---
title: "United States – California — Authorities & Enforcement | Global AI Monitor"
canonical: https://artificial-intelligence.gi/jurisdictions/united-states-california/authorities-and-enforcement/
source_html: /jurisdictions/united-states-california/authorities-and-enforcement/index.html
description: "United States – California — Authorities & Enforcement: 10 Authorities & Enforcement Active Under review ▾ # AB 2013 - Generative AI training data transparency (Applies since 2026-01-01): Requires developers of publicly available genera"
generated_at: 2026-10-25T22:24:54Z
content_sha256: 6e47ec46e0d62fae119a6be1bfa0860672c27dea3cd5abd6bacb2e118b50c310
generator: "fe-fleet/md-twin@1.0"
---
# United States – California — Authorities & Enforcement | Global AI Monitor

### 10Authorities & EnforcementActive Derived: Probable▾#

AB 2013 - Generative AI training data transparency (Applies since 2026-01-01): Requires developers of publicly available generative AI systems to post documentation about training data on their websites on or before January 1, 2026 and on each new or substantially modified release; under challenge in X.AI v.

11 instruments · 7 obligations · 47 claims · Next: 1 Jan 2027 (Department of Technology first annual recommendations on frontier definitions due)

11 instruments (11 current) · 7 obligations · 47 claims · 6 milestones

Instruments

- AB 2013 - Generative AI training data transparency Applies since 2026-01-01Requires developers of publicly available generative AI systems to post documentation about training data on their websites on or before January 1, 2026 and on each new or substantially modified release; under challenge in X.AI v. Bonta.Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified 8 Oct 2026
- AB 2655 - Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024 (enjoined as to X Corp. and Rumble) Adopted 2024-09-17; valid from 2025-01-01Requires large online platforms to block or label materially deceptive election content in specified periods and provide reporting procedures. On 2025-08-20 the Eastern District of California declared it preempted by 47 U.S.C. section 230 as applied to X Corp. and Rumble and permanently enjoined enforcement against them; the statute remains on the books.Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified 8 Oct 2026 · [Official text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2655)
- AB 2839 - Elections: deceptive media in advertisements (2024; enjoined as to named plaintiffs) In force since 2024-09-17Urgency statute adding Elections Code section 20012 (120-day pre-election ban on malicious distribution of materially deceptive election content). On 2025-08-29 the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment to the plaintiff in Kohls v. Bonta and permanently enjoined enforcement against the named plaintiffs; AB 502 (2026) later amended section 20012.Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified 8 Oct 2026 · [Official text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2839)
- AB 325 - Cartwright Act: common pricing algorithms Adopted 2025-10-06; valid from 2026-01-01Adds Business and Professions Code section 16729 making it unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm as part of a restraint of trade, or to coerce adoption of its recommended prices; adds a plausibility pleading standard for Cartwright Act complaints.Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified 8 Oct 2026 · [Official text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB325)
- Attorney General Legal Advisory on the Application of Existing California Laws to Artificial Intelligence Published 2025-01-13Attorney General advisory of 13 January 2025 stating that the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, competition, civil rights and privacy laws apply to AI developers, deployers and users, including liability for supplying AI products known or likely to be used to violate the law. A companion advisory covers health care.Regulatory expectation · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified 8 Oct 2026 · [Official text](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Legal%20Advisory%20-%20Application%20of%20Existing%20CA%20Laws%20to%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf)
- California AI Transparency Act (SB 942), as amended In force since 2025-01-01Requires covered generative AI providers to offer a free verification tool and embed latent disclosures in AI-generated image, video and audio content; operative August 2, 2026 after AB 853 delayed it and then amended by SB 1000 and AB 2713.Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified 8 Oct 2026
- Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence Adopted 2025-12-11; entry into force not recordedFederal executive order directing a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws and Commerce to evaluate them; does not itself preempt state law and is binding on federal agencies only.Binding · Authority: U.S. Department of Justice - AI Litigation Task Force, U.S. Department of Commerce · Verified 8 Oct 2026 · [Official text](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/)
- FTC proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (implied preemption of state laws requiring deceptive outputs) Draft, no legal forceProposed FTC policy statement under EO 14365 section 7 asserting that section 5 bars deceptive AI outputs even where a state law requires them and that state law is impliedly preempted to the extent it conflicts; names California only in a quoted fact-sheet footnote. Comments closed 31 July 2026; no final statement found.Authority: U.S. Federal Trade Commission · Verified 8 Oct 2026 · [Official text](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/07/07/2026-13628.html)
- Proposed initiative 25-0034A1 - Regulates certain large AI companies (California AI Safety Commission) Draft, no legal forceProposed initiative statute that would create a seven-member California AI Safety Commission requiring safety plans and pre-notification of capability expansions from certain large AI companies; cleared for signature collection on 2026-02-04 and not on the 2026-06-25 certified ballot list.Authority: California Secretary of State · Verified 8 Oct 2026 · [Official text](https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2026-news-releases-and-advisories/proposed-initiative-enters-circulation-regulates-certain-large-artificial-intelligence-ai-companies-initiative-statute)
- SB 1000 - CAITA amendments (covered-provider threshold removed, disclosure verification tool) In force since 2026-09-30Deletes the 1,000,000-user threshold from the covered-provider definition, renames the detection tool a disclosure verification tool, drops the manifest-disclosure option and takes effect immediately as an urgency statute.Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified 8 Oct 2026
- Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53) In force since 2026-01-01Requires large frontier developers to publish and follow a frontier AI framework, publish transparency reports, and report critical safety incidents to Cal OES, with Attorney General civil penalties up to $1,000,000 per violation.Binding · Authority: California Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General · Verified 8 Oct 2026 · [Official text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=8.&title=&part=&chapter=25.1.&article=)

Obligations

- Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.4.1Violation of the platform-provenance prohibition in section 22757.3(d) is subject to a $50,000 civil penalty per violation recoverable by the AG, a city attorney or county counsel.prohibition · Applies to: other · SB 1000 - CAITA amendments (covered-provider threshold removed, disclosure verification tool)
- EO 14365 Sec. 3The Attorney General must establish within 30 days an AI Litigation Task Force whose sole responsibility is to challenge state AI laws inconsistent with the Order's policy.other · Applies to: other · Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
- EO 14365 Sec. 4The Secretary of Commerce must publish within 90 days an evaluation of existing state AI laws identifying onerous laws.documentation · Applies to: other · Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 16729(a)-(b)A person may not use or distribute a common pricing algorithm (a methodology used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to influence price or commercial terms) as part of a restraint of trade, and may not coerce another person to adopt its recommended prices or commercial terms.prohibition · Applies to: other · AB 325 - Cartwright Act: common pricing algorithms
- Elec. Code Div. 20, Ch. 7 (§ 20510 et seq.)A large online platform must develop and implement procedures to identify and remove, and to label, reported materially deceptive election content in specified periods around a California election. Enjoined as applied to X Corp. and Rumble.other · Applies to: other · AB 2655 - Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024 (enjoined as to X Corp. and Rumble)
- Elec. Code § 20012 (as added by AB 2839)A person, committee or entity may not knowingly distribute, with malice, an election advertisement or communication containing materially deceptive content within 120 days before an election (and in specified cases 60 days after), subject to exemptions. Enjoined as to the named plaintiffs in Kohls v. Bonta.prohibition · Applies to: other · AB 2839 - Elections: deceptive media in advertisements (2024; enjoined as to named plaintiffs)
- Proposed policy statement, request for commentsThe FTC invited public comments on the proposed statement until 31 July 2026; the statement itself imposes no obligation on businesses.other · Applies to: other · FTC proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (implied preemption of state laws requiring deceptive outputs)

Milestones

- 1 Jan 2026First AB 2013 training-data documentation due MetAB 2013 - Generative AI training data transparency
- 9 Jan 2026DOJ AI Litigation Task Force established by Attorney General memorandum MetExecutive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
- 11 Mar 2026 (conditional)Commerce evaluation of state AI laws due (90 days from EO; two secondary commentaries say it had not been published; no primary document found) Status not recordedExecutive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence
- 31 Jul 2026Comment period on the proposed FTC AI policy statement closes MetFTC proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (implied preemption of state laws requiring deceptive outputs)
- 2 Aug 2026CAITA operative (delayed from 2026-01-01 by AB 853) MetCalifornia AI Transparency Act (SB 942), as amended
- 1 Jan 2027Department of Technology first annual recommendations on frontier definitions due UpcomingTransparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53)

Claims and evidence (47)
- Derived: Probable Civil penalty does not exceed $1,000,000 per violation.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Div. 8 Ch. 25.1 (Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, SB 53) - codified text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=8.&title=&part=&chapter=25.1.&article=) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15(a)-(b)shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) per violation. (b) A civil penalty described in this section shall be recovered in a civil action brought only by the Attorney General.

- Civil penalties under SB 53 are recoverable only in a civil action brought by the Attorney General.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Div. 8 Ch. 25.1 (Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, SB 53) - codified text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=8.&title=&part=&chapter=25.1.&article=) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.15(a)-(b)shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount dependent upon the severity of the violation that does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) per violation. (b) A civil penalty described in this section shall be recovered in a civil action brought only by the Attorney General.

- Derived: Probable Civil penalty of $5,000 per violation, with each day a discrete violation.Confidence: Probable · As of 2 Aug 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Div. 8 Ch. 25 (California AI Transparency Act, SB 942) - codified text as displayed (pre-AB 853 version)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=8.&title=&part=&chapter=25.&article=) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.4(a)(1)shall be liable for a civil penalty in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation to be collected in a civil action filed by the Attorney General, a city attorney, or a county counsel.

- Derived: Probable Violators of section 22757.3(d) face $50,000 per violation.Confidence: Probable · As of 30 Sep 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[SB 1000 (Becker), Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.`xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1000) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.4.1(a)(1)A violator of subdivision (d) of Section 22757.3 shall be liable for a civil penalty in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) per violation

- The date of Ninth Circuit oral argument in X.AI LLC v. Bonta is disputed between November 18, 2026 (CAIDP notice) and July 16, 2026 (law-firm article).Confidence: Disputed · As of 18 Nov 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[CAIDP - Training Data Transparency (AB 2013) case page](https://www.caidp.org/cases/training-data-transparency/) T3 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · News bannerNOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT *on Wednesday, November 18, 2026 - 09:30 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena CA*
- [Law Office of Shanen R. Prout - AI training data transparency: AB 2013 and xAI v. Bonta explained (2026-09-03)](https://srplawyer.com/2026/09/03/challenges-to-californias-attempt-to-regulate-ai-training-data-transparency-what-x-ai-v-bonta-means-for-californias-ab-2013/) T4 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Opening paragraphOn July 16, 2026, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in *X.AI LLC v. Bonta*, No. 26-1591

- Tom Kemp is Executive Director of CalPrivacy.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[About CalPrivacy (CPPA)](https://cppa.ca.gov/about_us/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · About CalPrivacy, opening paragraphThe California Privacy Rights Act established a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to implement and enforce the law.

- Kevin Kish is quoted as Civil Rights Department Director.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[Civil Rights Council secures approval for regulations on employment discrimination related to AI (2025-06-30)](https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/2025/06/30/civil-rights-council-secures-approval-for-regulations-to-protect-against-employment-discrimination-related-to-artificial-intelligence/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Press release quotationsaid Civil Rights Department Director Kevin Kish.

- Rob Bonta is California Attorney General.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[AG Bonta launches investigation into xAI and Grok (2026-01-14)](https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-launches-investigation-xai-grok-over-undressed-sexual-ai) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Press release openingCalifornia Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced opening an investigation into the proliferation of nonconsensual sexually explicit material produced using Grok, an AI model developed by xAI.

- Caroline Thomas Jacobs is listed as Cal OES Director.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[Cal OES - Office of the Director](https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the-director/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Office of the Director page### Caroline Thomas Jacobs Director ### Vacant Chief Deputy Director ### Ian Bastek Chief Deputy Director

- Gavin Newsom is Governor.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[Governor Newsom signs more AI worker protections and other bills (2026-09-30)](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/30/californias-nation-leading-ai-framework-just-got-stronger-governor-newsom-signs-more-first-in-the-nation-worker-protections-and-more/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Press release leadGovernor Gavin Newsom is continuing to cement California's AI safety framework by signing new laws to protect workers and consumers

- Derived: Probable Private plaintiffs recover the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation; no statutory ceiling.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Div. 8 Ch. 22.6 (Companion Chatbots, SB 243) - codified text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&division=8.&title=&part=&chapter=22.6.&article=) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22605(b)Damages in an amount equal to the greater of actual damages or one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation.

- Derived: Probable Up to $5,000 per affected child (negligent) and $15,000 per affected child (intentional).Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidencedEvidence and sources[SB 1119 (Padilla), Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1119) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 21816(a)(1)(A)-(B)A civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per affected child for each negligent violation. (B) A civil penalty of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per affected child for each intentional violation.

- Derived: Probable The Attorney General and public prosecutors enforce SB 1119 (injunctive relief by the Attorney General only), and harmed children have a private right of action.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidencedEvidence and sources[SB 1119 (Padilla), Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1119) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 21816(a)(1)(A)-(B)A civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per affected child for each negligent violation. (B) A civil penalty of not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per affected child for each intentional violation.
- [SB 1119 (Padilla), Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1119) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 21816(b)(1)A child who suffers an actual harm as a result of a violation of paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (d) of Section 21812, or a parent or guardian acting on behalf of that child, may bring a civil action against the operator

- Derived: Probable Up to $5,000 for an initial violation and $10,000 for each subsequent violation.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 1609 (Zbur), Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1609) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22628(b)A large private business that violates this chapter shall be liable for a civil penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for an initial violation, and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.

- Derived: Probable Public prosecutors enforce the customer service chatbot requirements.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 1609 (Zbur), Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1609) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 22628(b)A large private business that violates this chapter shall be liable for a civil penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for an initial violation, and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.

- Derived: Probable The Government Operations Agency administers the independent verification organization framework.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidencedEvidence and sources[SB 813 (McNerney), Chapter 179, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB813) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Gov. Code § 8898.1On or before January 1, 2028, the agency shall do all of the following:

- Derived: Probable Civil penalty of $500 per violation.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jul 2027 · evidencedEvidence and sources[SB 947 (McNerney), Chapter 859, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB947) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Lab. Code § 1526.1(e)An employer who violates this part shall be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) per violation.

- The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce the automated decision system provisions.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jul 2027 · evidencedEvidence and sources[SB 947 (McNerney), Chapter 859, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB947) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Lab. Code § 1526.1(a)The Labor Commissioner may enforce this part, including investigating an alleged violation

- Derived: Probable Penalty of up to $500 for each violation.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2027 · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 1883 (Bryan), Chapter 853, Statutes of 2026 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1883) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Lab. Code § 1582(d)(1)an employer who violates this part may be subject to a penalty of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation.

- Violations of AB 489 are enforced by the relevant health care professional licensing board or enforcement agency.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 489 (Bonta), Chapter 615, Statutes of 2025 - chaptered text](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB489) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 4999.9(a)(1)A violation of this chapter is subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate health care professional licensing board or enforcement agency.

- The California Privacy Protection Agency enforces the ADMT regulations.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[About CalPrivacy (CPPA)](https://cppa.ca.gov/about_us/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · About CalPrivacy, opening paragraphThe California Privacy Rights Act established a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to implement and enforce the law.

- Derived: Probable CalPrivacy may impose an administrative fine of up to $2,500 per violation, or $7,500 per intentional violation, for CCPA violations the ADMT regulations implement.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 as amended (CalPrivacy statutory text)](https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/cppa_act.pdf) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Civ. Code § 1798.155(a)Any business, service provider, contractor, or other person that violates this title shall be liable for an administrative fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars
- [California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 as amended (CalPrivacy statutory text)](https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/cppa_act.pdf) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Civ. Code § 1798.155(a)($2,500) for each violation or seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for each intentional violation

- Derived: Probable The Attorney General may recover civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, or $7,500 per intentional violation, under the CCPA title.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Cal. Civil Code section 1798.199.90 - Attorney General civil penalties under the CCPA](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1798.199.90.) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Civ. Code § 1798.199.90(a)shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for each violation or seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for each intentional violation
- [Cal. Civil Code section 1798.199.90 - Attorney General civil penalties under the CCPA](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1798.199.90.) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Civ. Code § 1798.199.90(a)which shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General.

- Executive Order 14365 was issued December 11, 2025.Confidence: Probable · As of 11 Dec 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (2025-12-11)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · HeaderENSURING A NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Executive Orders December 11, 2025 Executive Order 14365

- Binding on federal officials; directs, but does not itself effect, preemption of state AI laws.Confidence: Probable · As of 11 Dec 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (2025-12-11)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · EO 14365 Sec. 3Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order
- [Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (2025-12-11)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · EO 14365 Sec. 4Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary's authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b)

- The Attorney General must establish within 30 days an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws, and Commerce must publish within 90 days an evaluation identifying onerous state AI laws.Confidence: Probable · As of 11 Dec 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (2025-12-11)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · EO 14365 Sec. 3Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order
- [Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (2025-12-11)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · EO 14365 Sec. 4Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary's authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b)

- Derived: Probable EO 14365 directs federal action against state AI laws, including California laws, without itself preempting them.Confidence: Probable · As of 11 Dec 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (2025-12-11)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · EO 14365 Sec. 3Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order
- [Executive Order 14365 - Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (2025-12-11)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · EO 14365 Sec. 4Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary's authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b)

- A proposed initiative creating a California AI Safety Commission was cleared to circulate for signatures on February 4, 2026.Confidence: Probable · As of 4 Feb 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Secretary of State - proposed initiative enters circulation: regulates certain large AI companies (PR26-20, 2026-02-05)](https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2026-news-releases-and-advisories/proposed-initiative-enters-circulation-regulates-certain-large-artificial-intelligence-ai-companies-initiative-statute) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Official title and summaryCreates new state agency, the California AI Safety Commission, comprised of seven appointed members with specified expertise, to regulate companies that develop or control advanced AI systems and meet other specified criteria.
- [Secretary of State - proposed initiative enters circulation: regulates certain large AI companies (PR26-20, 2026-02-05)](https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2026-news-releases-and-advisories/proposed-initiative-enters-circulation-regulates-certain-large-artificial-intelligence-ai-companies-initiative-statute) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Press release openingannounced that the proponent of a new initiative was cleared to begin collecting petition signatures on February 4, 2026.

- The measure has no force; it is not among the 14 measures the Secretary of State certified for the November 3, 2026 ballot on June 25, 2026.Confidence: Probable · As of 25 Jun 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Secretary of State - proposed initiative enters circulation: regulates certain large AI companies (PR26-20, 2026-02-05)](https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2026-news-releases-and-advisories/proposed-initiative-enters-circulation-regulates-certain-large-artificial-intelligence-ai-companies-initiative-statute) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Official title and summaryCreates new state agency, the California AI Safety Commission, comprised of seven appointed members with specified expertise, to regulate companies that develop or control advanced AI systems and meet other specified criteria.
- [Secretary of State - measures certified for the November 3, 2026 General Election ballot](https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2026-news-releases-and-advisories/california-secretary-state-shirley-n-weber-phd-certifies-measures-november-3-2026-general-election-ballot) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Press release PR26-96 openingannounced that 14 measures have qualified for the November 3, 2026, General Election ballot.

- Cleared to begin collecting petition signatures on 2026-02-04.Confidence: Probable · As of 4 Feb 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Secretary of State - proposed initiative enters circulation: regulates certain large AI companies (PR26-20, 2026-02-05)](https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2026-news-releases-and-advisories/proposed-initiative-enters-circulation-regulates-certain-large-artificial-intelligence-ai-companies-initiative-statute) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Press release openingannounced that the proponent of a new initiative was cleared to begin collecting petition signatures on February 4, 2026.

- Derived: Probable Cartwright Act violations carry corporate fines up to $6,000,000 or the gain-based amount if greater, and private plaintiffs may recover three times their damages.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 16755 - Cartwright Act criminal penalties](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=16755.) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 16755(a)(1)by a fine of not more than six million dollars ($6,000,000) or the applicable amount under paragraph (3), whichever is greater.
- [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 16750 - Cartwright Act civil remedies](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=16750.) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750(a)to recover three times the damages sustained by him or her

- The Attorney General enforces the Cartwright Act alongside private plaintiffs; AB 325 lowers the pleading threshold for complaints.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 325 chaptered bill text (Stats. 2025, Ch. 338) - leginfo billNavClient](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB325) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Bus. & Prof. Code § 16756.1in a complaint for any violation of this chapter, it is sufficient to contain factual allegations demonstrating that the existence of a contract, combination in the form of a trust, or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce is plausible

- Derived: Probable Statutory damages rise to $50,000, or $250,000 for a malicious violation, and public attorneys may sue.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 621 chaptered bill text (Stats. 2025, Ch. 673) - leginfo billNavClient](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB621) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Legislative Counsel's DigestThis bill would increase the maximum statutory damages available to a depicted individual to $50,000 if the violation was not malicious and $250,000 for a malicious violation and would authorize certain public attorneys to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions

- Derived: Probable The Attorney General may recover civil penalties of up to $2,500 per affected child for negligent and $7,500 per affected child for intentional violations.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 1043 chaptered bill text (Stats. 2025, Ch. 675) - leginfo billNavClient](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Civ. Code § 1798.503shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation
- [AB 1043 chaptered bill text (Stats. 2025, Ch. 675) - leginfo billNavClient](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Civ. Code § 1798.503which shall be assessed and recovered only in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General

- The Attorney General enforces the Digital Age Assurance Act in a civil action.Confidence: Probable · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 1043 chaptered bill text (Stats. 2025, Ch. 675) - leginfo billNavClient](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Civ. Code § 1798.503which shall be assessed and recovered only in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General

- The Fair Political Practices Commission administers and implements the Political Reform Act, including section 84514.Confidence: Probable · As of 1 Jan 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[AB 2355 chaptered bill text (Stats. 2024, Ch. 260) - leginfo billNavClient](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2355) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Legislative Counsel's DigestThe Fair Political Practices Commission is charged with administering and implementing the act

- Derived: Probable On 2025-08-20 the Eastern District of California entered judgment declaring AB 2655 preempted by section 230 as applied to X Corp. and Rumble and permanently enjoining its enforcement against them.Confidence: Uncertain · As of 20 Aug 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Kohls v. Bonta, E.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-02527, Filing 98 - Order and Final Judgment (2025-08-20)](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2:2024cv02527/453046/98) T2 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Filing 98 docket textDECLARING that AB 2655 violates and is preempted by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), § 230(c)(2)(B), and § 230(e)(3), as-applied to X Corp. and Rumble; and PERMANENTLY ENJOINING Defendants from enforcing AB 2655, in its entirety, against X Corp. and Rumble.

- Derived: Probable On 2025-08-29 the Eastern District of California permanently enjoined enforcement of AB 2839 against the named plaintiffs in Kohls v. Bonta.Confidence: Uncertain · As of 29 Aug 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Kohls v. Bonta, E.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-02527, Filing 101 (order of 2025-08-29) - Justia docket](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2:2024cv02527/453046/101) T2 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Filing 101 docket textDefendants Rob Bonta and Shirley N. Weber and their agents, employees, public servants, officers and persons acting in concert with them are HEREBY PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing AB 2839 against the named Plaintiffs.

- The Attorney General issued a legal advisory on AI and existing California law on January 13, 2025.Confidence: Probable · As of 13 Jan 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[AG Bonta issues legal advisories on the application of California law to AI (2025-01-13)](https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-legal-advisories-application-california-law-ai) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Press release datelineJanuary 13, 2025 Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov
- [California Attorney General - Legal Advisory on the Application of Existing California Laws to Artificial Intelligence](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Legal%20Advisory%20-%20Application%20of%20Existing%20CA%20Laws%20to%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Advisory, introductionfall squarely within the purview of the Unfair Competition Law, and developers, entities that use AI, and end-users of AI systems should be aware that traditional consumer legal protections apply equally in the AI context.

- The advisory states the Attorney General's view of existing law; it is guidance, not a new rule.Confidence: Probable · As of 13 Jan 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[California Attorney General - Legal Advisory on the Application of Existing California Laws to Artificial Intelligence](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Legal%20Advisory%20-%20Application%20of%20Existing%20CA%20Laws%20to%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Advisory, introductionfall squarely within the purview of the Unfair Competition Law, and developers, entities that use AI, and end-users of AI systems should be aware that traditional consumer legal protections apply equally in the AI context.

- The Attorney General states that the Unfair Competition Law applies equally to AI and that suppliers may be liable if they know or should know their AI will be used unlawfully.Confidence: Probable · As of 13 Jan 2025 · evidencedEvidence and sources[California Attorney General - Legal Advisory on the Application of Existing California Laws to Artificial Intelligence](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Legal%20Advisory%20-%20Application%20of%20Existing%20CA%20Laws%20to%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Advisory, introductionfall squarely within the purview of the Unfair Competition Law, and developers, entities that use AI, and end-users of AI systems should be aware that traditional consumer legal protections apply equally in the AI context.
- [California Attorney General - Legal Advisory on the Application of Existing California Laws to Artificial Intelligence](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Legal%20Advisory%20-%20Application%20of%20Existing%20CA%20Laws%20to%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Advisory, section on the Unfair Competition Lawknow, or should have known, that AI will be used to violate the law.

- The FTC proposed an AI policy statement in a Federal Register document filed on July 6, 2026.Confidence: Probable · As of 7 Jul 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Federal Trade Commission - proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (Federal Register, FR Doc. 2026-13628)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/07/07/2026-13628.html) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Federal Register headerACTION: Proposed policy statement; request for comments.
- [Federal Trade Commission - proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (Federal Register, FR Doc. 2026-13628)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/07/07/2026-13628.html) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · End of document[FR Doc. 2026-13628 Filed 7-6-26; 8:45 am]

- The statement is proposed and a policy statement has no force of law.Confidence: Probable · As of 7 Jul 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Federal Trade Commission - proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (Federal Register, FR Doc. 2026-13628)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/07/07/2026-13628.html) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Federal Register headerACTION: Proposed policy statement; request for comments.
- [Federal Trade Commission - proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (Federal Register, FR Doc. 2026-13628)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/07/07/2026-13628.html) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Supplementary Information, section IAlthough the FTC Act does not expressly preempt State law, State law is impliedly preempted to the extent it conflicts with a Federal regulatory scheme.

- The proposed statement asserts implied preemption of conflicting state law and that section 5 applies even when deception is used to comply with state law.Confidence: Probable · As of 7 Jul 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Federal Trade Commission - proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (Federal Register, FR Doc. 2026-13628)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/07/07/2026-13628.html) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Supplementary Information, section IAlthough the FTC Act does not expressly preempt State law, State law is impliedly preempted to the extent it conflicts with a Federal regulatory scheme.
- [Federal Trade Commission - proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (Federal Register, FR Doc. 2026-13628)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/07/07/2026-13628.html) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Supplementary Information, section IThese prohibitions apply even when a company engages in a deceptive act or practice in order to comply with a State law.

- Derived: Probable The proposed statement targets state laws requiring altered AI outputs; California appears only in a quoted footnote and no California statute is named.Confidence: Probable · As of 7 Jul 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Federal Trade Commission - proposed policy statement on AI and section 5 (Federal Register, FR Doc. 2026-13628)](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2026/07/07/2026-13628.html) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Footnote quoting the AI National Policy Fact Sheet("States such as California and Colorado are considering requiring AI companies to censor outputs and insert left-wing ideology in their programming.").

- Derived: Probable A platform failing to comply may face FTC civil penalties of $53,088 per violation.Confidence: Confirmed · As of 19 May 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Public Law 119-12 - TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146), U.S. Government Publishing Office](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ12/html/PLAW-119publ12.htm) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Sec. 3(b)(1)A failure to reasonably comply with the notice and takedown obligations under subsection (a) shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act
- [FTC business guidance - Complying with the Take It Down Act (May 2026)](https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/complying-take-it-down-act) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · FTC guidancePlatforms that violate the law may face FTC enforcement that could result in civil penalties of $53,088 per violation.

- The Federal Trade Commission enforces the notice and takedown obligations as a violation of an FTC rule.Confidence: Probable · As of 19 May 2026 · evidencedEvidence and sources[Public Law 119-12 - TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146), U.S. Government Publishing Office](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ12/html/PLAW-119publ12.htm) T1 · retrieved · retrieved 8 Oct 2026 · Sec. 3(b)(1)A failure to reasonably comply with the notice and takedown obligations under subsection (a) shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or a deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act

Open evidence