ab

New laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom aim to make the artificial intelligence and social media landscape in California safer, especially for minors.

Senate Bill 243, sponsored by state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) will require AI companies to incorporate guardrails that prevent so-called “companion” chatbots from talking to users of any age about suicide or self-harm. It also requires that all AI systems alert minors using the chatbots that they are not human every three hours. The systems also are barred from promoting any sexually explicit conduct to users who are minors.

The law, to be enacted on Jan. 1, follows several lawsuits filed against developers in which families allege their children committed suicide after being influenced by an AI chatbot companion.

In the same vein, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 316, which removes a civil legal defense that some AI developers have been using to make the case that they are not responsible for any harm caused by their products. They have argued that their AI products act autonomously — and so there is no legal case to blame the developers.

In a bill analysis meant for legislators, Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) wrote that this change will force developers to vet their product better and ensure that they can be held to account if their product does cause harm to its users.

Another bill, AB 621, increases civil penalties for AI developers who knowingly create nonconsensual “deepfake” AI pornography. The maximum penalties go from $30,000 to $50,000, and from $150,000 to $250,000 in cases where the courts determine that the actions were done with malice.

The author of the bill, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), has pointed out how this technology has been used to harm minors. “In one recent instance,” she noted in an analysis supporting the proposed legislation, “five students were expelled from a Beverly Hills Middle School after creating and sharing AI generated nude photos of their classmates.”

Another AI bill, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) SB 53, was signed into law by Newsom in late September. It will require large AI companies to publicly disclose certain safety and security protocols and report to the state on critical safety incidents. It also creates a public AI computing cluster — CalCompute — that will provide resources to startups and researchers developing large AI systems.

Bauer-Kahan also was the author of AB 56, which will require social media companies to place a warning label on their platforms for minors starting in 2027. The warning label must tell children and teens that social media is associated with mental health issues and may not be safe.

“People across the nation — including myself — have become increasingly concerned with Big Tech’s failure to protect children who interact with its products. Today, California makes clear that we will not sit and wait for companies to decide to prioritize children’s well-being over their profits,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who sponsored the bill, said in a news release. “By adding warning labels to social media platforms, AB 56 gives California a new tool to protect our children.”

Other bills recently approved by Newsom look to challenge the Internet’s grip on young people and their mental health.

AB 1043, for example, will require app stores and device manufacturers to take age data from users in order to ensure that they are complying with age verification requirements. Many tech companies, including Google and Meta, approved of the bill, which was written by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland).

AB 772 will require grade K-12 schools in the state to develop a policy by mid-2027 on handling bullying and cyberbullying that happens off campus. “After-school bullying follows the pupil back to school and into the classroom, creating a hostile environment at school,” author and Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) wrote in a bill analysis.

Proponents at the Los Angeles County Office of Education wrote in an earlier analysis that because students these days are constantly connected to the internet, bullying does not stop when school lets out. In addition, social media and texting can broadcast instances of bullying to larger audiences than ever before, according to the analysis.

The California School Boards Assn. opposed AB 772, saying that it wasn’t appropriate for school officials to take responsibility for student actions outside of school. Newsom signed the bill last weekend and included it in a larger package of bills meant to protect children from the effects of social media.

“Emerging technology like chatbots and social media can inspire, educate, and connect — but without real guardrails, technology can also exploit, mislead and endanger our kids. We’ve seen some truly horrific and tragic examples of young people harmed by unregulated tech, and we won’t stand by while companies continue without necessary limits and accountability,” Newsom said in a news release Monday. “We can continue to lead in AI and technology, but we must do it responsibly — protecting our children every step of the way. Our children’s safety is not for sale.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill that sets up a state Office for Civil Rights to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination in California schools.

Assembly Bill 715 was among the most hotly contested education-related measures, spawning from dissatisfaction, largely among a coalition of Jewish groups, to the way ethnic studies has been taught in some California classrooms.

The critics said in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that lessons reflected bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include lessons about the conflict in their syllabus.

The law creates a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state antidiscrimination laws.

Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — expanded beyond an initial focus on antisemitism. This revision was a response to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.

“California is taking action to confront hate in all its forms,” Newsom said in a statement. “At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: Our schools must be places of learning, not hate.”

Bill co-author and state Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) called the legislation “a historic first … that centers on the well-being of children across our state, many of whom bravely shared horrific stories about their experiences in our schools.”

The bill drew strong opposition from teacher unions, faculty groups, Muslim organizations and liberal groups who worried about the suppression of discussion about current events in the Middle East.

A surge of antisemitism

Antisemitic incidents increased in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war that began with a Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed about 1,200. The war continues with Israel’s campaign to eradicate Hamas, leading to a Palestinian death toll estimated at more than 67,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

At a recent news conference in support of the bill, a Jewish student told of her experience at a public middle school in the Bay Area.

“After Oct. 7, everything changed,” said Ella, who was identified only by her first name. “People who I thought were my friends turned on me. They called me the Jew. They told me that my family is living on stolen land, and yelled at me that I was a murderer and a terrorist. They even started to chase me, and I had to run away for my own safety just because I’m Jewish and I speak Hebrew. I didn’t deserve any of this.”

Ella said some staff members, instead of providing support, expressed biased views.

No matter what a student believes or who they are, “every student deserves to be safe, valued and respected,” said bill co-author and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles).

The final — and much amended — version of the bill received overwhelming support in the Legislature. The vote in the state Assembly was 71 yes, 0 no with 9 abstentions; the vote in the state Senate was 35 yes, 0 no, 5 abstentions.

But this outcome belied an extended, hard-fought debate.

The original legislation targeted ethnic studies — or certain versions of how it was being taught. AB 715 evolved, however, to take on antisemitism more broadly.

A contentious debate

The legislation drew resistance from organizations including ACLU California Action and the California Teachers Assn. Leading voices among the critics also included pro-Palestinian and Muslim groups, a large faction of ethnic studies teachers and some Jewish groups that are strongly critical of the Israeli government.

ACLU California Action warned of a “chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech by educators and students.”

“We abhor and condemn antisemitism in any form,” the California Teachers Assn., wrote in a July letter to the state Senate Education Committee. But “at a time when there are those that seek to weaponize public education, AB 715 would unfortunately arm some ill-intentioned people with the ability to do so.”

The bill coincided with Trump administration actions to combat antisemitism — and to suppress pro-Palestinian activism — as part of his wide-ranging ideological push. Those actions and AB 715 became inevitably associated in the public discourse.

Leading bill supporters, including state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), strongly objected to any linkage with the Trump administration.

“There’s a false and extremely dangerous narrative being peddled,” Wiener said in an August news conference. “It is an effort to basically say that if you are claiming antisemitism by anyone other than right-wing extremists, you’re somehow aligning yourself with Donald Trump. That is deeply, deeply offensive, and it is a lie.”

The ethnic studies connection

Although the bill evolved, it retained a mechanism to raise issues related to how ethnic studies is taught.

The bill speaks of ensuring antidiscriminatory course and teacher-training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Some critics of AB 715 acknowledged that the bill was revised to address their concerns but they still opposed it. They continue to worry that the new law will chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic studies and elsewhere — and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

There also was criticism on the right from Will Swaim of the California Policy Center — which said the bill that emerged was too watered down. It had become a “do-nothing law that promises to do everything,” Swaim wrote, while creating a new state bureaucracy in the process.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday that will allow police oversight officials investigating misconduct to access confidential law enforcement personnel records, a change that watchdogs have argued will increase accountability for officers who break the rules.

Los Angeles County advocates and members of the county’s Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission pushed for months in support of AB 847. The legislation comes in response to what proponents have described as efforts by the sheriff’s departments in L.A. and other counties to stymie access to sensitive records.

When it takes effect on Jan. 1, the new law will “grant access to the confidential personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers … to civilian law enforcement oversight boards or commissions during investigations” into officers’ conduct, according to the bill’s legislative summary.

Hans Johnson, the chair of L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission, said it’s a much-needed change.

“I’m pleased because this has been a long road,” he said in a phone call Monday night. “Tonight is a moment of vindication.”

The Sheriff’s Department wrote in a statement that “the passage of AB 847 provides clarity to a long-standing legal issue that has been the subject of contention between the Department and its Civilian Oversight Commission (COC) since its inception.” It added that the “Department will work with County Counsel, labor representatives, and the COC on the implementation of this new law.”

Some law enforcement unions and advocacy groups criticized the law.

Lt. Steve Johnson, president of the L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn., said in an email that his organization “fully understand[s] the intent to enhance civilian oversight,” but when “access to confidential records isn’t safeguarded with precision and responsibility, it opens the door to real dangers. Transparency must never come at the cost of personal safety or public trust.”

Newsom’s office did not immediately provide a comment Monday.

Johnson said the bill’s signing is an especially meaningful victory for the families of people such as Joseph Perez and Emmett Brock, who were beaten by L.A. County sheriff’s deputies in 2020 and 2023, respectively. He also cited the case of Andres Guardado, who was shot to death by deputies in 2023, “and others who were the subjects of efforts by our commission to get records disclosed to us under subpoena about sheriff deputies’ encounters and beatings.”

In a phone call Monday night, Vanessa Perez, Joseph’s mother, called the law’s signing a “big victory not just for Joseph, but for all families impacted by the Sheriff’s Department.”

Perez said she expects the new law will allow the Civilian Oversight Commission to review previously off-limits records about the deputies who beat her son and redacted portions of other documents.

She and other members of the general public will not be able to access the records, as the law requires “oversight boards to maintain the confidentiality of those records, and would authorize them to conduct closed sessions, as specified, to review confidential records,” according to its legislative summary.

Still, Perez is hopeful her son’s case will benefit from the additional disclosure now allowable under AB 847.

Robert Bonner, a former federal judge and former chair of L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission who has said he was abruptly removed from that post earlier this year, praised the bill’s signing in an email Tuesday.

The law “will be essential to holding accountable those who use excessive force against members of the public,” Bonner wrote. “This is a big deal. This is a quantum leap forward for civilian oversight commissions.”

California lawmakers want Gov. Gavin Newsom to approve bills they passed that aim to make artificial intelligence chatbots safer. But as the governor weighs whether to sign the legislation into law, he faces a familiar hurdle: objections from tech companies that say new restrictions would hinder innovation.

Californian companies are world leaders in AI and have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stay ahead in the race to create the most powerful chatbots. The rapid pace has alarmed parents and lawmakers worried that chatbots are harming the mental health of children by exposing them to self-harm content and other risks.

Parents who allege chatbots encouraged their teens to harm themselves before they died by suicide have sued tech companies such as OpenAI, Character Technologies and Google. They’ve also pushed for more guardrails.

Calls for more AI regulation have reverberated throughout the nation’s capital and various states. Even as the Trump administration’s “AI Action Plan” proposes to cut red tape to encourage AI development, lawmakers and regulators from both parties are tackling child safety concerns surrounding chatbots that answer questions or act as digital companions.

California lawmakers this month passed two AI chatbot safety bills that the tech industry lobbied against. Newsom has until mid-October to approve or reject them.

The high-stakes decision puts the governor in a tricky spot. Politicians and tech companies alike want to assure the public they’re protecting young people. At the same time, tech companies are trying to expand the use of chatbots in classrooms and have opposed new restrictions they say go too far.

Meanwhile, if Newsom runs for president in 2028, he might need more financial support from wealthy tech entrepreneurs. On Sept. 22, Newsom promoted the state’s partnerships with tech companies on AI efforts and touted how the tech industry has fueled California’s economy, calling the state the “epicenter of American innovation.”

He has vetoed AI safety legislation in the past, including a bill last year that divided Silicon Valley’s tech industry because the governor thought it gave the public a “false sense of security.” But he also signaled that he’s trying to strike a balance between addressing safety concerns and ensuring California tech companies continue to dominate in AI.

“We have a sense of responsibility and accountability to lead, so we support risk-taking, but not recklessness,” Newsom said at a discussion with former President Clinton at a Clinton Global Initiative event on Wednesday.

Two bills sent to the governor — Assembly Bill 1064 and Senate Bill 243 — aim to make AI chatbots safer but face stiff opposition from the tech industry. It’s unclear if the governor will sign both bills. His office declined to comment.

AB 1064 bars a person, business and other entity from making companion chatbots available to a California resident under the age of 18 unless the chatbot isn’t “foreseeably capable” of harmful conduct such as encouraging a child to engage in self-harm, violence or disordered eating.

SB 243 requires operators of companion chatbots to notify certain users that the virtual assistants aren’t human.

Under the bill, chatbot operators would have to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content and put in guardrails, such as referring users to a suicide hotline or crisis text line.

They would be required to notify minor users at least every three hours to take a break, and that the chatbot is not human. Operators would also be required to implement “reasonable measures” to prevent companion chatbots from generating sexually explicit content.

Tech lobbying group TechNet, whose members include OpenAI, Meta, Google and others, said in a statement that it “agrees with the intent of the bills” but remains opposed to them.

AB 1064 “imposes vague and unworkable restrictions that create sweeping legal risks, while cutting students off from valuable AI learning tools,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, in a statement. “SB 243 establishes clearer rules without blocking access, but we continue to have concerns with its approach.”

A spokesperson for Meta said the company has “concerns about the unintended consequences that measures like AB 1064 would have.” The tech company launched a new Super PAC to combat state AI regulation that the company thinks is too burdensome, and is pushing for more parental control over how kids use AI, Axios reported on Tuesday.

Opponents led by the Computer & Communications Industry Assn. lobbied aggressively against AB 1064, stating it would threaten innovation and disadvantage California companies that would face more lawsuits and have to decide if they wanted to continue operating in the state.

Advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that sponsored AB 1064 and recommends that minors shouldn’t use AI companions, are urging Newsom to sign the bill into law. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta also supports the bill.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said SB 243 is too broad and would run into free-speech issues.

Several groups, including Common Sense Media and Tech Oversight California, removed their support for SB 243 after changes were made to the bill, which they said weakened protections. Some of the changes limited who receives certain notifications and included exemptions for certain chatbots in video games and virtual assistants used in smart speakers.

Lawmakers who introduced chatbot safety legislation want the governor to sign both bills, arguing that they can both “work in harmony.”

Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), who introduced SB 243, said that even with the changes he still thinks the new rules will make AI safer.

“We’ve got a technology that has great potential for good, is incredibly powerful, but is evolving incredibly rapidly, and we can’t miss a window to provide commonsense guardrails here to protect folks,” he said. “I’m happy with where the bill is at.”

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said her bill balances the benefits of AI while safeguarding against the dangers.

“We want to make sure that when kids are engaging with any chatbot that it is not creating an unhealthy emotional attachment, guiding them towards suicide, disordered eating, any of the things that we know are harmful for children,” she said.

During the legislative session, lawmakers heard from grieving parents who lost their children. AB 1064 highlights two high-profile lawsuits: one against San Francisco ChatGPT maker OpenAI and another against Character Technologies, the developer of chatbot platform Character.AI.

Character.AI is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. Last year, Florida mom Megan Garcia alleged in a federal lawsuit that Character.AI’s chatbots harmed the mental health of her son Sewell Setzer III and accused the company of failing to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to virtual characters.

More families sued the company this year. A Character.AI spokesperson said they care very deeply about user safety and “encourage lawmakers to appropriately craft laws that promote user safety while also allowing sufficient space for innovation and free expression.”

In August, the California parents of Adam Raine sued OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT provided the teen information about suicide methods, including the one the teen used to kill himself.

OpenAI said it’s strengthening safeguards and plans to release parental controls. Its chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote in a September blog post that the company believes minors need “significant protections” and the company prioritizes “safety ahead of privacy and freedom for teens.” The company declined to comment on the California AI chatbot bills.

To California lawmakers, the clock is ticking.

“We’re doing our best,” Bauer-Kahan said. “The fact that we’ve already seen kids lose their lives to AI tells me we’re not moving fast enough.”

One bill aims to raise lagging reading skills among California children by mandating how schools teach this critical subject. Another seeks to overhaul cafeteria meals by eliminating highly processed foods. A third aims to protect students from being derailed by discrimination.

These bills and others passed by the Legislature in the session’s final busy days will directly affect the classroom experience of some 5.8 million California public schools students. Broadly speaking, these bills target students’ minds, health and emotional well-being — and the results were not without controversy.

The measures now land on the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until Oct. 12 to approve or reject them.

Assembly Bill 715: Anti-discrimination

Among the most hotly contested education-related measures, Assembly Bill 715 was spawned from dissatisfaction — largely among a coalition of Jewish groups — to the way ethnic studies is being taught in some California classrooms. Critics say that in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and that they reflect bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include the conflict in their syllabus.

The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — would expand the focus beyond antisemitism, a revision that responds to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.

“California has taken a historic stand against antisemitism in our schools,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California. “For far too long, Jewish students have endured slurs, bullying, and open hostility in their classrooms with nowhere to turn. AB 715 is a promise to those students — and to all children in California — that they are not invisible, that their safety and dignity matter.”

The legislation that finally emerged would create a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state anti-discrimination laws.

Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Issues related to ethnic studies would include ensuring anti-discriminatory course and teacher training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Critics of AB 715 — which include the California Teachers Assn. — acknowledge that bill was revised to address their concerns but still oppose it. They say it could chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic students and elsewhere and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

AB 1454: Science of Reading

A sweeping bill would overhaul how reading is taught in California classrooms — mandating phonics-based lessons and culminating decades of debate on how best to teach children this foundational skill. The bill is unusual in a state that generally emphasizes local control over instruction.

AB 1454 would require school districts to adopt instructional materials grounded in what supporters call the “science of reading,” which is based on research about how young children learn to read.

The now-favored approach leans heavily on decoding and sounding out words based on the letter sounds, while laying out five pillars for more effective instruction: phonemic awareness (the sounds that letters make), phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

The hope is that this teaching style will boost persistently disappointing test scores.

A 2022 study of 300 school districts in California found that fewer than 2% of districts were using curricula that proponents viewed as sufficiently strong in science-of-reading practices.

These advocates have long been critical of alternative “whole language” approaches that rely heavily on the concept that children are more engaged when they learn to read with less emphasis on decoding words. Teachers focus instead on surrounding children with books to foster a love of reading, directing children to figure out unknown words based on context, pictures and other clues.

“Transforming California’s education system requires a coordinated approach rooted in proven solutions,” said Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, an education advocacy nonprofit that has championed the change.

Many California teachers, however, remain committed to different methods and chafe at a state-mandated approach, especially one that runs counter to their classroom experience and previous training. Advocates for students learning English have voiced especially strong opposition to the science-of-reading philosophy.

AB 1264: Ultra-processed foods

Chicken nuggets, corn dogs, packaged frozen pizza, chips, canned fruits and sugary cereals are the types of ultra-processed foods in school meals targeted in Assembly Bill 1264, which would require healthier cafeteria options in the years ahead.

Heavily processed foods often include reconstituted meat along with chemical additives such as preservatives, emulsifiers, coloring and other ingredients absent from scratch cooking — not to mention added sugars, fats and salt — that together can harm students “physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” according to bill author Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino).

The bill was opposed by manufacturers who considered it too constraining and too subject to non-scientific whims.

The final version eased some concerns by setting up a review process rather than simply listing foods and chemicals to ban. There also is a gradual phase-in over several years.

The expectation is that processed foods that remain on the menu will be healthier and also that there will be an acceleration of efforts to prepare foods within school kitchens, relying as much as possible on local and fresh ingredients.

AB 564: Cannabis tax and child care

The Legislature also voted to claw back an increase to the cannabis excise tax, which took effect in July and raised the state tax rate paid by consumers to 19%. The goal is to bolster the struggling legal-cannabis industry. A chunk of child-care funding is among the casualties of the lower tax revenue.

Assembly Bill 564 would mean an estimated $180-million annual reduction for law enforcement, child care, services for at-risk youth and environmental cleanup. Of the total, about $81 million would have funded subsidized child-care slots for about 8,000 children from low-income families. Overall, the state budget to assist with child care is $7 billion, a figure that advocates view as short of what’s needed, especially with further potential cuts looming.

Other notable measures

Assembly Bill 461 would end the treatment of truancy as a crime under state law. Existing law can subject the parent or guardian of a student who is chronically absent or late to school with a fine of up to $2,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

Prosecutions are rare and the potential penalties are typically viewed as deterrents. But the pendulum in California has shifted away from tough-on-truancy measures to alternatives such as counseling and family assistance.

The Legislature also has passed bills in support of immigrant families, that will frequently have a carryover effect on how schools operate, such as a bill that bars immigration officers from campus unless they have a valid judicial warrant.

Times staff writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

On the night TJ McGee overdosed from a mixture of drugs and alcohol in his freshman year at UC Berkeley, his friends found him passed out in the hallway by their shared dorm room.

The roommates tried to help, but when McGee stopped breathing, they called 911.

McGee survived and, racked with guilt over what happened that night, committed to confronting his substance-use problem. Then, in the days that followed, McGee received a surprise email from campus officials that ushered in a whole new wave of emotions.

The letter said the administration would be placing McGee on academic probation for violating Berkeley’s residential conduct rules against drug and alcohol possession, use and distribution — possibly jeopardizing his academic career.

“They made me feel as if I was a villain for the choices I made,” said McGee, 20, now a junior. “I felt shameful enough already.”

Today, McGee speaks regularly in support of California State Assembly Bill 602, which would prohibit public colleges and universities from punishing students if they call 911 during an overdose emergency, or if a peer does so on their behalf. It requires schools to offer rehabilitation options and requires students who seek emergency medical assistance to complete a treatment program.

“The bill would protect students just like me from even receiving a letter like that,” and ensures that they are given care instead, McGee said.

The bill recently passed in both houses of the state Legislature; it awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. A spokesperson for Newsom said he typically does not comment on pending legislation.

Despite a recent nationwide plunge in the number of deaths stemming from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl and contaminated versions of those drugs, overdose remains the leading cause of death for Americans age 18 to 44, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Though numbers could be revised as new data from California come in, the CDC provisionally estimates a 21% drop in overdose deaths in the state to 9,660 between March 2024 and March 2025, compared with 12,247 in the previous 12-month period. Opioid-related deaths, in particular from fentanyl, made up the bulk of California’s overdose fatalities in 2023, the most recent year for which statistics are available on the state’s opioid-prevention website.

In response, California started requiring campus health centers at most public colleges and universities to make the opioid overdose-reversing nasal spray Narcan available to students in campus residences.

McGee said that while he hadn’t taken any opioids the night of his overdose, he was administered Narcan while incapacitated.

Advocates for AB 602 say more needs to be done to increase the likelihood that college students will seek immediate help during a drug-related emergency.

It’s important for lawmakers and college officials to realize how much fear is involved when an overdose occurs — not just with the person who is overdosing but among peers who seek to help but don’t want to get a friend in trouble, said UC Berkeley student Saanvi Arora. She is the founder and executive director of Youth Power Project, a nonprofit that helps young people who’ve had adverse health experiences use their personal stories to promote policy reforms.

“California has dramatically increased investments in school-based mental health and crisis-intervention resources and access, for example to fentanyl testing strips on college campuses and access to Narcan,” Arora said. “But one big gap that we see … is that there’s still a really low utilization rate among young people and students.”

Fear of academic probation, suspension or expulsion leads some students with substance-use problems to avoid reaching out to residential advisors, instructors or school administrators for help, leaving them feeling so isolated that they see few other options besides turning to the police as a last resort or doing nothing at all, Arora said.

Youth Power Project authored a bill to combat these problems; Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), its chief sponsor, introduced it to the state Legislature this past spring. “During an overdose any hesitation can be deadly,” the lawmaker said in a statement. “AB 602 makes it clear that calling 911 will never cost you your academic future.”

Campus discipline and legal prosecution can be counterproductive if the goal is to prevent overdose deaths, said Evan Schreiber, a licensed clinical social worker and director of substance abuse disorder services at APLA Health, an L.A.-based nonprofit that offers mental-health and substance-use services and backs the bill.

“By removing the fear of consequences, you’re going to encourage more people to get help,” Schreiber said.

Schreiber and Arora said AB 602 extends to places of higher learning some of the protections guaranteed to Californians outside of campuses under the “911 Good Samaritan Law,” which went into effect in 2013 to increase the reporting of fentanyl poisoning and prevent opioid deaths.

That law protects people from arrest and prosecution if they seek medical aid during an overdose-related emergency, as well as individuals who step in to help by calling 911. It doesn’t, however, cover disciplinary actions imposed by colleges and universities.

One difference between the 911 Good Samaritan Law and the version of AB 602 that passed both houses of the Legislature is that the latter does not cover students who call on behalf of an overdosing peer and who are themselves found to have violated campus alcohol and drug policies, said Nate Allbee, a spokesperson for Haney. Allbee noted that Haney hopes to add this protection in the future.

Even though AB 602 doesn’t include all of the protections that supporters wanted, the rule solves what Arora identified as a major problem: UCs, Cal State campuses and community colleges in California are governed by a patchwork of policies and conduct codes regarding substance use that differ from campus to campus, making it difficult for students to know where they stand when they are in crisis.

McGee said he wished he’d learned more about the support services that were available to him at Berkeley before his overdose. But he was already struggling emotionally and living on his own when he entered college in fall 2023.

McGee described growing up in an environment in which substance use was common. He never felt that he could turn to anyone close to him to work through feelings of loneliness and bouts of depression. It was easier to block it all out by partying.

McGee started using harder drugs, missing classes and spending whole days in bed while coming down from his benders. He wouldn’t eat. Friends would ask what’s wrong, but he’d stare at the wall and ignore them. His grade-point average plummeted to 2.3.

Some of the friends who helped McGee on the night of his overdose grew distant for a time, too dismayed over the turmoil he was causing himself and those around him.

McGee knew he needed to keep trying to salvage his academic career and earn back the trust of his peers. All he could think was: “I need to fix my grades. I need to fix myself.”

One day during his recovery, McGee sat his friends down, apologized and explained what he was going through.

Then in his sophomore year, McGee happened to be lobbying lawmakers in Sacramento over campus funding cuts when he overheard a separate group of students from Youth Power Project talking about a bill they authored that would become AB 602.

It was like eavesdropping on a dark chapter in his own life. McGee agreed to present the bill to Haney and share his experience at meetings with legislators and in hearings.

McGee’s disciplinary probation on campus lasts until the end of 2025, but working on the overdose bill has given him a new sense of purpose. A psychology major, McGee eventually took on public policy as a minor.

“I feel like I became a part of this bill and it became such a large source of hope for me,” McGee said. “It would be amazing to see this support and care implemented nationally. This is not just a California issue.”

SACRAMENTO — State lawmakers approved a bill Monday that would ban online pet dealer websites and shadowy middlemen who pose as local breeders from selling dogs to California consumers — the latest move to curtail the pipeline from out-of-state puppy mills.

Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) said Assembly Bill 519 will help ensure buyers aren’t misled about where their puppies come from after a Times investigation last year detailed how designer dogs are trucked into California from out-of-state commercial breeders and resold by people claiming to be small, local operators.

“AB 519 would close this loophole that allows this dishonest practice,” Berman said.

California became the first state in the nation with a 2019 law to bar pet stores from selling commercially bred dogs. That retail ban, however, did not apply to online pet sales, which grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Berman’s bill would ban online marketplaces where dogs are sold by brokers, which is defined as any person or business that sells or transports a dog bred by someone else for profit. That would include major national pet retailers such as PuppySpot as well as California-based operations that market themselves as pet matchmakers. AB 519, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration, applies to dogs, cats and rabbits under a year old.

Puppy Spot opposed the bill, writing in a letter to lawmakers that it would dismantle a system they say works for families — particularly those seeking specific breeds for allergy concerns. PuppySpot CEO Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May that their online marketplace maintains internal breeder standards that exceed regulatory mandates.

“We believe this bill penalizes responsible, transparent operations while doing little to prevent the underground or unregulated sales that put animal health and consumer trust at risk,” PuppySpot CEO Claire Komorowski wrote to Berman in May.

The bill does not apply to police dogs or service animals and provides an exemption for shelters, rescues and 4H clubs.

“This measure is an important step in shutting down deceptive sales tactics of these puppy brokers and lessening the financial and emotional harm to families who unknowingly purchase sick or poorly bred pets,” Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in a letter of support for the bill. “By eliminating the profit incentive for brokers while preserving legitimate avenues for Californians to obtain animals, AB 519 protects consumers, supports shelters and rescues that are already at capacity, and advances California’s commitment to the humane treatment of animals.”

Two other bills stemming from The Times’ investigation are expected to pass the Legislature this week as lawmakers wrap up session and send a flurry of bills to the governor. The package of bills has overwhelming bipartisan support.

AB 506 by Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura) would void pet purchase contracts involving California buyers if the pet seller requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would also make the pet seller liable if they fail to disclose the breeder’s name and information, as well as medical information about the animal.

The Times’ investigation found that some puppies advertised on social media, online marketplaces or through breeder websites as being California-bred were actually imported from out-of-state puppy mills. To trace dogs back to mass breeding facilities, The Times requested Certificates of Veterinary Inspection, which are issued by a federally accredited veterinarian listing where the animal came from, its destination and verification it is healthy to travel.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture has long received those health certificates from other states by mistake — the records are supposed to go to county public health departments — and, in recent years, made it a practice to immediately destroy them. Dog importers who were supposed to submit the records to counties largely failed to do so.

The Times analyzed the movement of more than 71,000 dogs into California since 2019, when the pet retail ban went into effect. The travel certificates showed how a network of resellers replaced pet stores as middlemen while disguising where puppies were actually bred. In some cases, new owners discovered that they were sold a puppy by a person using a fake name and temporary phone numbers after their new pet became sick or died.

After The Times’ reporting, lawmakers and animal activists called on the state agriculture department to stop “destroying evidence” of the decepitive practices by destroying the records. The department began preserving the records thereafter, but has so far released the records with significant redactions.

SB 312 by state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) would require pet sellers to share the travel certificate with the state agriculture agency, which would then make them available without redactions to the public. An earlier version of the bill required the state department to publish information from the certificates online, but that was removed amid opposition.

“Given the high propensity for misleading consumers and the large volume of dogs entering the state, the health certificate information is in the public interest for individual consumers to review to confirm information conveyed to them by sellers and to also hopefully be helpful to humane law enforcement agencieds as they work to investigate fraud and malfeasance,” said Bennet said Monday in support of Umberg’s bill.

SACRAMENTO — Nearly six months after a firestorm ravaged communities across Los Angeles, California lawmakers are crafting legislation to try to protect the state insurance program for high-risk homes from financial collapse.

A bill, AB 226, sponsored by Assemblymembers Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and David A. Alvarez (D-San Diego), would make the state’s insurer of last resort, the FAIR Plan, eligible for loans and bonds from the state-backed California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to avoid running out of money after a disaster.

Alvarez proposed the measure last year but it failed to pass. Despite receiving unanimous support in the Assembly, the bill never reached the Senate floor for a vote before the end of the 2024 legislative session.

If the measure had passed last year and been signed into law by the governor, the FAIR Plan would have had more flexibility to weather the massive number of claims filed after the January firestorms, Alvarez said.

Instead, the FAIR plan was forced to imposed an extra $1 billion in total assessments on insurers that provide homeowners policies in California. To recoup those expenses, insurance companies are expected to hike rates on homeowners through monthly surcharges.

“Had they had this option available to them … they would not be having to hit consumers with price increases on the private market now,” Alvarez said.

AB 226 is one of many wildfire-related bills still winding their way through the slow legislative process. If passed into law, the measures would protect homeowners from price gouging after disasters, streamline the process for filing claims for lost property and offer financial protections for disaster victims.

Lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom in January approved $2.5 billion in wildfire aid after the Palisades and Eaton fires killed more than two dozen people and became the second and third most destructive fires in state history. Legislative leaders at the time signaled for a swift, bipartisan approach to the disaster.

“Tens of thousands of our neighbors, our families and friends, they need help. This means that we need to be able to move with urgency, put aside our differences, and be laser-focused on delivering the financial resources, delivering the boots on the ground that are needed and the policy relief that is needed to get neighborhoods cleaned up and communities rebuilt,” Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) said after it passed.

California’s last-ditch home insurer, the FAIR Plan, is meant as a backup for properties deemed high-risk and uninsurable by private companies. A Times analysis found that within the Eaton and Palisades fire zones, the number of homes on the plan nearly doubled between 2020 and 2024 and the plan has become one of the state’s largest insurers.

Amid lawsuits alleging collusion between private insurers and the FAIR Plan and policyholders raising concerns about delays in payments and smoke damage investigations, lawmakers and insurance advocates have repeatedly called for better safety nets — like the one proposed in AB 226 — to keep the insurer solvent in emergencies and viable as a long-term solution to the state’s home insurance problem.

This year, Alvarez was joined on the bill by Calderon, chair of the Assembly’s insurance committee. It passed through the Assembly at the beginning of March but has not yet seen its first Senate committee.

Alvarez celebrated the bill’s swift passage through the Assembly and hopes the Senate will work to do the same, “God forbid, if it has to be used because of a devastating fire this summer,” he said.

Other major wildfire bills being considered by lawmakers include:

• AB 493, which would require lenders to pay policyholders interest on disaster insurance payouts that are held in escrow. The measure, authored by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) would close a loophole in existing law, which already requires interest payments on other escrowed funds.
• AB 597, also introduced by Harabedian, which would keep public insurance adjusters from gouging homeowners, especially after a natural disaster or state of emergency.
• SB 495, which would prevent insurers from requiring an itemized list of personal property losses from policyholders during a state of emergency, and would require insurers to provide extensions where reconstruction is delayed. The bill, introduced by state Sen. Benjamin Allen — who represents the Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica areas — passed a Senate floor vote on Tuesday and is headed to the Assembly.

Most of the pending legislation won’t directly support survivors of the Palisades and Eaton fires but are still important to the rebuilding process, said Maryam Zar, president emeritus of the Pacific Palisades Community Council and founder of the Palisades Recovery Coalition.

The new laws would help prevent and prepare for future fires, she said, and are a show of goodwill to the communities that are suffering still.

Some other fire relief measures focus on easing the permit process for rebuilding, while others extend provisions set by Newsom during the state of emergency — easing tenancy rights for people staying in temporary housing for longer than 30 days, shortening the permit approval timeline and securing mortgage forbearance for destroyed properties for up to a year after the disaster. Others look to address staffing issues for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as fire season turns into a year-round threat.

“Wildfire survivors continue to face housing insecurity, financial strain, and emotional trauma long after the immediate danger has passed,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said in a statement. “These State bills represent a commitment to meeting people where they are — actively in recovery, rebuilding their lives, and in need of our long-term support.”

SACRAMENTO — Assembly Democrats walked back opposition to a controversial bill that would increase the penalty for soliciting a minor aged 16 or 17, a change that comes after they faced a barrage of criticism from Republicans and a rebuke from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The new amendments to the legislation, AB 379, would allow prosecutors to file felony charges against adults who solicit sex from a 16- or 17-year-old. If the accused is three years older than the minor, they can be charged with a felony. If the offender is within three years of the minor, the charge is a misdemeanor.

The bill will now include a state grant program to help streamline prosecution in human trafficking and sex trafficking cases, and a support fund for survivors, partially funded by increased fines for businesses that ignore or aid in human trafficking.

Current law allows the offense of soliciting a minor under 16 for sex to be punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony on the first offense and as a felony on subsequent offenses.

Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), authored AB 379 to extend the same punishment to those who solicited 16- and 17- year-olds. Last week, the Democratic-led Assembly approved an amendment that removed that provision, which Krell opposed.

On Tuesday, Krell released a statement supporting the Democratic leadership’s new changes.

“I’m looking at this from a prosecutor’s standpoint — this bill strengthens California law and gives us the felony hammer to prosecute the creeps that are preying on teenagers,” she said in a statement.

Krell temporarily allied herself with Republicans last week when she was given two options — amend the bill without the increased felony charges, or let it die in committee. Democrats defended the amendment despite comments from Newsom, who said that anyone who solicits a minor should be charged with a felony.

The bill, in its amended form, is still under consideration in the Assembly.