Until now, Gov. Gavin Newsom has tried to walk a tightrope when it comes to Artificial Intelligence and the state’s tech industry. On one hand, he has recognized that California’s budget and economy are dependent on the state’s leading-edge role in the tech industry, as 32 of 50 of the world’s top AI firms are headquartered within our borders. On the other hand, he has backed modest legislation that tries to limit the harmful effects of the tech revolution while vetoing measures that go too far.
However, his latest signings — of 13 bills designed ostensibly to protect children — suggest he’s done trying to navigate a middle ground and is leaning in to tougher restrictions. Although these bills are well-intentioned, they are unlikely to provide realistic protections. They pose real threats to the development of technological advancements and to free speech.
CalMatters reported on the “emotional signing ceremony” last week that featured the mother of a teenager “who died by suicide after coaching by ChatGPT isolated him from his family and friends.” We would never minimize such tragedies, but we doubt the resulting legislation, Adam’s Law, will fix anything. That legislation, Senate Bill 1119, would require audits and regulations designed to stop “the production of suicidal ideation, suicide or self-harm content to the user.”
The restrictions are vague and there’s little reason to believe they’ll help. “Even academic researchers who have spent their entire careers studying the effects of technology use have not reached clear and convincing conclusions, given the impossibility of knowing the particular emotions and circumstances of an individual,” argued the Civil Justice Association of California, in its opposition.
SB 1119 will mainly just be a burden to tech companies and facilitate more government meddling where it isn’t needed.
Newsom also signed Assembly Bill 2, which imposes fines of $5,000 to $1 million on companies whose platforms cause “an injury to a minor through failure to exercise ordinary care.” If that sounds like another money-making opportunity for ambulance chasing lawyers, that’s because it is. As trade group TechNet argues, the law “effectively assumes that all features are harmful and imposes liability on a site for offering any of those features to children,” which seems like an overreach.
This one could trigger a federal legal battle. TechNet argues that AB 2 violates Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which shields tech firms from such liability. So, expect this one to end up in the courts.
Also problematic, Assembly Bill 1709 would prohibit a platform “from providing an addictive feature” to anyone under 16. It limits lawsuits to those filed by a district attorney or state attorney general, but the definition of addictive is a serious problem as it casts a wide net and ignores how individuals respond to similar features.
Supporters of the bill say it merely targets “the mechanics of addictive platform design, not protected speech or online content.” We’d argue the Legislature also has no business dictating the mechanics of any technology’s design.
Some of the signed tech bills are unobjectionable and even praiseworthy. One requires further reporting of materials depicting child sexual abuse. Another expands the definition of child sexual abuse to include AI-created materials. Another protects the personal information of students. But the main bills in this package are too vague and meddlesome — and could tangle California’s tech industry in a sea of litigation and regulation.