Technology-related legislation took up a significant portion of the 1,017 bills signed and 189 vetoed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over the past month.
The tech-friendly governor often acts as a check on his fellow Democrats in the legislature when they want to regulate the tech industry. He does not hesitate to veto bills he thinks go too far. At the same time, he has shown a willingness to sign tech regulation if he thinks it will not stifle innovation.
The regular legislative session wrapped up at the end of August, and Newsom had until the end of September to sign off on or reject them.
We already covered Newsom signing protections for youth vloggers, for minors on social media, and for actors and performers whose likeness could be stolen using artificial intelligence, as well as his signing of several other AI-related bills aimed at setting up some of the technology’s first guardrails. We also reported on his veto of one of the most closely watched AI regulation proposals of the year.
Here is a look at the fate of more than a half-dozen other tech-related measures:
Signed
Neuro rights: Following Colorado’s lead, California is the second state to enact privacy protections for brain waves. It’s the next frontier in privacy rights, as wearable tech that can capture a person’s neurological activity hits the market.
A report this year by the Neurorights Foundation, a cosponsor of the bill, found that 29 of 30 companies surveyed had virtually unlimited access to customer neural data and could share that information with third parties. Many of the companies developing this technology are based in California, including some of the biggest names in tech.
Privacy rights activists worry that companies could eventually interpret a person’s neuro data and monetize it. The technology to translate a person’s thoughts into words on a computer screen already exists.
The California protections authored by Sen. Josh Becker (D) amend the state’s data privacy act to include neural data as a category of protected sensitive personal information. The bill, which industry groups opposed, was passed unanimously.
Read more: Q&A: California Sen. Josh Becker, sponsor of neural privacy legislation
“This new law in California will make the lives of consumers safer while sending a clear signal to the fast-growing neurotechnology industry there are high expectations that companies will provide robust protections for mental privacy of consumers,” Jared Genser, general counsel for the Neurorights Foundation.
Social media: There has been hand wringing and a U.S. surgeon general warning about the effect of social media on kids: Is it making them more depressed? Anxious? Prone to self-harm?
California lawmakers want to get to the bottom of that with a new law that will require the Department of Public Health to produce a report by Dec. 21, 2026, that examines how much good or harm social media is doing and makes recommendations to address any negative consequences.
The bill’s author, Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D), said the report will provide California with a “game plan” to address the well-being of youth as it relates to social media use.
Lowenthal also had a bill this year to fine social media companies up to $1 million for harms to children, but he shelved it after the Senate watered it down.
Another bill, by Sen. Tom Umberg (D), aims to address fentanyl sales via social media by requiring that platforms with more than 1 million monthly users establish a dedicated phone line for law enforcement to contact them. The law also mandates that large social media sites comply within 72 hours with a search warrant in most instances.
“We have a collective responsibility as a society to care for our citizens – and that includes social media companies,” Umberg said in a statement. “They simply must be more active and communicative with law enforcement if it means preventing subsequent overdose deaths.”
The bill had widespread support from law enforcement but was opposed by the tech industry and the ACLU.
Cyberbullying: A Lowenthal-authored law will require that, beginning in 2026, large social media platforms establish a system by which “verified reporters” such as school principals and mental health professionals can report online threats.
Sponsored by the Organization for Social Media Safety, the legislation mandates that social media companies respond within 72 hours when a “verified reporter” submits information about threatening online content. The timeline shrinks to 24 hours if the threat is deemed severe.
Examples of threats include content that promotes or incites suicide, cyberbullying or substance abuse.
“By creating a verified reporter process, California can enable its trusted professionals, with their expert, experienced judgment, to alert social media platforms to impending, severe risks facing children,” the Organization for Social Media said.
Vetoes
Advertising opt-out: Existing California law allows consumers to send a browser signal to online businesses to not sell or share their information. A Lowenthal-authored bill would have made it easier for consumers to broadcast that message widely as they surfed the internet by requiring web browsers and mobile operating systems to include a tool allowing consumers to send an opt-out preference signal to all websites they encounter.
Some of the smaller browsers already offer this, but the big players such as Apple’s Safari, Google’s Chrome and Microsoft’s Edge do not.
California’s privacy agency sponsored the bill. In a veto message, Newsom said he was concerned about placing the mandate on operating system developers who do not currently have an option for an opt-out signal. “It’s best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators,” he said.
The veto came as a disappointment to the bill’s backers including Consumer Reports, which helped develop an opt-out browser plug-in known as the Global Privacy Control.
“Ultimately, industry worked overtime to squash this bill, as it empowered Californians to better protect their privacy, undermining the commercial surveillance business model of these tech companies,” Matt Schwartz, a policy analyst at Consumer Reports said in a statement.
Self-driving vehicles: For the second year in a row, Newsom vetoed a Teamsters-backed bill to require a human driver in the cab of all self-driving trucks.
In his veto letter, Newsom said the bill’s authors had rejected “multiple rounds” of suggested amendments. He also said California’s Department of Motor Vehicles is developing draft regulations that he called “the nation’s most comprehensive standards for heavy-duty autonomous vehicles.” California does not currently allow autonomous trucks on the roads.
Newsom also vetoed a second autonomous vehicle bill that would have required AV companies to report accidents and other incidents to the DMV. Newsom said he supported the intent of the bill, but that the timeline for implementation was not feasible and the DMV’s current draft regulations “address many of the concerns raised in this bill.”
The Teamsters said the vetoes ignored the will of the people while benefiting “a handful of billionaires in the tech industry.”
“This is one battle in a long war to protect working people, and it’s just getting started,” a Teamsters statement said.
Newsom did sign a bill allowing police officers to issue a “notice of noncompliance” to driverless vehicles for moving violations and to require improved communications between AV operators and emergency responders in the event of an incident. The bill responds to issues that have arisen in San Francisco. The Teamsters criticized the final bill as weak tea.
Speed limiters: Speeding is a factor in nearly a third of traffic fatalities. A bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D) would have required that, starting in 2030, automakers equip new cars, trucks and buses with technology to alert the driver if they exceed the posted speed limit by 10 mph or more.
So-called passive intelligent speed assistance systems are already standard on many new cars and required in Europe. But industry groups opposed the bill, and Newsom was not sold on making California the first state to mandate the technology.
He vetoed the bill on the grounds that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is already evaluating the technology and passing a California requirement “would create a patchwork of regulations that undermines this longstanding federal framework.”