The Brief

Committees in both houses of the California Legislature will decide this week whether more than half a dozen bills that seek to protect people from AI will move on to final votes.

One closely watched bill before the Assembly appropriations committee, Senate Bill 7, would require employers to give workers 30 days notice before they use AI to make decisions related to employment such as compensation, hiring, firing, or promotions. It would also give workers the right to appeal decisions made by AI and prevent employers from making predictions about a worker related to their immigration status, ancestral history, health, or psychological state.

A recent audit of algorithmic management tools sold to companies suggests that many use AI to determine pay, a trend that started among gig workers nearly a decade ago that researchers say is now becoming widespread. Tests have found that AI that sifts through resumes can disqualify or downgrade a job applicant for arbitrary reasons like race or sex or because they’re wearing glasses. Inferences based on brain data, which can reveal a person’s health or the words or images they form in their mind, would also be prohibited under the legislation, which will be considered in a hearing scheduled for Friday, Aug. 29.

SB 7 is one of a trio of bills supported by the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO, this year that attempt to regulate automated systems in the workplace. The federation represents more than two million workers statewide and made more than $2.1 million in political donations to Assembly and Senate members last year, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

The other two bills, Assembly Bill 1331 and AB 1221 both involve regulating workplace surveillance.

Federation president Lorena Gonzalez told CalMatters that employers shouldn’t be allowed to predict if you're pregnant or what you think about your employer or boss and use that information against you.

“We have to set up guardrails against every kind of surveillance and AI tool to ensure that workers have the privacy and respect and autonomy that they deserve,” said Gonzalez, who continues to work with labor unions in other states to prevent AI from harming frontline workers.

A race to use AI?

Sen. Jerry McNerney, the bill’s author, said there seems to be a race to use AI to displace workers or squeeze more efficiency out of them.

The Stockton Democrat told the audience at a CalMatters event last month in San Francisco that “there's tremendous opportunity for productivity, for making people more comfortable and safe, but your imagination can run wild with what can go wrong here.”

In response to questions about criticism that SB 7 will drive costs up, McNerney told CalMatters in a statement that he plans to introduce amendments that will substantially reduce the cost of implementing the bill, including the elimination of a process for workers to appeal decisions made by AI, a major point of contention for business groups like the California Chamber of Commerce.

SB 7 is one of a number of bills on what is known as the suspense calendar. Each year, hundreds of bills with a price tag above $50,000 are added to the calendar. Appropriation committees in the Assembly and Senate then have the power to designate some bills as too expensive or otherwise use cost to justify holding or effectively killing the legislation. Roughly two out of three bills make it from the suspense calendar to a final vote on the floor of the California Assembly or Senate, but the fact that this process happens with little debate and out of public view has led some to call it undemocratic and corrupt.

Making sure private companies comply with SB 7 could cost the state $600,000 or more, according to an assembly appropriations committee staff analysis released last week. But the cost for the state’s own agencies to comply is unknown, because the state doesn’t know how many automated employment systems it uses. Earlier this year the California Department of Technology allowed state agencies to self report use of high-risk automated systems like those used in employment. Nearly 200 state agencies reported no use of such technology despite the fact that state agencies are currently using or have used high risk automated systems in the past.

Cost barrier

The cost of compliance or enforcement has stalled AI employment regulation before. Last month, the California Privacy Protection Agency bowed to pressure by lawmakers, business groups, and Governor Newsom and voted to weaken its own automated decisionmaking technology rules.

In the other chamber of the California Legislature, the California Senate Appropriations Committee is preparing to decide the fate of another bill, Assembly Bill 1018, which would require testing before use of automated systems that make consequential decisions about employment, education, housing, health care, financial services, and parts of the criminal justice system. That bill would give people the right to appeal an automated decision within 30 days. An analysis by committee staff found that if the bill passes it could cost local agencies, state agencies, and the state judiciary branch hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a statement shared with CalMatters, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said she has no plan to make amendments to the draft bill but that she’s committed to bringing down costs wherever it makes sense to do so.

“I will admit to being surprised by the Senate Appropriations estimates, considering CalMatters’ prior reporting that automated decision-making systems use was not widespread at the state level. So I’m working to better understand the cost estimates so I can respond to them appropriately,” she said.

Last year a similar version of the bill was pulled by Bauer-Kahan, a Democrat from San Ramon, after amendments limited its provisions to assessing employment. That bill attracted opposition from big tech companies but also a range of nearly 100 companies including Blue Shield of California, dating app company Bumble, biotech company Genentech, and pharmaceutical company Pfizer.

Nearly 80 businesses or groups oppose the bill, including the California Hospital Association and major health care providers like Kaiser Permanente. The advocacy group California Life Sciences argues that passage could lead providers to pass on higher costs to patients, while the California Credit Union League argues that compliance with the bill will slow innovation, an outcome that led Governor Newsom to veto a major piece of AI legislation last year.

Both bills were authored by California lawmakers with extensive histories of regulating AI. McNerney previously served as co-chair of an AI subcommittee in Congress. As chair of the assembly privacy and consumer protection committee, Bauer-Kahan is one of the most powerful regulators of AI in California, and was one of the first lawmakers nationwide who attempted to enshrine the Biden administration’s AI Bill of Rights into state law.

Partly because of the price tag for businesses that deploy AI, the California Privacy Protection Agency acted against the wishes of unions, digital rights, and privacy groups and voted last month to weaken its own draft rules to regulate how businesses use automated decisionmaking technology. Conversely, the California Civil Rights Department finalized rules to protect workers from automated discrimination during recruitment, hiring, and promotion processes. Those rules go into effect in October. The principle that people deserve the right to know when AI makes an important decision about their lives and to appeal if they think AI got it wrong were popularized by Biden’s AI Bill of Rights.

Survey reveals concerns

A survey of 1,400 California adults released this week by TechEquity, a supporter of AB 1018, found that more people are concerned than excited about AI; that nearly six in 10 believe the benefits of AI will accrue to the wealthy instead of the middle class; and that 70 percent want the government to adopt laws to protect people from harm.

Peter Leroe-Muñoz, general counsel for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a business organization with members like Apple, Google, and Microsoft, said the group supports responsible AI innovation. Still, he added, the costs of audits, training, staffing, disclosures, data retention, and potential lawsuits may ultimately undermine a lot of the services that businesses provide today at a reasonable cost.

“That becomes an additional financial burden in this more uncertain time that really becomes a drag on innovation, a higher cost not only for businesses and consumers but counties and other local municipal governments,” he said.

Passing bills that force employees to notify workers if they use AI to determine things like compensation is a critical first step, said Veena Dubal, a coauthor of the study released last week and an outspoken critic of AI that harms workers to enrich tech companies. Because people don’t know this tech is in use today, she hopes that notifying people increases public knowledge, and that leads to a ban of algorithms that determine how much people get paid.

To those who say the cost of implementing these bills is too high, she warns that algorithms are already influencing how much money people make, and that cost gets passed down to taxpayers. Algorithms can also locate union organizers, automate discrimination, or terminate people who managers decide they don't like.

"These all have extraneous costs on society, extraordinary costs,” she said. “Workers, voters, taxpayers, we should all have a say in the kind of world that these companies are creating with the disproportionate power that they hold.”

If these bills don’t pass, Dubal said, it’s a signal that AI regulation has stalled in California.

“As much as Gov. Newsom wants to juxtapose himself against Donald Trump and California wants to be a sort of savior to the rest of the nation in this moment of extreme right authoritarian actions,” Dubal said, “it’s really important that the state not continue to concede to big tech companies who are very much in bed with the president.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

After the Department of Justice issued a wide-ranging subpoena to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles last June, the records of more than 3,000 patients now will be protected until at least February 2029 under a settlement reached between patient families and the federal government.

What the federal government was seeking

The DOJ wanted to pull a wide swath of information from CHLA’s records related to hormone therapy prescriptions, including the identities and social security numbers of the people it was prescribed to. Lawyers for CHLA patient families said the broad request also included details of patients’ sexual health data and records of their mental health and said the inquiry violated their constitutional rights.

What CHLA’s lawyers are saying

“This is a massive victory for every family that refused to be intimidated into backing down,” said Khadijah Silver, director of gender justice and health equity at Lawyers for Good Government. “The government's attempt to rifle through children's medical records was unconstitutional from the start.”

Silver also noted that DOJ confirmed it had not received any sensitive patient data under the parts of the subpoena that had been struck down.

What’s in the settlement

Under the agreement, which was first reported by Reuters, the federal government has withdrawn its requests for personal information like social security numbers, prescription records and “documents relating to the clinical indications, diagnoses or assessments that formed the basis for prescribing puberty blockers or hormone therapy.”

The government cannot make new requests of this type to CHLA until February 2029. The settlement also establishes a process for the DOJ to continue to pursue seeking some limited redacted medical records from CHLA.

What it means for parents and children

In the aftermath of the subpoenas, many advocates were worried that families would face federal prosecution for seeking gender-affirming care for their children.

However, according to the settlement, the DOJ said it “is not currently aware of information that would support the federal prosecution of parents or guardians who have sought and consented to receiving gender-related care for their children at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.”

What the hospital and DOJ say about the win

LAist has reached out for comment to both entities and has not heard back.

The backstory

The subpoenas were issued on or about June 11, 2025, according to the settlement. They were made public in July, though many patient families remained in the dark about whether they were affected. CHLA announced it planned to close its clinic for trans youth June 12.

Judges have ruled against similar requests and struck down subpoenas seeking records from other hospitals, like Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Boston Children’s Hospital.

Los Angeles voters could soon get another chance to weigh in on Measure ULA, better known as the city’s “mansion tax.”

First approved by voters in November 2022, the measure has taxed real estate selling for more than $5 million. It funds tenant protection programs and affordable housing construction.

But economists have found that because the tax also applies to apartments — not just mansions — housing developers are pulling back on building in the city compared to other parts of L.A. County. One UCLA study concluded the city would have more low-income units on balance if the tax did not apply to new apartments.

Now, there’s a new effort brewing at City Hall to change how the “mansion tax” works.

City Councilmember Nithya Raman, chair of the council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee, introduced a motion Friday to place a new measure on the June ballot. The ballot measure would ask voters to exempt recently constructed apartment buildings from the tax, among other changes.

“We've seen some real pressures on the market as a result of ULA,” Raman told LAist. “It was sold to voters and talked about as a mansion tax. I don't think it was intended to slow the construction of new apartments in a city with an acknowledged and widespread housing crisis.”

Supporters of the tax say it’s working as intended. They dispute claims that ULA is responsible for slower housing growth in the city.

No council votes have yet been taken.

Local reform effort follows failed state bill

Supporters say the tax has funded eviction defense and rent relief programs. It has also produced the city’s largest-ever pot of money for low-income housing development, though less than 200 apartments have been completed and leased so far.

Joe Donlin, director of the group United to House L.A., called the latest reform effort “irresponsible.”

The proposed tax exemption for apartments built within the last 15 years would be “a tax break for developers and billionaires,” Donlin said.

“That would be giving money away from ULA programs that are protecting renters, that are keeping people from falling into homelessness, and building affordable housing,” he said.

Raman’s motion would also cancel the tax on homeowners affected by the Palisades Fire. Another change would restructure certain financing terms in order to attract traditional lenders to participate in ULA-funded affordable housing projects.

Many of the changes are similar to those proposed by state lawmakers in a bill that failed to advance at the tail end of last year’s legislative session in Sacramento.

Dueling effort at repeal is underway 

But those who support reform say without some changes, the tax could soon be thrown out entirely. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is collecting signatures for a separate ballot measure that would overturn not just Measure ULA, but similar taxes across the state.

Mott Smith, a reform proponent and the co-author of a UCLA study that found the tax had sharply reduced high-end real estate sales, said this is shaping up to be a tough political fight.

“I commend Councilmember Raman for doing her best to turn Measure ULA into something that might actually work before it goes away,” Smith said.

Some L.A. council members have already signaled opposition to the push for reform.

Alejandra Alarcon, a spokesperson for Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, said in a statement to LAist that Jurado opposes the motion as written.

“Voters overwhelmingly supported ULA to help build and sustain diverse communities,” the statement read. “Any changes to the measure should be made with community advocates at the table, not without them.”

What’s next?

The new City Council effort has a long way to go before any changes are made to the tax.

If a majority of the council approves it for the June ballot, a majority of local voters would need to sign off on changing a measure that received nearly 58% support from voters back in November 2022.

The eagle (egg) has landed.

Southern California's famous bald eagle couple, known as Jackie and Shadow, appear to have something new to take care of, as seen on the popular YouTube livestream run by Friends of Big Bear Valley that has captivated thousands of people.

Jackie laid the first egg of the season around 4:30 p.m. Friday in the nest overlooking Big Bear Lake, according to organization records, as more than 14,000 people watched the livestream.

In recent months, the birds were seen working on their "nestorations"— bringing in fresh sticks and fluff furnishings to the top of the Jeffrey pine tree they’ve claimed as their home, according to the nonprofit.

Last year, Jackie laid the first egg of that season around the same time, following up with a second and third a few days later.

Fans are once again eagerly watching the eagles for signs of more eggs in the clutch, which refers to the eggs laid in each nesting attempt, usually three days apart.

Jenny Voisard, the organization’s media and website manager, told LAist the Big Bear bald eagle fan community grew when the couple successfully raised two bald eagle chicks, Sunny and Gizmo, last season.

“The building of the nest, the bonding, the flirting, the mating, the bickering, the moving the sticks around, defending against intruders, you know, that's all been new for a lot of people,” she said.

“People are all kind of like nervous aunties and uncles,” she continued. “So we just try to keep everybody calm.”

As always, Jackie and Shadow are in charge. Fans will have to wait and see what this season will bring, Voisard said.

What to watch for

Friends of Big Bear Valley has been keeping track of the nesting season milestones, including a new daily record of at least 28 sticks delivered to the nest in November. The eagles’ previous single-day stick record was 25, according to the organization.

Other milestones include Shadow dropping off the first fluff in December, and the first mating a few weeks later.

“Pancaking” is a term Friends of Big Bear Valley uses to describe when the eagles lay flat in their nest bowl, before the eggs have arrived, for increasingly longer stretches of time.

The organization said Jackie had her longest “pancake session” of the season so far this week, laying in the nest for a little more than a half hour.

“That activity is a sign that we're getting closer to egg-laying,” Voisard said. “[Jackie’s] doing a few things, she's making the shape and she's testing it out.”

Jackie will likely also eat more fish from the nest so she has enough energy for the egg-laying process, Voisard said. Last January, the eagles brought two fish to the nest in the hours before the first egg was laid and three fish a day earlier, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley records.

When eggs are imminent, she said Jackie will “pancake” on the nest for long periods of time before rousing and puffing up her feathers. Then, Jackie typically makes a high-pitched, whistling tea kettle noise as she has contractions, according to the organization.

On Friday, Jackie made the tea kettle noise about three minutes before the first egg was laid, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley records.

“She looks almost royal, because all of her feathers are out and it's just — I cry,” Voisard said with a laugh. “It's usually pretty amazing.”

The eagles know best

While there are signs of new life coming to the nest, every season is different for Jackie and Shadow, and Friends of Big Bear Valley is encouraging people to be patient.

It was unseasonably warm in the area this past fall, and last season was the first time Jackie and Shadow successfully raised two chicks to fly away from the nest instead of just one. The organization has said both factors could delay this season’s egg-laying timeline.

“I'm sure [two] was a lot more work than with just one,” Sandy Steers, executive director of the organization, told LAist previously. “So I think that had something to do with them needing a longer break.”

And some seasons have ended with an empty nest, including in 2024 and 2023 when both sets of eggs didn’t hatch after weeks of waiting.

Voisard said while we can’t predict what’s going to happen this year, fans don’t have to watch in fear or let human emotions get in the way of enjoying the eagle experience.

“We feel all of the feels with Jackie and Shadow … happiness, laughter, we get worried, we feel joy, we felt sorrow,” she said. “It's all OK, and Jackie and Shadow move forward, no matter what.”

Jackie and Shadow in Big Bear's famous bald eagle nest on Friday, Jan. 23, 2026.

(

Friends of Big Bear Valley

/

YouTube

)