Consumer Watchdog says Uber failed to make clear to legislators that it largely insures itself through a subsidiary, even as the company argued that insurance mandates were driving up fares for riders and costs for drivers. The law, Senate Bill 371, lowered Uber’s required uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident.

The issue matters to riders and drivers across Southern California, where Uber is widely used for commuting, airport trips, medical appointments and nightlife transportation. During legislative hearings, Uber told lawmakers that state-required insurance was a major factor in ride costs, particularly in Los Angeles County.

Ramona Prieto, Uber’s director of public policy, told the Assembly Insurance Committee last July that government-mandated insurance accounted for roughly 45% of ride-hailing fares in Los Angeles County and about one-third of fares elsewhere in California. She said those costs were being passed on to people who depend on rideshare service.

But Consumer Watchdog’s May report, based on Uber’s public financial filings, found that nearly 95% of the company’s risk is insured by Aleka Insurance, an Uber subsidiary. The group also said Uber’s insurance reserves doubled from 2023 to 2025, reaching $12.46 billion.

Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab denied that the company misled lawmakers, saying legislators understood that California’s rideshare insurance requirements were unusually costly and were increasing expenses for both riders and drivers.

Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Chula Vista Democrat, said he was not aware Uber largely self-insures because that information was not disclosed to the committee. In an emailed statement, Alvarez said the proper level of Uber’s reserves is an actuarial question, but whether lawmakers received a clear picture of where riders’ insurance dollars were going before voting on the bill is “a separate, and more troubling, question.”

The new law includes disclosure requirements and calls for a study of its effects. Alvarez said he hopes that review will examine how captive-insurance structures, such as Uber’s arrangement with Aleka, affect rate-setting for companies like Uber so future decisions are made with fuller information.

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, the Napa Democrat who authored the law, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

CalMatters contacted several lawmakers involved in the bill’s consideration. Some did not respond, and none agreed to discuss whether they knew about Uber’s self-insurance structure or whether they planned to question the company about Consumer Watchdog’s findings. A spokesperson for Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Bay Area Democrat, said her office had asked Uber about the report and that the company dismissed it as not credible while being “less than forthcoming.”

Campaign finance records in the CalMatters Digital Democracy database show Cabaldon has received a campaign contribution from Uber. Five of eight lawmakers contacted by CalMatters, including Alvarez, also have received Uber contributions. Bonta has not.

The insurance bill was linked to another major labor measure that allowed ride-hailing drivers to unionize. Consumer Watchdog also said Uber misrepresented the insurance issue to unions. The Service Employees International Union California did not provide a response. Lorena Gonzalez, head of the California Labor Federation and a former state lawmaker, said she was not surprised by the allegation, citing her long history of conflict with the company over labor issues.

Consumer Watchdog argued in its report that Uber’s nearly $12.5 billion in reserves is far more than necessary. The group estimated the company would need between $4.5 billion and $5.4 billion, based on the number of rides Uber provided last year and California commercial auto insurance costs. Unlike profits, insurance reserves are not taxed.

The group also said Uber has moved about $4 billion of its insurance reserves into cash over the past couple of years, citing the company’s financial filings.

Arab rejected the report’s conclusions, saying Consumer Watchdog was treating speculation about complex insurance accounting as fact. He said Uber’s reserves are actuarial estimates of potential unpaid losses and related expenses.

Ben Armstrong, an actuary who reviewed Uber’s filings for Consumer Watchdog, said Aleka functions as a captive insurer, meaning it is a wholly owned subsidiary that allows Uber to manage its own insurance risk, profits and investments with limited public transparency. Armstrong said he does not have access to the kind of financial detail typically available for other insurers, but the filings suggest Uber may be reserving far more than it needs.

Large companies often use captive insurance arrangements. Lyft and DoorDash also have insurance subsidiaries, according to public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of the end of last year, Lyft reported about $2.2 billion in insurance reserves and DoorDash about $1.1 billion.

Opponents of SB 371 warned during the legislative process that reducing coverage would weaken protections for passengers and drivers if an Uber vehicle is struck by an uninsured or underinsured motorist. Robert Herrell, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California and a former deputy commissioner at the state Department of Insurance, opposed the bill and said Uber has long sought to lower its costs by reducing insurance obligations.

The state law is not Uber’s only effort to reduce liability. The company also qualified a proposed initiative for the November ballot that would limit attorney contingency fees and recovery of medical costs in California car crash cases. Consumer Watchdog, attorney groups and some medical providers opposed the measure. Uber has agreed to withdraw it if lawmakers approve a compromise bill.

In Congress, California lawmakers are divided over another proposal involving ride-hailing liability. Rep. Vince Fong, a Bakersfield Republican, introduced language in May that would override state laws holding companies such as Uber responsible for harm to people or property connected to rideshare trips. Fong described the proposal as an affordability measure, saying companies are facing frivolous lawsuits that drive up insurance costs.

Rep. Derek Tran, a Democrat from Cypress in Orange County, sent a letter this month with 33 other California Democratic members of Congress urging House leaders to remove the provision from a major transportation and infrastructure bill. The lawmakers warned that the language could sharply limit legal recourse for victims in injury, sexual assault and fatality cases involving rideshare companies.

Fong’s office did not respond to questions about the opposition from other California lawmakers.

Uber says California riders are already saving millions of dollars under the new insurance law, though the company has not provided documentation. It is required to submit a formal report on savings to the governor and Legislature by Feb. 1, 2027.

Third-party data does not yet show a broad drop in fares. Gridwise, a company that provides an app used by rideshare drivers to track earnings and expenses, reported that average California customer fares so far this year were slightly higher or roughly the same as last year in most months. The exception was May, when the average fare per mile was $4.67, down from $4.70 the previous May. Gridwise says its data is based on hundreds of millions of trips.

The law also directs the state Department of Insurance to work with the California Public Utilities Commission on a study of the effects of lowering the required insurance coverage. That report is due by Dec. 31, 2030.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Lawmaker Says Uber Withheld Key Details in California Insurance Law Push appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Since then-Gov. Jerry Brown stripped the 147-year-old agency of most of its duties in 2017, some former board members have called for abolishing it altogether. The board now oversees county assessors, handles certain property tax appeals and assesses property taxes on some properties that cross county lines. Eliminating it would require voter approval of a constitutional amendment.

Even with its limited role, powerful interest groups and wealthy donors poured more than $3.3 million into campaigns for three sitting state lawmakers seeking Board of Equalization seats this year: Assemblymember Mike Gipson, D-Gardena, state Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, and state Sen. Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. The money helped all three outpace most opponents and secure spots on the November ballot.

Political observers say the donations are less about the Board of Equalization’s current power and more about the influence those candidates still hold in Sacramento. The Legislature remains in session through August, and many donors have business before lawmakers now or have benefited from their support in the past.

“It is showing the world that you’re going to be supportive of people who have supported you,” said Mike Gatto, a former Democratic assemblymember from Los Angeles. “It’s a little message to other people that way.”

A review of campaign finance and Digital Democracy records shows much of the money came from unions, professional associations, businesses and individuals with interests before the Legislature, including some tied to bills the lawmakers have supported or authored.

Gipson, whose Assembly district includes Gardena and parts of the South Bay and Harbor Area, raised about $942,000 from major donors, according to the secretary of state. That far exceeded the fundraising of progressive Democrat Samuel Sukaton, who finished second after raising about $32,000. Democrat Yvonne Yiu, who contributed $760,000 of her own money to her campaign and supplemented it with some large donations, did not advance to November.

Labor organizations were Gipson’s largest source of support. Unions representing construction workers, carpenters, police, teachers, public employees and others contributed nearly $300,000 combined.

Gipson has been a traditional labor ally in the Legislature. Digital Democracy records show he voted with the Service Employees International Union and its affiliates 90% of the time. In 2024, an SEIU affiliate representing nurses publicly credited him for carrying legislation aimed at improving hospital worker safety. That union contributed the maximum $19,600 to his Board of Equalization campaign.

This year, Gipson is carrying Assembly Bill 1054, which would create a new end-of-career benefit for California Highway Patrol officers and state firefighters, allowing them to retire with a lump-sum payment in addition to their pensions. The proposal is sponsored by unions representing both groups and is described by supporters as a cost-neutral retention tool, though similar programs approved by cities elsewhere have been found to increase taxpayer costs.

Gipson received nearly $16,000 from the highway patrol union and $10,000 from the California Professional Firefighters PAC for his Board of Equalization campaign. Neither organization responded to requests for comment. Gipson’s campaign spokesperson, Adam Robak, did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and Gipson did not follow up on a request left with his office.

The Board of Equalization has stricter campaign finance rules than the Legislature, a holdover from the era when the board employed more than 4,000 people and collected roughly one-third of California’s tax revenue. Board members must recuse themselves from decisions involving donors whose interests are affected.

Cody Petterson, the board’s chief deputy and a candidate for a seat representing the San Diego area, said the board’s limited authority makes it unlikely that donors are trying to influence future board votes.

“It’s not like there’s interested parties that are like: ‘Oh, I’m gonna support this candidate who’s going to support my cause in the future,’” Petterson said. “That’s not a thing.”

In the Board of Equalization district covering Orange County and San Diego, Umberg transferred about $1.1 million from existing campaign accounts and raised another $598,000 between December 2025 and the June election. Attorneys, law firms and legal advocacy groups were among his notable donors, including groups that regularly appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Umberg chairs.

One of Umberg’s largest donors was John Manly, a prominent attorney representing survivors of childhood sexual abuse, who gave the maximum $19,600.

“No one has been a stronger voice for victims of childhood sexual abuse as he has been as chair of the Judiciary Committee,” Manly said. He also described Umberg as the kind of nonpartisan public official the state needs.

Umberg has backed legislation expanding the ability of survivors to sue over childhood sexual abuse. That includes a 2023 proposal ending the statute of limitations in such cases and another bill that would have expressly allowed lawsuits against county detention facilities. Manly’s firm lobbied for the latter measure. Local government agencies, already facing financial pressure from a 2019 law that revived many sexual abuse claims, opposed both bills.

Umberg will face Republican Denis Bilodeau in November. Bilodeau, president of a taxpayer association, received 45% of the vote and was endorsed by Reform California, the political organization led by San Diego Assemblymember Carl DeMaio. Bilodeau also put $100,000 of his own money into the race. Petterson finished a close third behind Umberg with 18% of the vote and said he spent about $30,000.

In an email, Umberg said campaign contributions have not influenced his decisions as a lawmaker.

“I have never made a legislative decision based on who contributed to my campaign, and I never will,” he said.

Sean McMorris, who manages transparency, ethics and accountability issues for California Common Cause, said the pattern of donations raises reasonable questions for voters.

“It’s a fair assumption for the public to say, well, hey, this is essentially a payoff,” McMorris said. “You voted, you gave me some goodies when you were in office. I’m returning the favor by now giving you the max campaign contribution I can for your campaign.”

The most competitive Board of Equalization race is expected in the inland California district, where Grove will face Fresno City Councilmember Nelson Esparza, a Democrat. Democrats hold about a 4 percentage-point voter registration advantage in the district.

Grove raised nearly $1.8 million from major donors, much of it from Central Valley businesses and business owners. Esparza raised $186,000.

A Republican senator from Bakersfield since 2018, Grove has been a consistent advocate for the Central Valley’s oil and agricultural industries. She supported a deal last year allowing Kern County to approve as many as 2,000 new oil well drilling permits annually.

Since opening her Board of Equalization campaign account in 2023, Grove has received more than $76,000 from oil and gas executives, companies and industry groups, including Signal Hill Petroleum, Valero and California Resources Corporation, according to Digital Democracy.

One donor was Cyrus Mojibi, president of San Joaquin Refining Company, who contributed a total of $17,300, including a December 2025 donation. In February, Grove introduced Senate Bill 1039, which could ease pollutant monitoring requirements for some refineries. Mojibi testified in support of the bill before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, saying existing rules impose a major cost burden.

Grove also collected more than $120,000 from agricultural companies, executives and trade groups, including more than $10,000 from the American Pistachio Growers PAC and $5,000 from the Wonderful Company. She has pushed for increasing water supplies for Central Valley farmers and has authored legislation intended to streamline permitting for water infrastructure projects.

Duane Dicharia, a spokesperson for Grove, said the senator’s positions are not connected to campaign donations.

“Shannon has spent her career fighting higher taxes, government waste, and bureaucratic overreach, and donors are supporting her because they want that same approach on the Board,” he said in an email.

Not every Board of Equalization race has attracted the same level of spending. Sally Lieber, a former Assembly member who is running in the only district without a current legislator in the race, said she is relieved not to be in a contest dominated by big money. Lieber was elected to the board in 2022 after several years away from public office.

She said sitting legislators have a built-in fundraising advantage, though that advantage comes with constant pressure from party leaders to raise money for candidates and causes.

“I found the constant drive to raise money extremely off-putting and stressful,” Lieber said of her time in the Legislature. “You were just constantly needed to produce.”

Voters may soon weigh in on whether California should create a public financing system for campaigns. A measure expected on the November ballot stems from legislation co-authored last year by Umberg.

McMorris said Umberg worked with California Common Cause on the proposal and said some elected officials are frustrated with the current campaign finance system, even as they participate in it.

“There are politicians, even though they play this game because they feel that they have to, they don’t like it either,” McMorris said. “I think a lot of them would prefer an alternative system where they don’t have to cozy up to special interests in order to be viable.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Board of Equalization Wields Limited Power, but Donors Still Pour Millions Into Races appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Barbie can be anything she wants to be: astronaut, mom, teacher, doctor, princess, president.

She also can, apparently, be a mascot for a whole range of political causes.

Call it corny or cute, but California politicians in recent days have jumped aboard the hot pink bandwagon on the heels — stiletto, of course — of all the “Barbie” movie hype.

“Not only was this iconic character created in Malibu, California, but Barbie also embraces many of the values that make California the Golden State,” Gov. Gavin Newsom tweeted.

In a GIF-infused Twitter thread, the Democratic governor — who has touted the “California way” as what he considers an antidote to red state policies — noted that Barbie has more than 200 jobs and that the Golden State “has more scientists, researchers, professional sports teams, engineers and Nobel laureates than any other state.”

She’s also a righteous surfer, the governor pointed out. And she is a “climate champion” who drives an electric vehicle. (Yes, Mattel, an El Segundo-based company, really does make a lavender-colored electric convertible for Barbie dolls, complete with a charging station.)

Buzz over this weekend’s dual openings of “Barbie,” the PG-13 comedy directed by Greta Gerwig, and “Oppenheimer,” Christopher Nolan’s R-rated historical biopic about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, has, well, broken the internet, as the kids say.

Cue the “Barbenheimer” memes.

“Barbie” just had the biggest opening weekend of 2023, raking in $155 million in the U.S. and Canada and scoring the best domestic debut of all time for a title directed by a woman.

“Oppenheimer” opened in second place, earning $80.5 million.

The openings have been a bright spot for a film industry roiled by labor strikes by writers and actors. And they have been talked about, it seems, by just about everyone.

With all the hype, maybe it was inevitable that politicians would try to use the ever-malleable Barbie to score political points.

In a TikTok video posted last week, state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) rode a Bay Area Rapid Transit train in a pair of hot pink stilettos

“Wake up, babe, new public transportation Barbie just dropped,” he wrote.

“Did someone say BARTbie?”

The California State Assembly Democratic Caucus posted a TikTok featuring its members as Barbies and Kens. The caption read: “This Barbie is dedicated to serving the constituents of California.”

In recent days, multitudes of Twitter users tried to guess whether each of their U.S. senators would watch “Barbie” or “Oppenheimer” first.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) tweeted a photo of himself and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) on Capitol Hill, leaning in, apparently deep in conversation.

“Deciding if we should get tickets for ‘Oppenheimer’ or ‘Barbie’ this weekend. Which do you think we should see first?” he tweeted late last week with a pair of eyeball emojis.

California’s other Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein — who has been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent months over her age, health and ability to carry out the duties of her job — has not publicly weighed in on the “Barbie” vs. “Oppenheimer” debate.

She, or someone from her staff, did tweet late last week that she was “deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Tony Bennett.”

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from Bakersfield, last week started a bipartisan movie night in the Capitol for members of Congress. It kicked off with a screening — not of “Barbie” or “Oppenheimer,” but Steven Spielberg’s 2012 film “Lincoln.”

“What about Barbie? We demand a Barbie showing for members,” tweeted Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) with an emoji of fingernails being painted.

He had previously shared a tweet featuring him in a fake Barbie poster with the words: “This Ken is the first LGBTQ+ immigrant in Congress.”

And he got in a Twitter jab over a photo of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and his wife dressed in pink, attending a “Barbie” premiere.

Garcia quote-tweeted the photo with the words: “Oh, look, it’s White Nationalist Ken.”

In a Twitter direct message to The Times on Sunday, Garcia said he had spent the weekend at Comic-Con in San Diego, where he was photographed on the picket lines with striking members of the Screen Actors Guild.

“But I’m going to see ‘Barbie’ tomorrow!” he wrote.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Corny or cute? California lawmakers use ‘Barbie’ for political points appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers followed through Wednesday on their threat to seek a criminal investigation of Amazon, asking the Justice Department to investigate whether the tech giant and senior executives obstructed Congress or violated other federal laws in testimony on its competition practices.

The House Judiciary Committee escalated the bipartisan battle against the world’s biggest online retailer with a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland referring the case for a criminal inquiry.

Amazon engaged in misleading conduct that appeared designed to “influence, obstruct or impede” the antitrust subcommittee’s 2019-20 investigation into the market dominance of Big Tech, the letter says.

As an example, it cited testimony by a senior Amazon official maintaining that the company doesn’t use the data it collects on third-party merchants on its platform to compete with them, and doesn’t list its own products in customer search results before those of third parties. Those assertions have been contradicted by credible news reports, the letter says.

News reports have detailed Amazon’s alleged practice of undercutting the businesses that sell on its platform by making “knock-offs,” or very similar products, and boosting their presence on the site.

“Amazon attempted to clean up the inaccurate testimony through ever-shifting explanations of its internal policies and denials of the investigative reports,” the lawmakers said. “The committee uncovered evidence from former Amazon employees, and former and current sellers, that corroborated the reports’ claims.”

“After Amazon was caught in a lie and repeated misrepresentations, it stonewalled the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth,” the letter says. It was signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the antitrust subcommittee.

The Seattle-based company has previously denied that its executives misled the panel in their testimony.

In a statement Wednesday, Amazon said “there’s no factual basis” for the committee’s action, “as demonstrated in the huge volume of information we’ve provided over several years of good-faith cooperation with this investigation.”

Amazon’s third-party marketplace, with independent merchants listing millions of their products on the site, is a huge part of the company’s business. It has about 2 million sellers, and Amazon has said that more than half the goods sold on Amazon.com come from third-party sellers. It also makes money by charging third-party sellers fees, bringing in tens of billions in revenue.

In a May 2020 letter to Amazon founder and then-CEO Jeff Bezos, the antitrust subcommittee threatened a subpoena if Bezos didn’t agree voluntarily to appear before the panel.

The Wall Street Journal reported at that time that Amazon used sensitive, confidential information about sellers on its marketplace, their products and transactions to develop its own competing products. An Amazon executive denied such a practice in statements at a subcommittee hearing in July 2019, saying the company has a formal policy against it.

Amazon says it investigates any allegation of violations of its policies and takes appropriate action when warranted.

Bezos testified on the issue in an appearance at a July 2020 hearing on Big Tech’s alleged monopolistic practices, along with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Addressing allegations that Amazon has used data generated by independent sellers on its platform to compete against them, Bezos said it would be “unacceptable” if those claims were proven to be true.

Andy Jassy took over the top position from Bezos last July. Bezos became executive chairman.

Some independent merchants who sell products on Amazon.com have complained about the company’s practices, such as contract provisions said to prevent sellers from offering their products at lower prices or on better terms on any other online platform, including their own websites.

In its defense, Amazon has said that sellers set their own prices for the products they offer on its platform.

The District of Columbia sued Amazon last year in an antitrust action, accusing the company of anticompetitive practices in its treatment of sellers on its platform. The practices have raised prices for consumers and stifled innovation and choice in the online retail market, the lawsuit alleged.

The suit maintains that Amazon has fixed online retail prices through contract provisions that prevent merchants selling their products on Amazon.com from offering them at lower prices or on better terms on any other online platform, including their own websites. Amazon rejected the allegations.

Amazon has been one of the few retailers that has prospered during the COVID-19 outbreak. It reported profits of $33.36 billion in 2021, up from $21.33 billion the year before.

On Wednesday it announced its board had approved a 20-for-1 split of its stock, which closed the day at $2,785.58. The split would make buying a single share of Amazon stock more accessible to average investors.

The company’s board also approved a $10 billion stock buyback program.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Did Amazon violate federal laws? Lawmakers ask for DOJ probe appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“Facebook wants you to get caught up in a long, drawn out debate over the minutiae of different legislative approaches. Please don’t fall into that trap,” Haugen testified at a hearing by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. “Time is of the essence. There is a lot at stake here. You have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create new rules for our online world. I came forward, at great personal risk, because I believe we still have time to act. But we must act now.”

Lawmakers brought forward proposals after Haugen presented a case in October that Facebook’s systems amplify online hate and extremism and fail to protect young users from harmful content.

Her previous disclosures have energized legislative and regulatory efforts around the world aimed at cracking down on Big Tech, and she made a series of appearances recently before European lawmakers and officials who are drawing up rules for social media companies.

Haugen, a data scientist who worked as a product manager in Facebook’s civic integrity unit, buttressed her assertions with a massive trove of internal company documents she secretly copied and provided to federal securities regulators and Congress.

When she made her first public appearance this fall, laying out a far-reaching condemnation of the social network giant before a Senate Commerce subcommittee, she shared how she believes Facebook’s platforms could be made safer and offered prescriptions for action by Congress. She rejected the idea of breaking up the tech giant as many lawmakers are calling for, favoring instead targeted legislative remedies.

Most notably, they include new curbs on the long-standing legal protections for speech posted on social media platforms. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have called for stripping away some of the protections granted by a provision in a 25-year-old law — generally known as Section 230 — that shields internet companies from liability for what users post.

“Let’s work together on bipartisan legislation because we can’t continue to wait,” said Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., the chairman of the communications and technology subcommittee. The tech giants want nothing more than partisan division and dithering over the legislation, he said.

Facebook and other social media companies use computer algorithms to rank and recommend content. They govern what shows up on users’ news feeds. Haugen’s idea is to remove the protections in cases where dominant content driven by algorithms favors massive engagement by users over public safety.

“Facebook will not change until the incentives change,” Haugen told the House panel. “I hope that you guys act because our children deserve much better.”

That’s the thought behind the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act, which was introduced by senior House Democrats about a week after Haugen testified to the Senate panel in October. The bill would hold social media companies responsible by removing their protection under Section 230 for tailored recommendations to users that are deemed to cause harm. A platform would lose the immunity in cases where it “knowingly or recklessly” promoted harmful content.

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who heads the full Energy and Commerce committee, said a proposal from its senior Republican, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, isn’t identical to the Democrats’ bill but represents a good start for potential compromise.

“Big Tech should not be the arbiter of truth,” Rodgers said, renewing conservatives’ assertions that social media platforms censor those viewpoints. Rodgers’ proposal would allow conservatives to challenge the platforms’ content decisions.

All of the legislative proposals face a heavy lift toward final enactment by Congress. Some experts who support stricter regulation of social media say the Democrats’ legislation as written could have unintended consequences. It doesn’t make clear enough which specific algorithmic behaviors would lead to loss of the liability protection, they suggest, making it hard to see how it would work in practice and leading to wide disagreement over what it might actually do.

Meta Platforms, the new name of Facebook’s parent company, has declined to comment on specific legislative proposals. The company says it has long advocated for updated regulations.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has suggested changes that would only give internet platforms legal protection if they can prove that their systems for identifying illegal content are up to snuff. That requirement, however, might be more difficult for smaller tech companies and startups to meet, leading critics to charge that it would ultimately favor Facebook.

Other social media companies have urged caution in any legislative changes to Section 230.

MARCY GORDON | AP News

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Haugen urges lawmakers to avert impasse on social media laws appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

LONG BEACH, Calif. (AP) — With violent smash-and-grab shoplifting costing California businesses millions of dollars annually, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Wednesday aimed at curbing organized retail theft.

The law reestablishes the crime of organized retail theft, which lawmakers first created in 2018 but allowed to lapse as of July 1. Prosecutors can again seek to charge the crime as either a misdemeanor or a felony. It applies to those who work with others to steal merchandise either from brick-and-mortar stores or online, with the intent to sell or return the merchandise.

The legislation also applies to someone who works with others to receive stolen merchandise, those who steal for others as part of an organized theft ring or people who do the recruiting or organizing for the theft ring.

The rings have become bolder in recent years, officials said, and videos of their smash-and-grabs have gone viral.

“The overall problem is a challenge — the brazenness of some of these crimes,” San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said. “When they see these things go viral, the perception of lawlessness, the perception that anything goes — that has to be overcome, too.”

Nationally, organized retail theft costs businesses tens of billions of dollars annually. Newsom signed the law at a store in Long Beach, surrounded by several mayors and law enforcement officials.

However, police agencies in California will have to contend with local prosecutors, who decide whether to charge an offender with a misdemeanor or felony, if at all. Progressive district attorneys such as those in San Francisco and Los Angeles have pledged to avoid stiff penalties, sentencing enhancements and incarceration for certain crimes.

Neither immediately commented on the law Wednesday.

Newsom said organized retail theft is more than just simple, low-level shoplifting and that the California Highway Patrol has not seen a lack of support from liberal prosecutors.

“I’m not willing to throw up my hands and suggest that somehow we’re going to see a huge impediment to our collective effort to address these organized efforts,” the governor said.

State lawmakers first acted after retailers and law enforcement complained that punishments for such property crimes had been reduced under a voter-approved ballot initiative in 2014 called Proposition 47.

The union that represents San Francisco rank-and-file police officers said “strong response to California’s theft epidemic requires strong sentencing.” The union is vocally opposed to the San Francisco DA’s approach to charging — or not charging — offenders for various crimes.

“The easiest way to reduce crime is to fix Proposition 47 and reimpose strong sentencing for the pervasive retail theft that is literally closing stores across our state,” said Tracy McCray vice president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association. “Exacerbating the situation is San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s insistence on dropping or downgrading charges of those caught red-handed that allows those very same crooks to further victimize our communities over and over again.”

The new law’s author, Democratic Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, said in a legislative analysis that the goal was “to ensure we targeted sophisticated crime rings that took advantage of loopholes in state law as opposed to theft for personal use simply because someone was hungry.”

The law also reinstates a California Highway Patrol task force that analyzes organized retail theft and vehicle burglary and helps law enforcement agencies in counties it identifies as having high property crime rates.

Over the past three years, the task force’s 668 investigations included 252 arrests and the recovery of more than $16.3 billion in stolen merchandise.

Rachel Michelin, president of the California Retailers Association, said her organization sponsored the legislation in the hope that it could stem the tide of rising theft. In recent years, she said, frustrated retailers have seen increasing violence in the thefts.

The coronavirus pandemic has not changed theft patterns, Michelin said, but businesses are desperate to limit losses that were compounded by COVID-19 shutdowns.

Jessica Millan Patterson, the California GOP chairwoman, called Newsom’s bill signing a photo op and said the governor is only getting serious on rising violent crime as he faces a recall election.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Brazen shoplifting spurs California law for organized thefts appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers said Wednesday that they are seeking $200 million over the next three years to fight hate crimes against Asian Americans that have increased since the coronavirus entered the U.S. after originating in China.

More than half of the money would go for grants to nonprofit and community groups that provide legal services, health care, mental health, victim compensation or counseling. Also eligible would be groups providing escorts for older residents who fear attacks and organizations that provide education on systemic racism.

Funding of $10 million would be provided for a statewide hate crimes hotline to collect reports in victims’ own languages and to direct them to police or legal, health or mental health services.

Another $20 million would help cultural enclaves including traditional Chinatowns, Japantowns, Koreatowns, and Little Manilas.

The proposal comes from the California Asian & Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, which has 10 members in the 120-member state Legislature. The caucus includes Phil Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco who heads the Assembly Budget Committee, and members said they’ve had early support from other budgeting and Democratic leaders who control the Legislature.

“We want to address not only, of course, the recent events of hate directed toward our community, but also to recognize longstanding issues in terms of access for our community to public services, government services,” said the caucus chairman, Democratic Sen. Richard Pan of Sacramento.

The caucus is seeking the money as Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers stake out their positions this week on spending what the governor said will be a $76 billion budget surplus. Lawmakers have until June 15 to approve a budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1.

The caucus’ plan includes funding to help children of Asian and Pacific Islander descent in schools, including combating school bullying; for the organization Stop AAPI Hate, which the lawmakers said is the first to collect data on hate crimes in victims’ own languages; and to create a California Interpreters Corps of state workers who can help residents in their own languages.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California lawmakers seek $200 million to fight hate crimes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A House subcommittee is investigating YouTube Kids, saying the Google-owned video service feeds children inappropriate material in “a wasteland of vapid, consumerist content” so it can serve them ads.

The inquiry comes despite Google agreeing to pay $170 million in 2019 to settle allegations that YouTube collected personal data on children without their parents’ consent.

In a letter sent Tuesday to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, the U.S. House Oversight and Reform subcommittee on economic and consumer policy said YouTube does not do enough to protect kids from material that could harm them. Instead it relies on artificial intelligence and creators’ self-regulation to decide what videos make it on to the platform, according to the letter from the committee’s chairman, Illinois Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi.

And despite changes in the wake of the 2019 settlement, the letter notes, YouTube Kids still shows ads to children. But instead of basing it on kids’ online activity, it now targets it based on the videos they are watching.

YouTube did not immediately respond to a message for comment.

The congressional investigation comes a year into the pandemic that has shuttered schools and left parents who are working from home increasingly reliant on services such as YouTube to keep kids occupied. This has led to a rethinking of “screen time” rules and guilt over the amount of time kids spend in front of screens, with some experts recommending that parents focus on quality, not quantity.

But lawmakers say YouTube Kids is anything but quality.

“YouTube Kids spends no time or effort determining the appropriateness of content before it becomes available for children to watch,” the letter says. “YouTube Kids allows content creators to self-regulate. YouTube only asks that they consider factors including the subject matter of the video, whether the video has an emphasis on kids characters, themes, toys or games, and more.”

Kids under 13 are protected by a 1998 federal law that requires parental consent before companies can collect and share their personal information.

Under the 2019 settlement, Google agreed to work with video creators to label material aimed at kids. It said it would limit data collection when users view such videos, regardless of their age.

But lawmakers say even after the settlement, YouTube Kids, which launched in 2015, continued to exploit loopholes and advertise to children. While it does not target ads based on viewer interests the way the main YouTube service does, it tracks information about what kids are watching in order to recommend videos. It also collects personally identifying device information.

There are also other, sneaky ways ads are reaching children. A “high volume” of kids’ videos, the letter says, smuggle hidden marketing and advertising with product placements by “children’s influencers,” who are often children themselves.

“YouTube does not appear to be trying to prevent such problematic marketing,” the letter says. The House research team found that only 4% of videos it looked at had a “high educational value” offering developmentally appropriate material.

The kids app has helped turn YouTube into an increasingly more attractive outlet for the advertising sales that generate most of the profits for Google and its corporate parent, Alphabet, which is based in Mountain View, California.

YouTube brought in nearly $20 billion in ad revenue last year, more than doubling from its total just three years ago. The video site now accounts for about 13% of Google’s total ad sales, up from slightly more than 8% in 2017.

The House subcommittee is recommending YouTube turn off advertisements completely for kids aged 7 and under. It also asks that it give parents the ability to turn off the “autoplay” feature, which is not currently possible (though parents are able to set a timer to limit their kids’ video watching).

The lawmakers are asking YouTube to provide them with information on YouTube Kids’ top videos, channels and revenue information, as well as average time spent and number of videos watched, per user, among other information.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Lawmakers call YouTube Kids a ‘wasteland of vapid’ content appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

PHOENIX (AP) — As states across the U.S. West beef up their renewable energy requirements, a push to do so in Arizona has been met by fierce resistance from the Republican governor and GOP-dominated Legislature, which are looking to strip elected utility regulators of their power to set energy policy in one of the nation’s sunniest states.

Utilities are well on their way to meeting Arizona’s 15% renewable energy mandate by 2024. Environmentalists worry that progress would stall if power companies aren’t forced to keep installing green technologies at a time when Arizona faces more extreme heat from climate change.

“Why in the world would the Legislature want to get in the way of something that is so clearly good for our economy and benefits the climate as well as air quality, saves water?” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club’s Arizona chapter.

A bill to designate the Arizona Legislature as the sole authority over energy policy was on a fast track, quickly clearing the House before stalling in the Senate. Lawmakers are still in session, and it could get new life any time.

Republican lawmakers supporting the move say it’s more appropriate for the 90 members of the Legislature to set energy policy than the five members of the Arizona Corporation Commission. Some have questioned the push to move away from fossil fuels, saying such mandates lead to higher utility bills.

“The Legislature is the best venue for setting energy policy due to our broader representation of the people and our deliberative process is far more transparent,” said Sen. Sine Kerr, a Republican who sponsored one of two bills to shift authority to lawmakers.

Regardless of who has the authority, utilities should have “the flexibility to do what they do best, and that is to provide energy to all of Arizona without costly and restrictive mandates that remove certain energy sources from the mix,” Kerr said.

Critics counter that the state Constitution charges the Arizona Corporation Commission with regulating utilities and it’s made up of elected officials who are deeply enmeshed in energy issues. Energy standards are more commonly adopted by the nation’s legislatures, but advocates for renewables say few states have elected regulators like Arizona.

Arizona was an early adopter of renewable energy mandates in 2006, when it set its 15% target. It’s since been surpassed by most other Western states, which have enacted more aggressive standards. Neighboring California, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico — all led by Democrats — have set even stricter targets for renewables in the coming years and are aiming to eventually achieve 100% carbon-free energy.

Arizona voters handed Democrats victories for president and U.S. Senate in the 2020 election but kept Republicans in power in the Legislature and many statewide offices.

The GOP also kept an edge on the Arizona Corporation Commission, though a smaller one than before the election. Still, with Republicans in control, the commission voted 4-1 late last year to move toward formally adopting a new energy standard that would require utilities to cut their carbon emissions in half by 2032 and eliminate them entirely by 2050.

The rules also would require utilities to store energy, such as with batteries, and institute stronger energy efficiency measures like smart thermostats. A final vote on the proposed mandate could come as soon as April.

The legislative push to take over energy policy follows a recent Arizona Supreme Court decision in an unrelated case, where the justices questioned a decade-old decision from a lower court saying the Corporation Commission has absolute authority to set energy standards. Some lawmakers are eager to give it a test, believing the court is open to ruling that the Legislature can supersede the commission if it wants.

“To me, much of this is about the Legislature saying they are the sole branch of government,” said Autumn Johnson, government affairs manager for Western Resource Advocates.

Lawmakers have a history of expanding their power where they can. Over the past decade, the Legislature has voted to prohibit cities and counties from destroying confiscated guns, banning plastic bags or regulating Airbnb rentals. It also created a way for any lawmaker to trigger a legal review of local laws, with a threat of severe financial penalties if a local policy is found to conflict with legislative policy.

Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, has been critical of the Corporation Commission’s work on renewable energy policy, saying it’s veering outside its proper role.

“I want to see the Corporation Commission setting rates. And I want to see the state Legislature setting energy policy,” Ducey said at an Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry event on Jan. 8. “And I hope we can straighten that out this legislative session.”

Legislation supporting that goal hit a snag in the Senate when Republican Sen. Paul Boyer expressed concerns about energy reliability if a part-time Legislature had oversight.

With all Democrats opposed and a slim GOP majority, Boyer’s opposition would be enough to sink the bill.

After remaining publicly agnostic, the state’s largest utility also came out against the proposal this month. Arizona Public Service is one of the most influential players in state politics and got into hot water for spending millions to support its favored candidates for the Corporation Commission in 2014 and 2016.

APS and Tucson Electric Power, the state’s other major private utility, have backed the proposed renewable energy rules and have committed to significant reductions in their carbon emissions. But environmental groups worry the commitment could wane in the future without a state mandate.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post GOP lawmakers take aim at Arizona renewable energy standards appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers are pushing several new efforts this year to largely seal or expunge criminal records for people who have completed their sentences, expanding on existing laws that proponents said aid people who are trying to re-enter society.

Nearly 8 million of California’s 40 million residents have an arrest or conviction on their record, said state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat from Los Angeles who proposed one of the measures on Wednesday.

“These men and women have completed the sentence they were given,” and many pursued rehabilitation programs during their incarceration, she said. “After their release, instead of being able to put their new skills to use, they are hit with hundreds if not thousands of restrictions and limitations that keep them from building a new life.”

Her bill would require the state Department of Justice to automatically seal the records of people who go two years without another run-in with law enforcement after completing their sentences and any parole or probation obligations.

Proponents said law enforcement agencies and prosecutors would continue to have access to those individuals’ criminal records.

People convicted of sex crimes would be excluded, and potentially those convicted of other serious offenses including murder, backers said. The state law would also not affect people convicted of federal crimes. But arrest records would also be sealed if they do not lead to convictions.

“There’s a lot to like in the bill. Prosecutors certainly recognize the impediments to employment and housing that come with criminal disclosures in their background,” said Larry Morse, legislative director for the California District Attorneys Association, which represents most of the state’s prosecutors.

For example, maintaining records after charges are dismissed or never filed “is punitive in the extreme,” he said.

But “there are a lot of collateral consequences to some of these proposals” that might not be readily apparent, Morse said.

He said it’s questionable if a person convicted of embezzlement should be allowed to provide financial services to senior citizens, or if someone convicted of a crime against children should be licensed for a job in day care.

Jay Jordan, vice president of the Alliance for Safety and Justice group that seeks to reform criminal penalties said the bill backed by his and other reform organizations would be more comprehensive than similar laws in other states, though it stops short of efforts in several European nations.

Jordan’s affiliated organization, Californians for Safety and Justice, and the Prosecutors Alliance, which includes several progressive district attorneys, are also backing a related bill by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco.

His bill expands on a law passed in 2019 that will automatically expunge criminal records for people already entitled to expungement, starting in July 2022.

People in California can currently apply to the courts to seal qualifying records, but the process can cost thousands of dollars in attorneys fees.

The 2019 law automates that process, removing the need to petition judges, but it applies only to certain convictions occurring after January 1, 2021. Ting is trying for the third time to make the process retroactive to arrests and convictions starting in 1973.

His bill would apply to arrest and conviction records of lower-level felonies and misdemeanors eligible for probation, while sex offenders and those who served time in prison would be ineligible.

Like Durazo, Ting argued that the old records create barriers to jobs, housing and education that can encourage people not to commit new crimes. Both also argued that criminal records available to the public can disproportionately affect Black people and Latinos caught up in the criminal justice system.

A third bill, by Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu of San Francisco, is aimed at helping immigrants who may face deportation.

It would expand on a 2016 law that allows offenders to file post-conviction appeals arguing that they were unaware of the immigration consequences of the charges against them.

It would expand current law, which applies only those who plead guilty or no contest, to people who have been convicted.

“We invest billions of dollars into rehabilitation programs, yet all we do is drag those people to the margin of our society,” Durazo said.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California lawmakers eye aiding those with criminal records appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.