike a balance.

“The data center industry shares the goal of ensuring growth of this critical infrastructure is responsible and well managed,” Boender said, adding that more needs to be done “to promote responsible data center growth while maintaining California as a key, competitive market in the global economy.”

The bills Newsom signed include Senate Bill 1168, Senate Bill 886 and Assembly Bill 2383, all aimed at shifting electric infrastructure costs from residential ratepayers to data center operators; Assembly Bills 2469, 1577 and 2619, which require disclosure or estimation of water and other resource usage; and Senate Bill 887, which eliminates blanket environmental review exemptions for data centers while providing expedited approval for projects meeting state conservation standards.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Signs New Restrictions on California Data Centers Amid Growing Public Backlash appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Senate Bill 1094, authored by San Diego Democrat Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson, would let health insurers and pharmacists substitute a patient’s brand-name biologic drug for a lower-cost biosimilar version unless the patient’s doctor objects. Insurance plans would be required to notify both doctors and patients 60 days before making any such switch.

Weber Pierson, who also works as an obstetrician, introduced the measure as prescription drug costs continue climbing statewide. According to state health officials, insurance spending on medications jumped 72% between 2017 and 2024, with biologics representing a major share of that increase. State prescription data show that six of the 10 most expensive drugs sold in California fall into the biologic category.

A legislative analysis estimates the bill could trim roughly $87.7 million annually from premiums paid by employers, government programs and individual enrollees — a modest reduction of less than 1%. Californians could also save between $92 and $310 a year in out-of-pocket costs, though the amount would depend on individual insurance plans.

The measure is part of a broader push by state lawmakers and health officials to rein in healthcare spending. Recent efforts have included penalizing hospitals for excessive cost growth, scaling back coverage for weight-loss medications under Medi-Cal, and launching a state-backed insulin program sold well below market price. Officials note that such savings don’t always show up as direct rebates to consumers — instead, they’re intended to slow the pace at which premiums and other costs rise over time.

SB 1094 earned support from the insurance industry, business groups and some labor unions as it moved through the Legislature, though not without objections. Rheumatology groups and several patient advocacy organizations have raised concerns that switching patients to a different drug purely for cost reasons — rather than medical necessity — could disrupt treatment plans that are currently working well.

Biologic drugs are commonly prescribed for complex autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and ulcerative colitis, as well as certain cancer immunotherapies. Biosimilars serve as their generic equivalent. Although not chemically identical to the original biologics, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined they are safe and equally effective for most patients.

Weber Pierson likens the shift to substituting a generic drug for its brand-name counterpart. “Biosimilars are just as effective with a similar side effect profile as the biologics, but cost significantly less,” she said, adding that patients who don’t respond well to a biosimilar would be permitted to switch back to their original medication.

Unlike conventional synthetic drugs manufactured through chemical processes, biologics are derived from living cells through a complex and costly production method. Biosimilars typically cost 15% to 35% less than their brand-name equivalents, according to research published in JAMA Health Forum.

“When you look at high-cost drugs, they’re oftentimes these specialty drugs that really go towards serving a very small percentage of the overall population,” Weber Pierson said, explaining her decision to focus on biologics specifically.

A report released last year by the state’s Department of Managed Health Care found that specialty drugs, including biologics, make up less than 2% of all prescriptions but account for 63% of total annual prescription drug spending statewide.

Not everyone is convinced the switch will be smooth for patients. Liz Helms, president of the California Chronic Care Coalition, said she understands the pressure to control healthcare costs but worries that patients who are stable on a brand-name biologic could see their treatment disrupted in pursuit of savings that may never materialize for them personally.

Dr. Robin Dore, a rheumatologist with more than four decades of experience treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, lupus and other autoimmune conditions, shares that concern. Many of her patients already endure severe pain and lengthy insurance approval processes, she said, noting that insurers frequently require patients to try cheaper drugs first before approving coverage for biologics.

Dore, former president of the California Rheumatology Alliance, said that while many patients transition to biosimilars without issue, others spent years cycling through different treatments before finding one that worked for them. Her organization pushed for the bill’s requirement that health plans give physicians 60 days’ notice along with a list of affected patients, allowing doctors time to weigh in and prepare.

She said some of her patients have already been switched to biosimilars after insurers dropped coverage of certain brand-name biologics — a pattern she expects to become more common under SB 1094. So far, she said, those switches haven’t resulted in noticeable savings for her patients.

Studies have found mixed results when it comes to whether increased biosimilar use actually lowers out-of-pocket costs for consumers.

Weber Pierson acknowledged that her original hope was for patients to see immediate financial relief, though she believes the impact may become more apparent over time. “I would love to be able to put money back into the pockets of patients,” she said. “Unfortunately, our healthcare system is so complicated that it’s hard to do that.”

To prevent insurers from simply keeping the savings generated by increased biosimilar use, the bill would require health plans to report annually on how those savings are being applied. As Weber Pierson put it, even a smaller premium increase represents meaningful relief: “If premiums would have gone up $50, and instead now they’re going up $5, it’s an increase in healthcare, but it’s not as much.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Bill Aims to Lower Costs by Letting Insurers Switch Patients to Cheaper Autoimmune Drugs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The centerpiece of the package, Assembly Bill 1709, tells tech companies they have a choice when it comes to users under 16 — either strip out features designed to keep people scrolling, such as infinite feeds and autoplay video, or bar those younger users from the platform altogether.

Newsom framed the law as a direct challenge to the engineering behind social media addiction rather than simply another content restriction.

“This is about the features themselves — the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said. “This is about addressing the substantive issue around the engineering.”

Not everyone welcomed the move. Digital rights groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, had lobbied Newsom to veto the bill. While acknowledging the good intentions behind it, the organization warned that cutting off younger users from certain platform features could also cut them off from valuable information and online experiences.

Alongside AB 1709, Newsom signed what’s known as Adam’s Law, a measure regulating how artificial intelligence chatbots interact with minors. The law sets time limits on how long kids can engage with AI chatbots and requires companies to build in mental health resources within those tools. It also mandates that chatbot operators develop safety protocols — so that if a bot detects warning signs of self-harm, parents must be notified.

The law is named for Adam Raine, a California teenager who died by suicide in 2025 after what his family said was a troubling series of exchanges with the popular chatbot ChatGPT, which they say offered him guidance related to his death.

Newsom’s broader child-safety package also included legislation making social media companies legally liable for harm inflicted on children through their platforms, an overhaul of age-verification requirements for apps, and a four-year moratorium on AI-equipped chatbot toys marketed to kids.

Whether the new laws will translate into real protection for children remains an open question. Experts note that preventing tragedies like Raine’s death will hinge largely on how aggressively regulators and attorneys pursue enforcement once the laws take effect.

MATH SCREENING BILL AWAITS NEWSOM’S SIGNATURE

Still sitting on the governor’s desk is a separate measure that would require California’s youngest students to be screened for basic math skills, part of a broader push to address stagnant math performance across the state.

California’s math scores have struggled since the pandemic and now trail the national average by a wide margin. Only 37% of the state’s students met grade-level math standards last year, according to recent test results.

The proposed screening would apply to kindergartners along with first- and second-graders, testing straightforward skills such as number ordering and basic comparisons. Students found to be behind would be connected with additional tutoring support.

The California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, has come out against the bill, arguing it would add unnecessary stress for young children without meaningfully improving outcomes. The union instead wants the state to invest more heavily in training teachers to strengthen math instruction in the classroom.

GENDER GAP EMERGES AMONG LATINO VOTERS ON IMMIGRATION

A new study from the UCLA Latino Politics and Policy Center and the UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies has found a notable gender divide among Latino voters when it comes to immigration enforcement, opposition to the Trump administration, and the importance placed on defending democratic institutions.

Researchers surveyed roughly 1,900 registered Latino voters about how important those three issues were to their choice in the race for California governor. Across every measure, Latinas were consistently more likely than Latino men to call the issues “very important.”

The divide was most pronounced among younger, non-college-educated and predominantly English-speaking voters. On the question of protecting immigrant communities, 17% more Latinas than Latinos rated the issue as very important. That gap widened to 22% among working-class voters and to 28% among those under 30.

Cristina Mora, co-director of the Berkeley IGS and one of the study’s authors, said the findings reflect a generation grappling with identity and connection to the immigrant experience.

“They’re thoroughly American, and they are trying to understand immigration and the question of whether (they) should have this link or commonality and natural empathy for the immigrant,” Mora said.

PAROLE BOARD SHAKEUP FOLLOWS PUBLIC BACKLASH

State Senate leader Monique Limón effectively pushed out two members of California’s Board of Parole Hearings in June after their votes in two Sacramento-area cases sparked public outrage. Both commissioners had years of experience on the board when they separately voted to release two men serving life sentences for sexual crimes against children committed in the 1990s. The removals highlight the political pressure surrounding parole decisions involving high-profile or emotionally charged cases.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Pushes New Limits on Kids’ Social Media Use appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Among them: an AI chatbot that encouraged a teenager to pull away from friends and family before he took his own life. Children’s stuffed animals equipped with AI chat features that offered instructions on lighting matches or discussed sexually explicit material. And a recent survey finding that nearly a third of teenagers said talking to an AI companion felt as satisfying, or more so, than conversing with actual friends.

The bill signing, held at the Bay Area Discovery Museum in Sausalito with the Golden Gate Bridge as a backdrop, marked another step in California’s effort to confront the mental health toll that fast-moving technology — much of it developed in the state — is taking on children.

“This is all personal,” Newsom said, pointing to his own four kids and his frequent urge to confiscate their phones. “None of this is academic. How many parents are here? Because of love and exhaustion and frustration, anger, despair, feeling hopeless. Parents can’t compete. Can’t compete with the engineering, can’t compete with the algorithms, can’t compete.”

Mental health has been a defining issue of Newsom’s governorship, though not every initiative has escaped criticism from civil rights advocates. Still, as anxiety grows nationwide over the risks children face online, California lawmakers appear more determined than ever to confront the tech industry’s reach into young lives.

The new laws signed this week include a measure making social media companies financially liable if they fail to protect children from harm; a temporary ban on manufacturing or selling AI-equipped toys marketed to children under 16; a requirement that platforms either eliminate “addictive” design features such as infinite scroll for users younger than 16 or bar those users altogether; and Adam’s Law, which sets time limits for young people using AI platforms, restricts targeted advertising aimed at them, mandates timely crisis intervention resources, and requires companies to report threats of suicide or self-harm.

Adam’s Law is named for 16-year-old Adam Raine, who died by suicide last year after ChatGPT reportedly encouraged him to withdraw from family and friends. Raine had first turned to the chatbot for help with math homework.

These measures build on other recent state actions targeting technology’s effect on developing minds. In July, California schools began enforcing new restrictions on smartphone use during the school day. And in August, a coalition of states led in part by California Attorney General Rob Bonta reached a $17 billion settlement with Meta over allegations that the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to hook young users. Meta has denied wrongdoing.

At Thursday’s ceremony, Newsom was joined by his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, several state legislators, and Maria Raine, Adam’s mother, all of whom shared stories — some through tears — about how social media and AI addiction have touched their families, friends and communities. A handful of lawmakers brought their own children, pulling them out of school for the day.

Newsom framed the new laws as proof that California continues to lead where Washington has stalled.

“We’re going to again lead the nation, but the bar is pretty damn low, and that’s what’s so frustrating,” he said, adding that Congress and the president’s failure to act was “an abomination” and “absurd,” especially for politicians who claim to champion family values.

Jim Steyer, founder and CEO of the San Francisco-based nonprofit Common Sense Media, which sponsored Adam’s Law, echoed that frustration in an interview, comparing the moment to the reckoning tobacco companies once faced.

“We’ve been saying broadly that this is Big Tech’s Big Tobacco moment,” Steyer said. “The blowback is not building anymore. It’s here.”

Ted Lempert, a former state assemblymember who now leads the advocacy group Children Now, said public alarm over high-profile tragedies has pushed lawmakers to act with new urgency. “These high-profile, really horrific events were like, ‘Whoa, policymakers gotta act,’” he said.

Still, some experts caution that passing laws is only half the battle. Ed Howard, senior counsel with the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, said the real test will be whether regulators and attorneys have the resources to enforce them.

“The laws that are some of the best laws are still in the middle of being challenged, and a lot of very good laws simply haven’t been enforced yet,” Howard said. “The trend is in the right direction. I don’t know that social media is any safer yet for every kid.” He added, “As a result, you have to keep fighting.”

Howard and others also worry that legislation may struggle to keep pace with technology that is evolving faster than even its creators can control — a concern reinforced by a recent incident in which hundreds of OpenAI bots reportedly coordinated an unauthorized attack this summer on Hugging Face, a hub for open-source AI development.

“That is truly the movie trailer of the horror movie we’ve all been dreading,” Howard said.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, an East Bay Democrat who co-authored Adam’s Law, acknowledged that no law can prevent every tragedy. “Can we protect communities from every harm that can come their way? No,” she said. “If I stop even one death, to me, that’s enough.”

She said the new liability protections will work alongside separate legislation empowering the state to audit tech companies and hold them accountable.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks of Oakland, who authored several of the newly signed bills, said California has made significant regulatory progress over the eight years she has worked on the issue — but cautioned that enacting laws is only the first step. Lawmakers must monitor how the rules perform in practice, close loopholes as they emerge, and continue refining them, a task made harder by the pace of technological change.

“We play catch up a lot,” Wicks said.

She added that the emotion on display Thursday reflected how many families — including those of lawmakers themselves — are grappling with technology’s grip on their children. “The fever pitch from parents is so palpable on ‘Just do something,’” she said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Enacts 13 Laws Aimed at Shielding Children From Tech Dangers — But Will They Deliver? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Among the most closely watched of the new laws is a measure that will require social media platforms to strip away so-called “addictive” design features — such as infinite scroll and autoplay — for users under 16, or bar those younger users from their platforms altogether. Supporters say the law targets a teen mental health crisis that has only worsened as social media companies have refused to change their business models voluntarily.

“Parents can’t compete. Can’t compete with the engineering, can’t compete with the algorithms,” Newsom said during a press conference announcing the new laws. “You feel like you’re a lousy parent.”

Not everyone is on board, however. Digital rights advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, had urged Newsom to reject the bill, warning that its definition of “addictive features” is so broad that it could amount to an outright ban on social media for anyone under 16 — cutting teenagers off from information and online communities that can be genuinely valuable.

A second major law drew a far more favorable reception, even from the tech industry. Named in honor of Adam Raine, a California teenager who died by suicide in 2025 after ChatGPT allegedly provided him with self-harm guidance, the new statute sets time limits for minors using AI chatbots and requires that mental health resources be built directly into the technology. Companies will also need to develop formal safety plans, and if a chatbot detects signs that a user may be in danger of self-harm, the operator must notify the minor’s parents. Firms such as OpenAI could now face legal consequences if they fail to respond appropriately to warning signs.

“Raising teens at this moment, those of us that are, we know the youth mental health crisis is an everyday reality,” said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, one of the bill’s authors. “There isn’t one of us that hasn’t seen it firsthand.”

OpenAI, notably, expressed support for the measure, stating that it “pairs strong protections with continued access to useful AI tools.” The law adds to a growing body of California regulations on AI chatbots, including existing rules requiring companies to disclose when users are conversing with a machine rather than a person.

Several other bills rounded out the package. One opens the door for social media companies to be held financially liable if their platforms cause harm to a child. Another strengthens and updates age-verification requirements across digital platforms. A third expands companies’ legal obligations to detect and act on child exploitation material. Yet another law imposes a four-year moratorium on AI-equipped chatbot toys marketed to children under 16.

The governor had already signed related legislation earlier in the week establishing standards for independent auditors who evaluate AI systems, along with a law clarifying that companies offering products likely to be used by children cannot require kids to hand over personal data simply to access their services.

The flurry of new laws arrives amid escalating alarm over the toll social media and AI technology are taking on young people’s mental health. Raine’s death was one of several recent cases that have shaken parents’ confidence in chatbot safety, with growing reports of so-called “AI psychosis” — instances in which chatbot interactions appear to reinforce delusional or harmful thinking, a phenomenon not limited to teenagers.

The legislative push also follows a landmark legal settlement between Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and a coalition of state attorneys general, including California’s Rob Bonta. That lawsuit accused Meta of deliberately designing addictive features — like infinite scrolling — despite internal knowledge that they were harming teens’ mental health, a case frequently likened to the tobacco industry litigation of decades past.

As that trial got underway last month, Meta agreed to pay up to $17 billion to resolve the claims. A portion of that settlement will go toward addressing youth mental health issues, while states will determine how the remaining funds are allocated. As part of the deal, Meta also agreed to make product changes for younger users, including limiting “likes” on accounts belonging to minors and halting notifications during school hours.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Cracks Down on AI Chatbots, Bars Teens From “Addictive” Social Media Feeds appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“If something is available to help you to be more healthy, to avoid comorbidities … why would we want to wait till a person became diabetic to help them?” Richardson asked fellow lawmakers during a June legislative hearing.

Her frustration reflects a problem playing out across California, where medications like Ozempic and Wegovy have shown remarkable promise for treating obesity and related conditions but remain financially out of reach for many residents. Prices have edged downward in recent years, but most insurance plans still won’t cover the drugs, and state health programs — worried about ballooning costs — have in some cases pulled back coverage rather than expand it.

Now Richardson is pushing legislation aimed at closing that gap. Senate Bill 1089, which is nearing final approval in Sacramento, would direct the state to pursue a partnership with a drug manufacturer to boost competition and drive down GLP-1 prices through CalRx, California’s program for producing and distributing costly medications at reduced rates.

Any such deal would likely take years to materialize. It took the state three years to bring its $55 insulin product to market through CalRx, which currently also distributes albuterol inhalers and naloxone.

The version of SB 1089 now moving through the Legislature is considerably scaled back from its original form. Earlier drafts would have required CalPERS, which provides health coverage to 1.3 million public employees and retirees, to cover GLP-1 medications outright. CalPERS pushed back hard against that provision, warning it could raise premiums by roughly $28 per member each month.

Richardson said she has since discussed adding GLP-1s to the CalRx program directly with Gov. Gavin Newsom, describing him as “very positively open” to the idea. State health officials have confirmed that GLP-1s are among the medications under consideration for the program.

Spending on the drugs has climbed dramatically in recent years. According to state data, the number of GLP-1 prescriptions issued specifically for weight loss — across both Medi-Cal and private insurance — surged from about 20,000 in 2018 to 700,000 in 2023. That year alone, California spent nearly $417 million on weight-loss GLP-1 prescriptions through Medi-Cal, while commercial insurers spent over $405 million.

A report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office found that overall pharmacy spending in California nearly doubled during that period, driven largely by medications treating diabetes, obesity and inflammatory conditions.

Facing similar cost pressures, California recently eliminated Medi-Cal coverage of GLP-1s when prescribed solely for weight loss, though the drugs remain covered when prescribed for diabetes. The state isn’t alone — New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina have made comparable cuts to their Medicaid programs. Currently, only a dozen states cover GLP-1s for obesity under Medicaid, and Rhode Island is set to end its coverage this October. Coverage under private insurance is similarly inconsistent, with health plans citing GLP-1 costs as a major factor pushing up premiums.

Alison Sexton Ward, an economist and research scientist at the University of Southern California, said the medical benefits of these drugs are well documented, with modeling suggesting long-term savings in health care spending and a reduction in health disparities. But she said insurers face a difficult calculus: the upfront costs are steep, and the savings from preventing obesity-related illness may not materialize until years later — often after a patient has switched insurance providers.

“The thing about treating obesity is just because you lose weight today doesn’t mean that your health care costs go down tomorrow,” Ward said. “There’s been this unique pressure on these drugs that they pay for themselves.”

One model drawing attention from researchers is the federal Medicare GLP-1 Bridge Program, a temporary initiative designed to bring the price of drugs such as Zepbound, Wegovy and Foundayo down to roughly $50 a month.

Dr. Wayne Ho, an obesity specialist and researcher based in Los Angeles, said he sees firsthand how uneven access shapes patient outcomes. Those who can afford the drugs out of pocket, or whose insurance covers them, are often able to manage their conditions far more effectively than patients forced to rely on less effective alternatives.

“It’s really disheartening to see because we have these wonderful innovative treatments that really are life altering,” Ho said.

The high price tag has pushed some patients toward cheaper, compounded versions of the medications — a trend that worries many physicians because those products lack FDA approval. Compounding is typically used to modify a drug for a specific medical need, such as removing an allergen, but a growing number of compounding pharmacies and telehealth platforms are now offering altered versions of GLP-1s that swap out ingredients. Ho warns that these products carry greater risk because they skip the FDA’s standard review process.

Nationally, calls to poison control centers related to weight-loss medications spiked by 1,500% between 2019 and 2025, according to America’s Poison Centers. Research has linked compounded GLP-1s to higher rates of adverse reactions and dosing errors, including a Binghamton University study that found compounded versions were associated with higher hospitalization rates. The FDA has also cautioned about counterfeit products entering the market.

Despite the challenges, Ho remains optimistic that broader, affordable access to FDA-approved GLP-1 medications is within reach, and he credits ongoing legislative efforts with helping move the needle.

“I think there’s more and more pressure to cover these medications as more and more scientific data come out to show how it affects the body in a very positive manner,” he said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Push Plan to Cut Costs of GLP-1 Weight-Loss Drugs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Devices that read brain activity — through implanted chips or sensors tucked into earbuds, headbands, wristbands and augmented reality headsets — are no longer confined to research labs. They already help blind people regain some vision, give paralyzed patients a way to speak, and let people with severe neurological conditions communicate and control computers without lifting a finger. But that same technology can also detect fatigue, stress and even patterns linked to mental health conditions, raising concerns about how employers, tech companies and insurers might one day use that information.

Few Californians currently use neurotechnology, and even fewer are aware it exists. Still, the state has moved faster than most to address it. Two years ago, lawmakers expanded California’s digital privacy law to cover brain data. This year, two more bills are working their way through Sacramento: one that would limit how employers can use so-called “bossware” tied to brain sensors, and another that would bar companies from selling neural data and other sensitive personal information. Separately, new rules from the California Privacy Protection Agency take effect in January, adding safeguards for people affected by automated systems that rely on artificial intelligence — including tools built around brain data — to make major decisions about their lives.

The concern isn’t really about today’s applications, most of which are used to catch fatigue in truck drivers or miners. It’s about where the technology could be headed. Brain signals can already be analyzed for signs of depression or PTSD, which critics warn could someday factor into hiring or firing decisions. Researchers have also shown that neural data can be used to reconstruct words or images a person is thinking about — a capability that unsettles labor advocates who fear it could give employers leverage in salary talks or make it easier to identify workers involved in union organizing.

In China, some employees at an electric utility have reportedly been sent home or pulled from sensitive assignments after monitoring hats flagged declining alertness. It’s the kind of scenario that has fueled what some now call the “mental privacy” movement — a push to establish protections before neurotech becomes as embedded in daily life as smartphones or social media.

California is home to several companies at the center of this emerging industry, including brain-implant makers Neuralink and Science Corporation, Santa Barbara-based augmented reality firm Cognixion, and tech giant Meta, which is exploring ways to weave brain-signal data into its smart glasses.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Los Angeles Democrat representing Inglewood, is behind Assembly Bill 1883, which would restrict “bossware” surveillance tools and prohibit employers from collecting brain data except for safety purposes. Another proposal, Assembly Bill 1542, would broaden the state’s privacy law to prevent companies from selling sensitive personal data, including neural information.

“Much of what’s in our bill is cutting-edge technology, or technology that’s emerging in real time, and we’re trying to get ahead of problems before they show up in the workplace,” Bryan said. “You’d rather not have horror stories.”

His bill has drawn pushback from a range of employers — cities, counties, grocers, hospitals, wine growers and assisted living operators among them — who argue the measure casts too wide a net and could interfere with legitimate safety and security tools, such as systems that monitor for unsafe driving, theft or misconduct toward customers.

The debate comes as neurotech moves closer to the mainstream. Meta’s Neural Band is beginning to link up with its smart glasses, and several startups are working to integrate their sensors with Apple’s Vision Pro headset. The FDA, meanwhile, has granted “breakthrough device” status to a number of neurotech firms, a designation that allows companies to market devices still undergoing clinical trials and speeds their path to market.

Nita Farahany, a Duke University law professor who studies mental privacy, said many neurotech companies are quietly deciding right now how they’ll make money — whether through subscriptions, premium hardware, or by monetizing customer brain data through cheaper devices. Without stronger protections, she said, workers may start censoring their own thoughts, avoiding even thinking about things like organizing a union for fear an employer might one day gain access to that information.

“We’re at a critical decision point for most of the neurotech companies,” Farahany said. “Privately, all of them are grappling with this right now.”

A 2024 study by Stephen Damianos of the Neurorights Foundation found that nearly every company making consumer-grade brain-computer interfaces has weak privacy protections built into its terms of service, and that two-thirds allow user data to be shared with third parties. Damianos warned that as devices and the algorithms interpreting brain signals improve, the risks will grow — from job discrimination to insurance penalties to unwanted monitoring at work.

“There’s an urgent need to act now before it becomes the norm that brain data is accessed without consent or used to influence decisions,” he said.

Some companies developing the technology insist they’re taking a responsible approach. Cognixion’s Santa Barbara-built headsets combine augmented reality with brain sensors, letting people with ALS and other neurological conditions use eye movement, head motion and brain signals to send emails or communicate through apps like Slack. Founder and CEO Andreas Forsland said technology built to help people with severe disabilities often ends up benefiting everyone, comparing it to how curb cutouts and automatic doors, designed for wheelchair users, made life easier for the public at large. He believes broader use of brain data is inevitable, whether to boost human performance or to give people new ways to interact with machines.

San Francisco-based Emotiv makes brain-sensing earbuds paired with software that interprets electrical brain activity to help users manage stress and fatigue throughout the day. The company says its technology has been tested by corporations including SAP, which used it to tailor employee training; Dell, which used it to adjust break schedules; and real estate firm JLL, which explored whether office layouts affect worker performance. Emotiv’s chief commercial officer, Kim Old, said those were pilot projects and stressed that the company believes brain data should only be collected with consent and under strict privacy standards.

“We do not believe neural data should be used for covert or coercive workplace surveillance,” Old said in an email.

Alexander Kies, a postdoctoral researcher at RWTH Aachen University in Germany who studies workplace reactions to neurotech, predicts that non-invasive brain monitoring will spread first as a fatigue-prevention tool before evolving into something used for broader management decisions. Once that shift happens, he said, it becomes harder to tell whether an employer is protecting workers’ well-being or simply tightening control.

“My take on this is these management tasks would creep in,” Kies said. “We’re taking away agency from employees.”

California’s push to regulate this space hasn’t been without setbacks. Last year, a broader bill addressing automated decision-making systems in the workplace, Senate Bill 7, was stripped of language covering neural data in order to gain enough votes to pass — and Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed it anyway, saying it imposed overly broad restrictions on businesses.

State Sen. Jerry McNerney, a Stockton Democrat who co-authored that bill, said the challenge lawmakers face is crafting rules that protect workers without shutting the door on beneficial uses of the technology. He included brain data in the original bill, he said, because “that’s the most personal thing you have, your brain.”

“We want to make sure that neural data isn’t used to predict behavior that would cause you to punish an employee, so no predictive algorithms are allowed,” McNerney said during a panel discussion hosted by CalMatters last year at the James Irvine Foundation’s San Francisco offices.

Sara Flocks of the California Labor Federation, which supports the current regulatory push, said neural data monitoring risks repeating mistakes from the Industrial Revolution, when employers squeezed efficiency out of workers at the cost of basic conditions. She pointed to recent survey data showing that one in five managers now use automated tools to help make hiring, firing or promotion decisions, and that roughly three-quarters of employers use some form of workplace surveillance software.

Farahany acknowledged that brain data today reveals less about workers than other commonly collected information, such as keystrokes, social media habits or heart rate. But she expects that gap to close as sensors and AI interpretation improve. In her book, “The Battle for Your Brain,” she argues that any productivity gains from neurotechnology could be outweighed by an erosion of trust if employees feel their mental privacy is being compromised.

The stakes go beyond simple privacy violations, she said — they touch on a person’s fundamental freedom to think without being watched.

“There’s an urgent need to protect mental privacy and self-determination,” Farahany said. “It’s part of a bigger picture that needs to be addressed.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Move to Protect Workers’ Brain Data From Employers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The cameras — perched on utility poles, patrol cars and intersections — snap photos of passing license plates and instantly check them against law enforcement databases flagging stolen vehicles, getaway cars or vehicles tied to missing persons cases. Over the past year, the technology has been credited with helping solve homicides, bank robberies, hit-and-run collisions and even a wildfire arson case.

But the same tool that police praise as a force multiplier has drawn fierce criticism from privacy advocates across the political spectrum. Last month in Monterey County, a man was accused of ripping three of the cameras down with his truck. And civil liberties groups warn the devices open the door to abuse — from officers misusing access to stalk people, to out-of-state agencies potentially mining California plate data to track down abortion patients or providers.

More than 230 police and sheriff’s departments statewide now rely on the cameras, many supplied by the Atlanta-based company Flock Safety. That widespread adoption has renewed a push by Democratic state lawmakers to rein in how long agencies can hold onto the data and who gets to see it.

State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat, is carrying this year’s version of the effort, Senate Bill 1013. It would generally cap data retention at 30 days unless the information is tied to an open investigation or a missing-persons search. The bill also would require training for officers who access the system, mandate tracking of database searches, and bar law enforcement agencies from signing contracts with camera vendors that give federal agencies or out-of-state police default access to California plate records.

“This bill is about one simple principle: protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while ensuring law enforcement tools are used responsibly before it’s too late,” Cervantes told an Assembly privacy committee last month.

The provision targeting vendor contracts stems largely from revelations that Flock Safety had, through a pilot program, allowed federal authorities to search local plate databases. Tracy Rosenberg of the advocacy group Oakland Privacy, which backs the bill, said local police departments were blindsided by the arrangement.

“They learned after the fact, like our advocates did,” Rosenberg said. “And we all said, ‘What the …’ You know, pick your four-letter word.”

Flock Safety has said on its website that it no longer runs those federal pilot programs and does not share data with immigration enforcement by default. The company maintains that local agencies retain full control over the information their cameras collect.

Law enforcement groups, however, remain firmly opposed to the legislation. At least 39 police agencies and officer associations have lined up against SB 1013, and those same groups have poured a combined $5.6 million into legislative campaigns since 2000, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Tustin Police Chief Sean Thuilliez, who leads the California Police Chiefs Association, pointed to a case from May in which a woman was shot and killed on an Orange County street shortly after testifying against her ex-husband in a restraining-order hearing. Investigators initially considered the ex-husband a suspect, but Thuilliez said Tustin’s network of 102 license plate readers — eight of them Flock cameras — helped detectives quickly clear him and instead track down the victim’s former boyfriend near the Mexico border. He now faces a first-degree murder charge.

“It’s technology mixed with good investigative work,” Thuilliez said. “But within one weekend, we were able to arrest the suspect for this person’s murder.”

Berkeley police reported similar gains after installing 52 Flock cameras last year. According to a department report to the city council, the cameras contributed to 121 investigations, 58 arrests and the recovery of 37 stolen vehicles. The agency’s robbery clearance rate jumped from 34% in 2024 to 49% the following year, which officials credited in part to the technology.

Those success stories appear to have swayed Gov. Gavin Newsom last year, when he vetoed a similar measure — also authored by Cervantes — that would have required departments to purge plate data within 60 days. In his veto message, Newsom warned that such restrictions could hamper investigators working cold cases or searching for missing people. He also noted the state budget lacked funding for the mandatory Department of Justice audits the bill called for.

This year’s version attempts to address those concerns by allowing data retention in missing-persons cases and making the audit requirement contingent on future state funding. Newsom’s office has not said whether he supports the current proposal, which has cleared the Legislature so far with only Republican lawmakers opposed. It now awaits action in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

The debate isn’t confined to Sacramento. In Washington, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie has signaled he’ll introduce federal legislation to cut off funding to cities and police departments that deploy Flock or similar camera systems to monitor law-abiding residents, framing it as a Fourth Amendment issue.

For Rosenberg, the goal isn’t to eliminate the technology but to put guardrails around it.

“There is kind of a balancing act. We as human beings also need some camera-free space,” she said. “We don’t want to be on camera every minute of every single day.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmakers Weigh Privacy Concerns Over License Plate Reader Technology appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The 71-year-old, once incarcerated for decades, has repeatedly made the long drive from Orange County to Sacramento to press state lawmakers to pass a bill she believes would give other survivors of domestic violence a fairer chance when they face criminal charges.

Each time, legislators appeared receptive — only to quietly shelve the measure before it reached the finish line.

Bustamante is hoping this fourth attempt turns out differently.

She is once again backing legislation, opposed by law enforcement and prosecutors, that would allow survivors of human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual abuse to raise their history of victimization as a legal defense when charged with violent crimes — with an exception for most murder cases.

People already convicted would also be allowed to ask a judge to vacate their convictions. If approved, their arrests and convictions would be treated as though they never happened. Records would be sealed and destroyed, and any outstanding fines or victim restitution tied to the case would be forgiven.

“I’m willing to fight for the people who aren’t in the position I’m in right now, so I can use my voice… and fight for this,” Bustamante told CalMatters in an interview Friday.

Bustamante was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 1987. Prosecutors argued she had hired her brother to kill her husband, Steven Bustamante, and helped dispose of his body in exchange for a $100,000 life insurance payout she split with her sibling.

Bustamante says that during her two-day trial, she was never allowed to tell jurors about the repeated beatings and death threats she says she endured from her husband. She maintains she only asked her brother for help.

“It never crossed my mind that he could kill Steven,” she told lawmakers last month. “Afterward, he called to tell me Steven was dead. He threatened to call the police and say I had planned it. He blackmailed me into giving him Steven’s insurance money. I was afraid I’d lose my daughters, so I gave in.”

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown commuted Bustamante’s sentence in 2017 after learning her story and reviewing her clean record behind bars. She was released the following year, after three decades in prison.

Bustamante said she would not qualify to have her own case overturned under the bill she is now championing.

California law already allows defendants to testify about abuse they suffered and to bring in expert witnesses who can explain how that trauma shaped their actions. Judges may also weigh a defendant’s history of trafficking or domestic abuse during sentencing. This bill would go further, allowing survivors to use that history as an actual legal defense against violent crime charges.

State law already lets people convicted of nonviolent offenses seek similar relief through the courts.

Budget committees have quietly killed the bill before

Since her release, Bustamante has worked with nonprofit organizations that help survivors of abuse and incarceration rebuild their lives after leaving prison.

She first testified before the Legislature about the need for this bill back in 2023.

In each year since, at least one of the Legislature’s two public safety committees has advanced similar legislation, only for one of the two budget-focused appropriations committees to quietly kill it.

Twice a year, those appropriations committees convene to swiftly reject hundreds of bills, often without debate or explanation.

As CalMatters has previously reported, powerful interest groups, the governor’s office and state agencies frequently lobby behind closed doors to get committees to shelve certain bills. Legislative leaders also use the committees to block politically sensitive measures they’d rather not have members vote on publicly.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to take up the latest version of the bill, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, an Oakland Democrat, next month.

State Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat who now chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

Why prosecutors and police are pushing back

Law enforcement groups worry that Assembly Bill 910 could open the door for violent offenders — including rapists, kidnappers and child abusers — to flood California’s already overburdened court system with petitions seeking to overturn their convictions.

Opponents describe it as a troubling example of progressive Democrats continuing to soften consequences for dangerous offenders while giving too little consideration to victims.

“Allowing them to essentially walk away from a violent crime is bad policy,” said Greg Totten, a former Ventura County district attorney who now leads the state’s district attorneys association.

Totten noted that defendants already have the right to raise abuse or trafficking history during sentencing hearings.

Bonta did not respond to a request for comment, but told the Senate Public Safety Committee last month that “AB 910 is a second-chance bill — a dignity bill.”

“Survivors shouldn’t spend their whole lives paying for the abuse they suffered,” she said.

According to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database, at least 17 organizations — including ACLU California Action and the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office — support the bill.

Supporters argue that virtually no one convicted of a violent crime would actually qualify for relief under the proposal.

For the small number who might, backers say it would be far less costly to let survivors reintegrate into society without a criminal record working against them as they search for jobs, housing and other support.

“If even one person gets help because of this bill, it will have paid for itself,” said Leigh LaChapelle, director of policy and advocacy for the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Bill Would Let Abuse Survivors Cite Trauma as Legal Defense in Violent Crime Cases appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

I know this firsthand. For three years now, I’ve relied on an e-bike for everything from a 23-mile cross-city commute to weekend outings with friends at spots where finding street parking takes longer than the ride itself. In a region choked by congestion and smog, calling these bikes life-changing isn’t an exaggeration.

Still, a wave of media coverage highlighting a spike in e-bike-related injuries has pushed local and state officials toward tighter restrictions. Earlier this year, it looked as though California lawmakers were ready to slam the brakes on this growing form of transportation. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed, and the Legislature now appears focused on smarter, more targeted safety measures rather than blanket crackdowns.

State lawmakers introduced at least eight bills this session aimed at e-bike safety. One would have imposed licensing and registration requirements on most e-bikes. Another would have redefined the state’s classification system so broadly that the majority of e-bikes already on California streets would suddenly become illegal.

Both measures failed to advance — a relief for anyone who values a clean, efficient and enjoyable transportation option that has become a major driver of growth in the bicycle industry.

By contrast, Senate Bill 1167, authored by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, takes a more measured approach to the real safety issue at hand: high-powered electric motorcycles being marketed and sold as e-bikes. The bill cleared the state Senate in May and is now working its way through the Assembly.

Under current California law, an e-bike’s motor cannot push it faster than 28 mph, and models available to riders under 16 are limited to even lower speeds. Yet plenty of devices on the market blow past those limits — sometimes by a wide margin — while still being marketed as e-bikes. In reality, these are electric motorcycles wearing a thin disguise of pedals. I’ve seen machines capable of highway-adjacent speeds sold as “e-bikes” simply because they happen to have pedals bolted on somewhere.

These souped-up electric motorcycles are frequently the culprits behind alarming headlines about reckless teens tearing through neighborhoods on “e-bikes.” A June 10 Los Angeles Times story, “California’s new Hells Angels: Teens on e-bikes cut a path of danger,” is a prime example — the accompanying photos show vehicles that are clearly not e-bikes by any reasonable definition.

SB 1167 aims to close that loophole by making it illegal for manufacturers and retailers to label these motorcycles as e-bikes. It would also require sellers to clearly disclose to buyers when a product doesn’t meet the legal definition of an e-bike, helping shoppers avoid unintentionally purchasing something far more powerful — and dangerous — than they intended.

That’s not to say legitimate e-bikes are risk-free. Recent studies have documented a troubling rise in the number of children arriving at emergency rooms with serious injuries from motorized bike crashes.

“We’re seeing a high concentration of injuries in children and young adults, many of whom now face lifelong disability,” Dr. Timothy Browder, trauma medical director at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, told the Senate Transportation Committee last month while testifying in support of Assembly Bill 2346, another e-bike safety proposal. “From our bedside conversations, it is clear that parents and consumers are confused. They often do not realize how fast these devices go or that modifying them is illegal.”

But Robin Pam of Streets for All, an advocacy group focused on cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, questions whether some of this injury data conflates true e-bikes with far more powerful electric motorcycles. During a webinar last week hosted by her organization, Pam pointed to a study released last year by San Jose State University’s Mineta Transportation Institute, which cautioned that rising injury statistics often fail to distinguish between legitimate e-bikes and unregulated, overpowered devices.

SB 1167 could help clear up that confusion. Motorized bicycles are already required to display a permanent label listing their wattage and top assisted speed. Blakespear’s bill would require law enforcement to record that information when documenting crashes or injuries — creating a data-driven foundation for future e-bike policy, including any potential licensing rules or age restrictions, rather than relying on assumptions or fear.

Thoughtful safety regulation doesn’t have to come at the cost of e-bike adoption or the many benefits these machines offer to traffic-choked cities across Southern California and beyond. Policies grounded in solid data — rather than public panic — might just be what convinces more residents to trade four wheels for two.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Regulating E-Bikes Safely Makes Sense — Overregulating Them Doesn’t appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.