You don’t need to look too far to find bills that have important technical implications for either the government or the public sector. This session has several bills that can create new opportunities and requirements for the industry.
Here are some bills that will bending the way to either the governor’s desk or the trash can.
Electronic Death Registration System – AB 585 (Patterson)
Hidden in this proposed amendment to existing law is a potential opportunity for vendors. The death registration system may not have, for example, a flash of ERP modernization, but the project requires a system update for “internet-based” technology, which state registrars were first allowed to use in 2005.
“This bill requires state registrars to upgrade their systems using updated technology, including computer and mobile phone applications. The bill requires certain individuals, including doctors, inspectors and local registrars, to have the ability to access the electronic death registration system, in addition to those currently responsible for filling out their death certificates.”
The bill does not restrict local districts from submitting these certificates manually.
It is unclear whether the technology will be renewed or will be carried out internally. The hearing on the bill was recently postponed by the Congressional Health Committee on March 27th.
AI Abuse Protection Act – SB 11 (Ashby)
Senate Bill 11, one of many high-tech-centric bills that proposed this session, sets new restrictions on the use of AI technology used to create what the authors call “digital replicas.” Under the bill, those or companies that provide technology that allows users to digitally replicate others’ portraits must provide warnings about civil or criminal liability related to their activities.
Congressional Angelique Ashby, author of the bill, said before the hearing committee on April 1, that the bill would create a framework that clarifies existing definitions of “caricatures” to include AI content.
“The rise of AI offers opportunities for innovation in a variety of industries. These technologies are powerful tools for continued advancement in California, but of course the lack of a comprehensive legal framework to address deepfakes and non-continuous images and videos is challenging,” Lowmaker said.
During the hearing, the opposition parties were expressed by the industry and focused on the need to clarify consumer warning regulations at the centre. These speakers were promptly voicing prompt support for the spirit of the bill, but called for consideration to amend the provisions.
The law was recently introduced to the Budget Committee on April 23rd.
High-risk artificial intelligence systems: duty to protect personal information – SB 468 (Bekker)
Senate Bill 468 is a proposed addition to existing laws establishing new rules for certain deployers of high-risk artificial intelligence systems processing personal information. The bill states that deployers will need to “develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive information security program” in line with state and federal laws and regulations.
The definition of “high risk” already exists in the government code, particularly section 11546.45.5.
In theory, many of the systems and services provided by vendors fall under this definition. California’s Privacy Protection Agency will oversee these changes if the bill is willingly signed by the governor.
Most recently, the bill was re-entered to the Budget Committee on April 23rd.
Telehealth for All Laws in 2025 – AB 688 (González)
All laws telehealth set new expectations for MEDI-CAL telehealth use reports through the state Department of Health (DHCS). The bill will need to conduct analyses to address telehealth access and usage data, including various indicators of telehealth visits and claims that are broken down by geographic, demographic and social determinants to identify disparities. These reports are required at two-year intervals starting in 2028.
Although this Act does not outline the requirements for new technologies or systems for DHC or its partner agencies, reports mandated by this Act will be used to “identify and address access to care or provide greater insight into the use of telehealth modalities.” The law also creates the need for new technologies to be implemented, and may at least be worthy of attention.
As of April 9, the bill was placed in the Budget Committee’s suspense file for further action.
School Technology Empowerment Advisory Committee – AB 903 (Avilafaria and Sorash)
The law is less direct than the invoices on this list that require new systems or updates, but it also creates opportunities for the vendor community. Congressional Bill 903 will, among other things, establish the School Technology Empowerment Advisory Committee under the California Department of Education.
The group includes “at least one school board member, administrator, teacher, and representative of California’s cooperation for educational excellence, and multiple individuals or organizations expressing their interest in supporting the use of technology in public schools.”
Perhaps the list of participants will include technology providers and experts in the vendor community. At the very least, provide input via public comments, expert testimony and more. Previous versions of the bill included a specific list of possible participants, but amendments to the bill expanded that list. The committee must provide an annual report on or after December 31, 2028.
The bill was recently featured in the Approximate Budget Committee’s suspense file on April 23rd.
