AB 692 will prohibit ‘stay-or-pay’ contracts that trap nurses and other workers in exploitative debt arrangements with employers
By California Nurses Association
California Nurses Association (CNA), the largest union of registered nurses in the state of California, applauds Governor Gavin Newsom for taking action to protect workers from employers’ use of predatory debt contracts and signing Assembly Bill 692 (A.B. 692) into law on Monday, Oct. 13. A.B. 692 prohibits employers from requiring workers to pay a debt, fee, or penalty if the workers wants to leave their job, expressly making these kinds of exploitative workplace debt arrangements unlawful.
“California is taking a proactive step forward to support the thousands of nurses and nearly one in 12 workers who are in exploitative stay-or-pay contracts,” said Sandy Reding, RNand CNA president. “We are grateful for Assemblymember Kalra championing this bill and to Governor Newsom for stepping up with the labor movement to stand up to Trump’s assaults on worker protections. California leads the rest of the country by signing this bill into law.”
A.B. 692 was authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) and sponsored by CNA, as well as a broad coalition of co-sponsoring organizations, including the California Federation of Labor Unions, California Employment Lawyers Association, Protect Borrowers, and the American Economic Liberties Project.
“It has been an honor to work with CNA in abolishing exploitative stay-or-pay contracts and stopping employers from creating debt to trap and intimidate workers,” said Assemblymember Kalra. “I am grateful Governor Newsom signed A.B. 692, ensuring workers are not coerced into employment debt agreements and can be empowered to leave bad jobs.”
“Today, Governor Newsom signed an important bill to ban employer debt traps and protect nurses, actors, athletes and so many other workers. Employers use training repayment schemes to trap workers in jobs with low wages, unsafe conditions, and abusive managers,” said California Labor Federation President Lorena Gonzalez. “It doesn’t matter if you work in a hospital or play professional sports, no worker should have to pay an employer back if they leave a job. We are proud of California’s progress that will help workers level the playing field.”
A.B. 692 addresses the growing number of employers that are using debt as an exploitative tool to trap workers in jobs, often with low wages and substandard working conditions, and to bust unions. Sometimes called “stay-or-pay” contracts, employers coerce workers into predatory arrangements that require the worker to pay an alleged debt or other financial penalty to their employer if the worker leaves their job before a prescribed period of time–whether the worker is fired, laid off, or quits. With the threat of having to pay back a debt or fee to their employer, “stay-or-pay” contracts indenture workers to remain at a job and chills workers from seeking better wages or working conditions.
California Nurses Association/National Nurses United is the largest and fastest-growing union and professional association of registered nurses in the nation with more than 100,000 members in more than 200 facilities throughout California and more than 225,000 RNs nationwide.
By Greg Burt, Vice President, California Family Council
SACRAMENTO, CA — Governor Gavin Newsom has once again proven his contempt for California parents. Yesterday afternoon, he signed AB 495, a bill that fundamentally undermines parental rights and opens the door for abuse, kidnapping, and government interference in family life, all while claiming it “protects parents and children.”
After months of warnings from parental rights advocates, faith communities, and constitutional attorneys, Newsom ignored every concern. In a calculated act of deception, his office released a statement claiming AB 495 safeguards parental authority. In reality, this law allows any adult, without verification, without parental consent, and without even notifying parents, to make medical and educational decisions for a child.
CFC President: Newsom’s Assault on Parental Rights Endangers Children
“Governor Newsom is deliberately trying to deceive parents by claiming this bill protects them, when in fact it does the opposite,” said Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council. “AB 495 strips parents of their constitutional rights and hands them over to unverified strangers. It is unconstitutional, it is illegal, and no school or medical facility should recognize or accept the authority of a Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit without a verified signature from a parent or legal guardian. Newsom knows exactly what this bill does, but he’s hoping the press and the public won’t read it for themselves.”
“AB495 allows…any adult claiming to be a relative within five degrees of kinshipcan sign a Caregiver Authorization Affidavit giving them the ability to ‘authorize any other medical care.’ And all this can be done with no parent signature, no notary, no verification and no parent notification required.”
Despite claims to the contrary, AB 495 allows ANY adult to use the new Caregiver Authorization Affidavit as “sufficient to authorize enrollment of a minor in school and authorize school-related medical care.” Then any adult claiming to be a relative within five degrees of kinshipcan sign a Caregiver Authorization Affidavit giving them the ability to “authorize any other medical care.” And all this can be done with no parent signature, no notary, no verification and no parent notification required. This law will allow unvetted adults to make medical decisions, enroll children in school, and act as de facto guardians, even though parents would remain legal guardians.
“Governor Newsom deceptively describes AB 495 as a caregiver planning tool for undocumented immigrant parents. It’s more accurately described as a child trafficker’s and child predator’s dream bill,” said Dean Broyles, Esq., President and Chief Counsel of the National Center for Law & Policy. “Its sweeping application is not limited to immigrant families, does not require any parental notice or consent, and lacks even the most basic safeguards to protect children. Anyone falsely claiming kinship can easily sign the affidavit, access a child, obtain medical care, and enroll them in another school. Even the most basic safeguard of a notary is not required to confirm the true identity of the person accessing your child. AB 495 violates fundamentally constitutionally protected parental rights, endangers California’s children, and will be appropriately legally challenged and struck down.”
“With AB 495, state-sanctioned kidnapping is now legal,” warned Julianne Fleischer, Senior Legal Counsel at Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “This is more than overreach — it is a betrayal of families and a blatant disregard for parental rights. This unprecedented intrusion into parental rights marks a deeply concerning moment for our state — one for which Gavin Newsom must answer.”
“Governor Newsom’s actions define him, not his smooth talk and 100-watt smile,” added Erin Friday, Esq., President of Our Duty – USA. “Behind that veneer, is a man who consistently signs bills that eviscerate parental rights. Handing a child over to an adult five degrees separated by marriage, divorce, or blood based upon an unverified one-page document with any pre-authorization of the parents, is beyond the pale.”
CFC Calls for Defiance and Parental Vigilance
California Family Council is calling on schools, hospitals, and clinics to refuse to accept any Caregiver Authorization Affidavit that is not verified or notarized by the child’s legal parent or guardian.
“Governor Newsom may have signed this bill into law,” Keller said, “but parents are under no moral or legal obligation to accept its legitimacy. This bill violates both the Constitution and common sense. No one, not a school administrator, not a doctor, not a government bureaucrat, has the right to override a mother or father’s authority.”
CFC urges parents to take immediate action to protect their families:
* Update emergency contact lists at schools and medical offices to include ONLY those adults you trust to make educational and medical decisions for your child.
* Submit written directives stating that NO ONE outside your listed contacts is authorized to pick up or make decisions for your child.
* Support efforts to legally challenge AB 495 and restore parental rights in California law.
“This coalition will not rest,” Keller concluded. “We will work with our partners, our attorneys, and thousands of California parents to overturn this unconstitutional law. Parents, not politicians, are the rightful guardians of their children.”
About California Family Council
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.
Five-county half-centsales tax would include Contra Costa County, last 14 years; in addition to existing half-cent BART operations sales tax
By John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications & Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday, October 13, 2025, signed into law state Senate Bill 63, authorizing a November 2026 ballot measure to prevent major service cuts at BART and other Bay Area transit systems and to make improvements to transit affordability, accessibility and reliability in the region. The new law allows the measure to be placed on the ballot either through action by a newly formed Public Transit Revenue Measure District governed by the same board as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) or via a citizen’s initiative.
The half-cent sales tax would be in addition to the half-cent sales tax for BART operations in Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco counties in place since the 1960’s.
Enactment of the bill — authored by state senators Scott Wiener (D-11) of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín (D-7) of Berkeley, and co-authored by Sen. Laura Richardson of Los Angeles County and Assemblymembers Mia Bonta (D-18) of Alameda County and Matt Haney (D-17) and Catherine Stefani (D-19) of San Francisco — clears the way for voters in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to consider a 14-year regional transportation sales tax that would generate approximately $980 million annually across the five counties. The bill authorizes voter consideration of a half-cent sales tax in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and a one-cent sales tax in San Francisco.
Approximately 60 percent of the revenue that would be raised if voters approve the measure will be dedicated to preserving service on BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit — which an independent analysis confirmed face annual deficits of more than $800 million annually starting in fiscal year 2027-28 — as well as San Francisco Bay Ferry and smaller transit agencies providing service in the five counties to keep buses, trains and ferries moving. About one-third of the revenue would go to Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Santa Clara VTA, SamTrans and the Alameda County Transportation Commission, with flexibility to use funds for transit capital, operations, or road paving projects on roads with regular bus service.
If a regional tax measure wins voters’ approval next fall, about 4.5 percent, equivalent to $43 million in fiscal year 2027-28, will go toward improving the rider experience, funding priorities identified in the 2021 Bay Area Transit Transformation Action Plan.
“In addition to averting major service cuts for regional operators, MTC advocated for the measure to include dedicated funding to make Bay Area transit more affordable, reliable, and easy to use so that it becomes a system that will attract more riders,” noted Commission Chair and Pleasant Hill Mayor Sue Noack.
The suite of rider-focused improvements includes:
Free and reduced-fare transfers that could save multi-agency riders up to $1,500 per year and are estimated to increase transit ridership by some 30,000 trips per day.
Expansion of the Clipper START® program, which provides a 50% fare discount, to reach 100,000 additional low-income adults.
Improvements to accessibility for seniors and people with disabilities.
Transit-priority projects to make bus trips faster, and mapping and wayfinding improvements to make transit easier to use.
Bay Area transit riders take more than 1 million trips each day, with over 80 percent of these trips on Muni, BART, Caltrain or AC Transit. Riders include tens of thousands of students, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income residents who can’t afford to own a car. Clipper START customers accounted for nearly 400,000 transit trips across the region in August 2025 and the fare-discount program is growing at a rate of more than 20,000 customers each year.
SB 63 includes several oversight and accountability provisions to reassure voters their tax dollars will be used responsibly. These include establishing an independent oversight committee to ensure expenditures are consistent with the law. Membership will include at least one representative from each county in the Public Transit Revenue Measure District, appointed by each county’s board of supervisors.
The new law also requires BART, Muni, Caltrain and AC Transit to undergo a two-phase independent third-party financial efficiency review overseen by its own oversight committee composed of four independent experts, four transit agency representatives, and an MTC Commissioner. MTC is responsible for procuring the third-party consultant to conduct the review and for staffing the Oversight Committee.
A maintenance-of-effort clause in SB 63 requires BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, SF Bay Ferry and the bus operators in Alameda and Contra Costa counties to maintain existing levels of funding for operating purposes if a 2026 tax measure is passed by voters. The legislature established this requirement to ensure the measure supplements, rather than replaces, current operations support, with provisions for exceptions that are subject to MTC approval.
To provide additional oversight regarding the quality of the transit service provided in each county participating in the measure, the legislation allows a county transportation agency or board of supervisors within the District’s geography to require review by an ad-hoc adjudication committee if they believe a transit agency funded by that county’s portion of the measure’s revenue is not applying standards (such as service levels, fare policy, cleanliness, maintenance, access and safety) consistently across counties or if those standards disproportionately disadvantage service or transit equipment/station quality in that county. The committee is composed solely of representatives from counties contributing revenue measure funds to the transit agency under review. Its determinations are binding and may result in withholding up to 7 percent of the transit agency’s funds, a strong incentive for agencies to deliver high quality service that follows consistent standards across all five counties.
What Local Transportation Officials are Saying:
“The BART Board of Directors supported SB 63 because it will cover a significant portion of BART’s operating deficit caused by remote work and will allow us to maintain current service levels and improve the rider experience,” said BART General Manager Bob Powers.
“SB 63 is a step towards protecting essential Muni service and will equip us with resources to continue meeting the needs of San Francisco and the growing region,” said Julie Kirschbaum, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Director of Transportation.
“Through Governor Newsom’s leadership and the support of voters, SB 63 will help protect transit for our more than three million monthly riders. In fact, this summer, we took proactive steps to preserve service by redesigning 103 bus lines through our new Realign network. Designed over two years, this all-new network maintains service at 85 percent of pre-pandemic levels. SB 63 gives voters a chance to ensure that these vital bus lines – and our riders’ lifelines – are protected for the future,” said AC Transit Board President Diane Shaw.
“Caltrain has been reinvented as a state-of-the-art rail system, delivering the best service this corridor has seen in its 161-year history. We are seeing the benefits every day with growing ridership, cleaner air, quieter trains, and less-congested roads. To sustain these benefits, it is essential that Caltrain be funded. We are deeply grateful to Governor Newsom and the California Legislature for their leadership in crafting and supporting this legislation, which gives voters the opportunity to consider the vital Connect Bay Area measure in November 2026,” said Caltrain Executive Director Michelle Bouchard.
“SB 63 represents a transformative opportunity to invest in the future of public transit,” she said. With this measure, we can deliver faster, more frequent service and ensure better connections for all riders across Santa Clara County,” said Carolyn Gonot, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority General Manager and CEO.
“We’re excited the Connect Bay Area Act is moving forward and voters will soon have the opportunity to shape the future of public transit along the Peninsula and surrounding Bay Area communities. Next November’s vote will be a pivotal moment to secure reliable, connected and sustainable transportation. With this measure, we can ensure SamTrans, Caltrain and our regional transit partners have the stable funding needed to serve riders for years to come,” said SamTrans Board of Directors Chair Jeff Gee.
MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
BART Issues Statement of Support
BART issued the following statement on Governor’s signing transit funding measure SB 63:
“BART is grateful to Governor Newsom for signing Senate Bill (SB) 63 into law. The Governor has been a steadfast advocate of transit and BART specifically, recognizing our role in moving the region and strengthening the economy. SB 63 is a historic opportunity to allow voters in five counties of the Bay Area to consider a sales tax measure in November 2026 aimed at preserving and improving transit.
A regional transportation funding measure would provide a reliable funding source for BART and other agencies to address deficits caused by remote work. The BART Board of Directors supported SB 63 because it will cover a significant portion of BART’s operating deficit and allow us to maintain current service levels and improve the rider experience.
Before measure funds become available, BART will rely on internal cuts, efficiency measures, and a series of one-time solutions to pay for operations. BART will continue to identify additional cost savings and efficiencies to address our deficit, and we welcome the enhanced accountability measures and financial efficiency review included in SB 63.
BART is also grateful to Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín for championing this legislation and their fierce advocacy for transit funding.”
By Yating Campbell, Commission on the Status of Women and Girls
(SACRAMENTO, CA) – The Commission on the Status of Women and Girls (CCSWG)’s co-sponsored legislation, SB 642 (Limόn) Pay Equity Enforcement Act, has been signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. CCSWG co-sponsored SB 642 along with the California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates.
“SB 642 signifies an important victory in advancing gender equity in the workplace on the 10-year anniversary of the California Fair Pay Act, while also recognizing that there is still much to be done to achieve true progress,” said Chair of CCSWG Dr. Rita Gallardo Good. “We thank Governor Newsom and Commissioner Limόn for their leadership and continued commitment to California’s women and girls.”
SB 642 revises outdated gender binary language, allows workers to recover for up to six years of lost pay, harmonizes the statute of limitations with other wage and anti-discrimination statutes, and limits how wide pay ranges may be in public job postings
“With many families continuing to stretch to make ends meet, we reinforce our commitment to equal pay laws that strengthen the economic security of California families and communities,” said Senator Monique Limón. “On Latina Equal Pay Day, I am incredibly proud that Governor Newsom is building upon our pay equity legacy here in California. The Pay Equity Enforcement Act will help narrow the wage gap by providing workers with more negotiation power at the start of their career, while also strengthening workers’ rights to recover lost wages – this is a win for workers and an even bigger win for California families.”
“As a proud co-sponsor of SB 642, we thank Governor Newsom for his signature of SB 642, which will advance pay and gender equity in the state of California for millions of women and girls,” said CCSWG Executive Director Darcy Totten, “SB 642 addresses several critical pay transparency gaps and revising references to gender to be more inclusive and reflective of California’s values. We also thank the author, Senator and Commissioner Limón, for her relentless support of women’s rights and protections in the workplace.”
Research demonstrates that women continue to make 79 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts. Women of color are shown to be even more severely and disproportionately impacted. Studies also show that, on average, women nationwide lose a combined total of almost $1.7 trillion every year due to the wage gap, impacting the ability to afford basic needs like housing, food, childcare, and preventing women from building long-term financial security. SB 642 remedies these obstacles by enabling women to build long-term economic security and wealth. The provisions of the bill will go into effect January 1, 2026.
“The gender wage gap costs California women billions in lost wages each year—money that could otherwise go toward rent, groceries, childcare, and other essentials that families depend on,” said Jessica Ramey Stender, Policy Director & Deputy Legal Director of Equal Rights Advocates. “SB 642 ensures California remains at the forefront of advancing pay equity. Ensuring women and all workers are paid fairly is not only critical for their financial stability, but also for the economic security and well-being of families across the state.”
“One of the biggest barriers to advancing pay equity is that workers often don’t know that they are being paid unfairly until it is too late,” said Mariko Yoshihara, Policy Director for the California Employment Lawyers Association. “We applaud Governor Newsom for signing SB 642, which will comprehensively strengthen our equal pay laws and extend the ability to recover lost wages due to pay discrimination.”
For more than 50 years, the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls has identified and worked to eliminate inequities in state laws, practices, and conditions that affect California’s women and girls. Established as a state agency with 17 appointed commissioners in 1965, the Commission regularly assesses gender equity in health, safety, employment, education, and equal representation in the military, and the media. The Commission provides leadership through research, policy and program development, education, outreach and collaboration, advocacy, and strategic partnerships. Learn more at www.women.ca.gov.
SB771 attempts to curb online “hate speech”, awaits Newsom’s decision by Oct. 12; second effort in two years to limit online speech, first one failed
Computer & Communications Industry Association warns California bill “could undermine free speech online”
“It effectively incentivizes broad suppression of speech through the threat of legal action.” – TechNet
“sets stage for…fight” and “could create a messy, drawn-out legal battle” – Washington Examiner
CalChamber also opposes
By Allen D. Payton
SB 771, by State Senator Henry Stern, entitled “Personal rights: liability: social media platforms” has passed both the State Assembly and Senate and currently awaits the governor’s decision as of September 22, 2025, would allow fines of up to $1 million per violation for social media companies that generate more than $100 million in annual gross revenues, whose algorithms amplify content violating California’s civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. (Source: compliancehub.wiki)
The platforms could also face fines of up to three months of the platform’s gross revenue preceding the judgment for intentional violations, or up to $500,000 per violation for reckless violations, which is designed to address platforms that show disregard for potential harm without specific intent.
Newsom has until Oct. 12, 2025, to either sign or veto the bill. If he signed, bill would become operative on January 1, 2027, giving social media platforms time to prepare.
According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “Existing law generally regulates social media platforms, including by requiring a social media company to post terms of service for each social media platform owned or operated by the company in a manner reasonably designed to inform all users of the social media platform of the existence and contents of the terms of service, as prescribed.
Existing law generally prohibits a person from using violence or intimidation to interfere with another person’s enjoyment of certain rights or because of certain attributes of that person, including the person’s political affiliation, race, or sexual orientation, and punishes violations of that law with certain civil penalties or as misdemeanors, as prescribed.
This bill would make a social media platform, as defined, that violates the above-referenced provisions of law relating to personal rights through its algorithms that relay content to users or aids, abets, acts in concert, or conspires in violation of those laws, or is a joint tortfeasor in an action alleging a violation of those laws, liable for specified civil penalties. The bill would declare its provisions to be severable and would declare attempted waiver of its provisions to be void and unenforceable.”
The bill specifically references violations of:
Penal Code Sections 31 and 422.6 (hate crimes and interference with civil rights)
Civil Code Section 51.7 (Ralph Civil Rights Act)
Civil Code Section 51.9 (Civil rights protections against violence or intimidation)
Civil Code Section 52 and 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act)
According to a report by Reason.com, “The Legislature says the bill is needed because of a rise in documented hate crimes. It cites a report by the Human Rights Campaign that found “anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and harmful rhetoric” increased by 400 percent following the passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill in 2022, as well as a report by the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations that found that “hate crimes involving anti-immigrant slurs increased by 31 percent” in FY 2024, the highest number since tracking began in 2007.
“The bill additionally cites the Anti-Defamation League’s 2024 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, which found an 893 percent increase in antisemitic incidents over the previous 10 years, and a 2023 study by nonprofit Global Witness, which found that paid advertisements promoting violence toward women were placed and distributed across social media platforms.”
However, the report continues, “the bill is sure to face scrutiny under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which largely protects platforms from being held liable for user speech.”
Sets State for Free Speech Fight
According to a Washington Examiner report, the bill “sets stage for free speech fight” and “could create a messy, drawn-out legal battle with multibillion-dollar tech companies over what people can post on their platforms.”
CCIA Warns California SB 771 Could Undermine Free Speech Online
The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), whose members include Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger and Threads; Google and Apple, is opposed to the bill. It testified in July “before the California Assembly Judiciary Committee…reiterating its opposition to SB 771. The association warns that the proposal could limit access to lawful content, discourage open dialogue online, and conflict with key constitutional and federal legal protections.
SB 771 would allow lawsuits against large social media platforms if their recommendation systems are accused of amplifying unlawful content targeting protected groups. But the bill’s broad language and legal uncertainty could force platforms to take down more content than necessary — not because it’s harmful, but to avoid the risk of litigation.
CCIA believes this approach would reduce the availability of protected speech and place platforms in a legally precarious position. The bill also raises serious concerns about First Amendment protections and may conflict with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online services from liability for content moderation carried out in good faith.
“We all want to create safer online spaces and are concerned that SB 771 takes the wrong approach,” said Aodhan Downey, State Policy Manager for CCIA. “The bill creates vague legal standards that could prompt platforms to over-remove content out of fear of lawsuits. That would limit access to important conversations and weaken free expression online. California lawmakers should reject this bill and pursue targeted, effective solutions that protect users while respecting constitutional rights.”
According to the company’s website, CCIA is an international, not-for-profit trade association representing a broad cross section of communications and technology firms. For more than 50 years, CCIA has promoted open markets, open systems, and open networks. CCIA members employ more than 1.6 million workers, invest more than $100 billion in research and development, and contribute trillions of dollars in productivity to the global economy.
TechNet, CalChamber Oppose SB771
In a July 10, 2025, letter to Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, Chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and who represents portions of Western Contra Costa County, TechNet, whose members include Comcast NBC Universal, Google and Meta, was joined by CCIA and the California Chamber of Commerce in writing, “TechNet and the following organizations must respectfully oppose SB 771, as it raises significant concerns about potential conflicts with longstanding internet law by exposing social media platforms to substantial liability, calculated in the billions, for user-generated content.
TechNet is the national, bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives that promotes the growth of the innovation economy by advocating a targeted policy agenda at the federal and 50-state level. TechNet’s diverse membership includes dynamic American businesses ranging from startups to the most iconic companies on the planet and represents over 4.5 million employees and countless customers in the fields of information technology, artificial intelligence, e commerce, the sharing and gig economies, advanced energy, transportation, cybersecurity, venture capital, and finance.
Although SB 771 does not explicitly mandate content removal, it effectively incentivizes broad suppression of speech through the threat of legal action. In practice, the elevated liability risk could compel platforms to take down content based solely on unsubstantiated allegations of violence. This dynamic sets the stage for a heckler’s veto, in which bad actors or politically motivated users can flag content they disagree with, knowing the platform may err on the side of removal to avoid potential lawsuits.
This bill’s implicit concern is harmful content. It is impossible for companies to identify and remove every potentially harmful piece of content because there’s no clear consensus on what exactly constitutes harmful content, apart from clearly illicit content. Determining what is harmful is highly subjective and varies from person to person, making it impossible to make such judgments on behalf of millions of users. Faced with this impossible task and the liability imposed by this bill, some platforms may decide to aggressively over restrict content that could be considered harmful.
Furthermore, platforms would need to evaluate whether to eliminate their fundamental features and functions, which are the reasons users go to their platforms, due to the legal risk involved. For instance, direct messaging features could potentially be misused for contacting and bullying other teens; such features would likely be removed.
Serious First Amendment concerns.
It is well established that the companies covered by this legislation have constitutional rights related to content moderation, including the right to curate, prioritize, and remove content in accordance with their terms of service. By exposing these companies to civil liability for content they do not remove, SB 771 creates a chilling effect on their editorial discretion. The significant, prescribed civil penalties – potentially amounting into the billions for each violation – would lead platforms to over-remove lawful content to mitigate legal exposure. Therefore, if this law passes, it will almost certainly be struck down in court (see NetChoice v Paxton) because it imposes liability on social media platforms for whether certain types of third-party content are shown to users, as well as the expressive choices social media platforms make in designing the user experience. This violates the First Amendment rights of users and social media platforms.
Moreover, the proposed liability framework likely conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides strong federal protections for platforms against civil liability for third-party content and for good-faith content moderation. Courts (see Twitter,inc V. Taamneh, 598 U.S.__ (2023)) have consistently upheld Section 230 as preempting state-level attempts to impose liability for content hosting or moderation decisions.
For these reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 771. If you have any questions regarding our position, please contact Robert Boykin at rboykin@technet.org or 408.898.7145.”
The letter was signed by Robert Boykin, Executive Director for California and the Southwest TechNet, Ronak Daylami attorney and Policy Advocate with the California Chamber of Commerce and Aodhan Downey of the CCIA.
Second Legislative Attempt to Limit Online Speech, First Failed in Court
This is the second attempt by the California legislature and Newsom to limit online speech in the last two years. Last year, AB2839 and AB2655 were signed into law, banning deceptive elections-related media, known as “deep-fakes”, in advertisements including those containing parody.
AB2839 would have “prohibited a person, committee, or other entity from knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election communication, as defined, that contains certain materially deceptive content, as defined, with malice, as defined, subject to specified exemptions. The bill would apply this prohibition within 120 days of an election in California and, in specified cases, 60 days after an election.”
AB2655 would have required “a large online platform, as defined, to block the posting of materially deceptive content related to elections in California, during specified periods before and after an election…and to label certain additional content inauthentic, fake, or false.”
However, parody website, The Babylon Bee sued the state and according to the Alliance Defending Freedom which represented the media outlet, “California officials agreed they cannot enforce one of those laws (AB2839) against The Babylon Bee and Kelly Chang Rickert, a California attorney and blogger, after a federal district court ruled that the law likely violates the First Amendment.”
Contact Governor Newsom
To contact the governor’s office to offer your opinion on the legislation, use the website form at www.gov.ca.gov/contact and select Legislation Issues/Concerns in the drop down menu, mail Governor Gavin Newsom at 1021 O Street, Suite 9000 Sacramento, CA 95814 or call (916) 445-2841.
SACRAMENTO, CA — In a stirring and impassioned announcement before his congregation last week, Pastor Jack Hibbs of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills (a congregation of over 10,000) issued an urgent call to action for Californians: mark your calendars and make your way to Sacramento on Tuesday, August 19th for a rally and lobby day opposing Assembly Bill 495, a bill critics say obliterates parental rights and creates legal loopholes making child kidnapping easy.
“I have to tell you, if this bill passes, I am going to ask you to leave the state of California,” Pastor Hibbs declared from the pulpit. “You got to get out. You got to run with your kids. You got to go.”
The bill is the first piece of legislation authored by newly elected Assemblywoman Celeste Rodriguez (D–San Fernando). She sold AB 495 as a “compassionate” solution for children of detained immigrant parents. But opponents warn the measure does far more, and far worse, than what its title suggests.
The Threat of AB 495: A Legal Loophole for Kidnapping?
The “Family Preparedness Plan Act of 2025” would allow unrelated adults, broadly defined as an “adult caregiver” with a “mentoring relationship with the child” to assume custody-like control over a child through a one-page Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit. No court appearance. No notarization. No parental consent or notification. No background check. No verification of identity required.
“Presto, someone walks away with your child,” warned attorney and president of Our Duty-USA Erin Friday, who called AB 495 “a child trafficker’s and kidnapper’s dream bill.”
“California wants to let someone that is not related to your child remove her from school, enroll her in any other school in the state, authorize any medical treatment of her, including mental health services and drugs, without the parents’ notice and knowledge or consent. This is not fear-mongering. I’m not being hyperbolic,” she said. “These unintended consequences are terrifying, and they are unavoidable.”
Even medical decisions, including psychiatric drug prescriptions and sex-trait modification procedures, could be authorized by these unvetted adults without the knowledge or consent of the child’s parents.
August 19th Rally: Mobilizing for Parental Rights
Real Impact and Capitol Resource Institute have pulled together a coalition of parental rights advocates, legal experts, pastors, and concerned citizens, to hold the “NO on AB 495 Rally and Lobby Day” featuring Pastor Hibbs as keynote speaker. Other speakers include best-selling author and speaker Heidi St. John and Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council, with more speakers to be announced soon.
“I’m going to ask all of you to drive, bus, fly, I don’t care how you get there,” Hibbs told his church. “We’re looking for a minimum of 5000 people to be there that day.”
Schedule – Tuesday, August 19, 2025
1:00 PM PT – Rally Begins (West Steps of Capitol, 1315 10th Street, Sacramento)
2:00 PM PT – Lobby Training
2:30 PM PT – Legislative Office Visits
This isn’t the first time Hibbs has rallied thousands to the Capitol. A previous event back in 2022 drew nearly 2000 people to the Capitol to protest a bill to legalize infanticide. Organizers hope to top that turnout this time.
A State in Crisis
Hibbs’ warning is dire, and he isn’t mincing words. “I would not subject my child to one second in this public school system with this new law, AB 495,” he thundered.
California Family Council agrees the bill is incredibly dangerous. “AB 495 is a grave threat to the God-given responsibility of parents to raise and protect their children,” said Greg Burt, CFC’s Vice President. “It undermines every safeguard we have in place for child welfare and does so in the name of compassion. But compassion without guardrails is not mercy, it is madness.”
A Biblical Call to Courage
Pastor Hibbs was clear: this is a line in the sand.
“If you have kids in the state of California and this passes, you gotta go,” he said. “Your child’s safety is number one in your life, and I don’t care if you like the weather, and I never thought that day would ever come when I would encourage you to leave.
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.
SACRAMENTO, CA — The California legislature continues to disregard the rights of parents and ignore their religious beliefs regarding their children with the introduction of AB 1084, a bill that expedites the process for changing a person’s name and sex on official documents—including birth certificates and marriage licenses—based on “gender identity” rather than biological reality.
While author Assemblyman Rick Zbur (D-Beverly Hills) says the bill is a necessary response to efforts making it “harder for transgender people to live safely and openly as their authentic selves,” it is in fact a profound assault on both truth and parental rights. AB 1084 is not just another procedural update. “Not only does it further legitimize the false idea that sex is a choice,” said Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council. “But it’s designed to sideline the very people God has charged with the care and guidance of children: their parents.”
Biological Reality Can’t Be Legislated Away
A person cannot change their sex. Sex is not “assigned at birth”—it is observed and recorded. It is an immutable, biological reality encoded in every cell of our bodies. It is not up for revision with a court order or a fill-in-the-blank on a government form.
But AB 1084 expedites this legal fiction, compelling courts to issue approval for name and sex changes to reflect not biological sex, but subjective gender identity within two weeks.
The Real Target: Parental Authority
While the entire premise of the bill is flawed, its most egregious offense is against parents.
AB 1084 claims to honor parental rights by requiring both living parents to approve a minor’s request to change their name and sex on legal documents. But this is a bait and switch. If one parent objects, the court will only consider the objection valid if it demonstrates “good cause.” And what is explicitly not good cause? Belief in biological sex.
You read that right. Under AB 1084, a court must disregard a parent’s objection if it is based on the belief that their child’s proposed gender identity does not align with their biological sex. In other words, if you believe—scientifically, morally, or religiously—that sex is binary and unchangeable, your views are disqualified from legal consideration. Here is how the text of the bill explains it: “(D) A hearing date shall not be set in the proceeding unless an objection is timely filed and shows good cause for opposing the name change. Objections based solely on concerns that the proposed change is not the petitioner’s actual gender identity or gender assigned at birth shall not constitute good cause.”
This isn’t just bad policy. It’s discriminatory, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.
A Constitutional Crisis
The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court declared: “The child is not the mere creature of the state.” And in Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Court reaffirmed that “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children… is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”
Yet AB 1084 places the state as arbiter of a child’s identity over and above the rights of parents. It effectively says: “Parents, you can raise your child—unless your views clash with state-endorsed gender ideology.”
This is an ideological test for parental rights. And it must be resisted.
A Slippery and Dangerous Precedent
Once the state arrogates to itself the power to nullify parental objections rooted in deeply held religious or biological convictions, where does it stop?
Will it override a parent’s objection to irreversible medical procedures?
Will it compel schools to keep secrets from parents about their children’s gender identity?
Will it use the denial of “affirmation” as grounds to remove children from their homes
A False Solution to Real Pain
The advocates of AB 1084 claim that this bill is about protecting transgender and nonbinary individuals from discrimination. But true compassion never requires us to lie. A government that redefines reality to affirm feelings is not protecting anyone—it’s merely swapping one kind of harm for another.
Children, especially minors struggling with gender confusion, need truth, not affirmation of delusion. They need wise, loving guidance—especially from parents, not judges. By empowering minors to legally alter their identity with minimal pushback, California encourages life-altering decisions without adequate reflection or maturity.
And these changes are not harmless. Once legal documents are changed, it can set off a domino effect leading to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries—often before a child’s brain is even fully developed.
What Must Be Done
California Family Council stands firmly opposed to AB 1084 and any law that undermines biological truth and parental authority. We urge the legislature to reject this bill and call on citizens to raise their voices in protest.
We are also calling on constitutional lawyers and religious liberty advocates to prepare challenges to this legislation should it pass. It will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny—and it certainly will not stand the test of time.
Bill Status
This bill has already passed the Assembly Judiciary and Health Committees and now sits in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File. On May 23 the committee will announce its decision on whether the bill progresses to the full Assembly for a vote.
About California Family Council
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.
2025 Greater Bay Area District Attorney Summit attendees. Source: Diana Becton for District Attorney
Elected District Attorneys and senior prosecutors from across the Bay, Northern California
By Bobbi Mauler, Executive Assistant, Contra Costa District Attorney
Area and beyond gathered in Contra Costa County for the 2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit. The all-day, invitational summit brought together leaders to collaborate on legal strategies and share innovations that address some of the most urgent challenges facing the criminal justice system. Now in its third year, the summit has become a critical regional forum since its inception in Santa Clara County in 2022 and continuing in Napa County in 2023. The 2025 summit took place on May 16th at the Veterans Memorial Center in Lafayette.
Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton opened the summit with welcoming remarks that set the tone for the day’s discussions. In her address, DA Becton emphasized the importance of cross-jurisdictional partnerships and proactive approaches to public safety:
“The Greater Bay Area Summit has proven itself to be a constructive gathering where elected DAs from the Bay Area and beyond can share ideas, engage in robust discussions, and find practical solutions to increase public safety in the communities we serve. By coming together, we strengthen our collective ability to adapt to emerging technologies and respond to evolving criminal trends.”
Following her remarks, a series of expert-led panels explored timely and complex topics, including:
• The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology in Criminal Prosecution
• Proposition 36 Implementation
• Emerging Challenges with Race-Blind Charging
• Legal Strategies in Combating Organized Retail Theft
Under District Attorney Becton’s leadership, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office
has remained at the forefront of innovation, equity, and public safety. Hosting the summit further
reinforced her office’s role as a convener on issues that demand both legal insight and community engagement.
The 2025 Greater Bay Area District Attorney’s Summit was attended by the elected District Attorneys from the following counties:
Diana Becton, District Attorney of Contra Costa County
Lori Frugoli, District Attorney of Marin County
Ron Freitas, District Attorney of San Joaquin County
Allison Haley, District Attorney of Napa County
Thien Ho, District Attorney of Sacramento County
Brooke Jenkins, District Attorney of San Francisco County
Ursula Jones Dickson, District Attorney of Alameda County
Jeannine Pacioni, District Attorney of Monterey County
Jeff Reisig, District Attorney of Yolo County
Carla Rodriguez, District Attorney of Sonoma County
Jeffrey Rosen, District Attorney of Santa Clara County
Steve Wagstaffe, District Attorney of San Mateo County
In a post on her campaign Facebook page, Becton wrote about the Summit, “What an exciting day! I was honored to invite and host 12 elected Distrist Attorneys and senior prosecutors from across the Bay Area and beyond as we gathered in Contra Costa County for the 2025 Greater Bay Area DA Summit.
The all-day, invitational summit brought together leaders to collaborate on legal strategies and share innovations that address some of the most urgent challenges facing the criminal justice system.”
