Bill to ban 'surveillance pricing' gears up

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Happy Monday and welcome back to Capitol Confidential!

By the end of this week, we will be a significant step closer to the end of the legislative session.

But Friday is a long way from today, as several last-minute deals must clear fiscal committee hearings. On Thursday, the Senate and Assembly will hold their suspense file hearings — arguably one of the most stressful, opaque and consequential processes in the Legislature. We will bring you a run-down on which key bills made it through and which bills died first thing Friday morning.

Until then, here’s what to know about some of the legislative issues we’re following.

An Assembly bill targeting companies’ ability to use individualized consumer information to determine prices is pitting the state’s most influential labor and business interest groups against each other.

AB2564, written by Assembly Member Chris Ward, D-San Diego, would ban companies in the state from using the practice of “surveillance pricing,” defined in the bill as setting different prices for consumers based on their digital information.

Supporters, which include co-author Assembly Member Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, and the California Labor Federation, say this can include collecting personal data, such as where consumers live, work and their purchasing habits.

“They’re using what they know about you, who you are, where you frequent, how much you spend, where your location is to be able to modulate the price so that every person in California might be paying a different price for the exact same thing,” Ward said at a Capitol news conference last week.

Along with the California Labor Federation, AB2564 is also sponsored by Consumer Reports and TechEquity.

The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill, claiming it will increase costs for businesses and consumers, and said it could place limits on the ability of companies to offer discounts and promotions.

Other business and industry groups in opposition include TechNet and the Chamber of Progress.

The bill’s next stop is the Senate floor, its projected cost not high enough to get caught in the appropriations process.

In a report released last week, the California State Auditor found several community college districts have massive reserves — and no clear plans for how they will be spent on students.

The audit, requested through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee in 2025 by Sen. Bob Archuleta, D-Pico Rivera, looked at six of the state’s 73 community college districts.

Auditors discovered that four of the districts had reserve funds that exceeded their own targets or the state median for districts without explicit savings goals, and lacked “clear spending plans that would improve student outcomes.” Antelope Valley, Kern, Mt. San Jacinto and San Francisco community college districts all had tens of millions of dollars in unbudgeted reserve funds.

The State Auditor report recommended the Legislature direct districts to disclose reserves in their budgets and provide explanations as to why they either fall short on district-set reserve levels or exceed them. The report also recommended the Chancellor’s Office better monitor districts’ reserve fund policies and regularly monitor increases in reserves.

On the subject of community college audits, a bipartisan bill by Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, is moving through the Legislature. SB308 would move the district’s established audit reporting duties from the Board of Governors to the Chancellor’s Office. A news release from Seyarto’s office said the bill is designed to streamline and modernize the reporting process.

Backers of the controversial Proposition 39 ballot measure, led by Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, took two blows last week in the legal battle over how the Voter ID measure is described to voters.

The November ballot measure would require voters to bring a driver’s license, passport or other identification papers to the polls each time they vote, or else include the last four digits of their Social Security number or other unique government ID on a mailed ballot. Over the past several weeks, backers of the measure led by DeMaio have clashed with Attorney General Rob Bonta and Democratic lawmakers over the way the measure is described to Californians in voter materials.

In all ballot measures, it is the job of the attorney general to write the ballot title and summary, which appear in the state voter information guide. For some California voters, it could be the most they read about a ballot measure before casting their vote.

As the Chronicle’s Bob Egelko reported, a tentative ruling on Thursday by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shellyanne Chang dealt the first blow. In a decision that sided with Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, the judge criticized language promoted by the measure’s backers, including claims Prop 39 would make voting “easier.”

In response, Michael Columbo, an attorney for the sponsors of Prop 39, accepted the changes and agreed to change the language in the measure.

In a second decision on a related court case over the proposition’s language on Thursday, Superior Court Judge Jennifer Rockwell ruled that Bonta was within his legal rights to rewrite the ballot measure’s language — something DeMaio and other backers had disputed.

Bonta’s office ordered the measure title rewritten to say that it “prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.” It had previously read: “Establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements.”

DeMaio did not indicate he would appeal either ruling, Egelko reported, but issued a statement after the hearings denouncing “liberal judges” for giving in to “California’s corrupt politicians.”

Rivas said the court decision reaffirmed his view that Prop 39 “isn’t about election security or fair elections — the real goal of the MAGA activists who wrote Prop 39 is to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

Today is the deadline for ballots and voter guide information language to be tweaked before going to print.

If you’re in the market for a new vehicle and thinking about electric, a new state program to provide select rebates could knock off a portion of the price.

Gov. Gavin Newsom rolled out the “My First EV” program in the East Bay on Friday, which provides incentives for first-time buyers of electric cars.

It provides $3,500 off new electric vehicles with a sticker price of up to $50,000, or $1,750 off used electric vehicles costing up to $25,000.

The program was established by a budget trailer bill, SB168, which Newsom signed into law last month. It established a $135.5 million fund for the program, which features equal contributions in rebate amounts from participating automakers.

Hyundai, Lucid and Tesla are the first to participate in the program. The governor’s office says several more will follow in the coming months, including Ford, Chevrolet, Honda and Subaru.

Questions? Thoughts? Interesting tidbits to share? Reach out at [email protected], and follow me on X, @KathrynPlmr.