You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 6/10/2025 2:39:05 AM
From:" Grooming Disabled"
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] The queer mafia is nowgrooming the Disabled Attachment: say_no_to_groomers.pdf;IMG_20250609_214004963_AE~2.jpg; Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Hello, here is an excellent reason to oppose " LGBTQXYZ month". It leads to indoctrination and grooming of vulnerable populations including those with severe disabilities who cannot advocate for themselves.
This is currently happening at Clarvida Wellness Center in nearby Orange, 401 S Tustin Street. They are cancelling essential group therapy to promote the queer agenda. They even lied to the County, which funds their programs by submitting a fake calendar they had no intention of adhering to. Once the calendar was approved by County personnel, Clarvida Wellness rolled out the rainbow carpet while pulling out the rug from underneath the feet of the most vulnerable.
Attached is a hard copy of the original calendar too.
They never got approval from the County for their bait-and- switch, so we would appreciate it you would send emails to support those of us who got burned in this dumpster fire.
Learn more here https://docs.google. com/document/ d/1PLOBHWEvb0uAqTyA9U51jmTJYDoHD2eyaGRUwPTMwtc/ edit?usp=drivesdk Tab 1
CALL TO ACTION
HELP SAVE THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
FROM GROOMERS
WHAT: FORCED “PRIDE” ACTIVITY AT WELLNESS CENTER IN ORANGE 401 S Tustin Str, Orange – per OC district maps this is in OC Supervisor Vince Sarmiento’s District
BY WHOM: CLARVIDA – Virginia -based nonprofit operating under authority of the BoS WHO HAS OVERSIGHT County of OC Continuum of Care & its various Committees please review all links & screenshot ! its highly likely the Wellness Centers will pull the calendars offline OR make “fake changes” outwardly but continue the event as planned at time of writing WELLNESS CENTER CENTRAL still has it advertised Even more intriguing is they claim its only for 90 minutes – still 90 minutes too long but see sample letter for why this is a gross underestimate of the actual time members will be deprived of actual wellness focus activities. 552bbcaf88d2586aeb1edbebac6b13e7
here’s wellness center SOUTH’s calendar which is more transparent – they say the Wellness Ctr Tustin event is til 4:30 so 3 and a half hours
https://www.wellnesscentersouth. org/calendar/
please do NOT contact Clarvida directly – they have obviously approved the event as described and are unlikely to budge, plus it could cause retaliation against Members if Clarvida staff thinks they know who might be behind this please do NOT contact Supervisor Sarmiento as he’s equally unlikely to budge – see his record of voting of these types of issues
rather: contact the ENTIRE Board of Supervisors, if they get enough emails they can collectively bring a vote to address this at the BoS meeting. please send emails to [email protected] by 8am Tuesday– no need to show up in person ! click here Board of Supervisors Meeting Agendas | Orange County Board of Supervisors
an immediate way to bring this to the attention of the FUNDING SOURCE, OCHCA The OC Continuum of Care Policies, Procedures and Standards committee meets THIS Tuesday, at 3pm. Agenda Packet_Final 25.06.10 PPS Committee.pdf You could : come in person and comment OR send an email 24 hours ahead of time zoom comments are not permitted
Members of the public may also submit public comment by emailing [email protected]. All comments submitted via email at least 24 hours before the start of the meeting will be distributed to the PPS Committee members and all comments will be added to the administrative records of the meeting.
Please include “PPS Committee Meeting Comment” in the email subject line 3rd option: go straight to those who micro-manage the care of the Disabled in OC NOTE: may take longer to resolve than emailing comments to the addresses listed above, but can try cc’ing the following OC Health Care Agency heads Adult FSP Coordination Office at 714-850-8402
Annette Mugrditchian, LCSW
Director, Adult & Older Adult Behavioral Health Services [email protected]
Jenny Hudson, LCSW
Division Manager, Adult & Older Adult Behavioral Health Services [email protected]
Chi Lam, LCSW
Program Manager II, Adult & Older Adult Behavioral Health Services [email protected]
NOTE not all Wellness Center Staff look happy and pleased at having to pose under the vulgar rainbow. It looks like every employee had to pose.
The pic below can be seen here at this link Orange County Wellness Center calendar of events
If some staff feel uncomfortable and ill at ease what does that say about the dynamics of management and their concern for employees ? What about the “ wellness” of employees who maybe did not want to be associated with this? clearly not all are down with the propaganda?
4th option : in person Behavioral Health Advisory Committee click this here link for deets Agenda & Minutes | Orange County California - Health Care Agency Wednesday June 11th at 9 am because the next meeting will be after the 20th and therefore too late to apply pressure to cancel the June 20th abomination Public Comments for Wednesday’ s Behavioral Health Advisory meeting should be sent asap to ocbhab@ochca. com.
please direct questions to kperez@ocha. com
WHY ONLY PRIDE JEWELRY?
UPDATE JUNE 6thin re the Creating Together Art class: Members informed us today the *real* reason there is no Open Art is because Art Sessions are now geared towards “pride-themed” creations
UPDATE JUNE 9thin re the calendar originally submitted to and approved by the County of Orange staff: it did include the Trauma Recovery Group.
After the calendar was approved, the Wellness Center staff made unauthorized changes. As a reminder, all Wellness Center staff are employed by Clarvida, but the approval and oversight comes from the County.
A copy of the original calendar originally put out May 30this attached separately so you can see the differences.
There is no option in the alternative on June 20th.
While its true that the calendar claims “if you would like to participate”, there are no other activities if one does NOT desire to participate – and therein lies the crux of the problem. It’s not “optional” if there are no other choices. There is also not the possibility to opt out of jewelry making and art class which are both “pride” centric all month long.
It is obvious this event will not end at 2 or even 2:30 pm. Also, the level of intense preparation for the event, including distribution of free catered food means staff will be occupied and unable to run classes as early as 10:30 am.
June 20thIS IS AN ALL-DAY EVENT
It is particularly noteworthy that the ONE single Wellness Center that is operated, staff and managed by County employees is not having any “ pride” themed or related events.
Their Calendar can be seen here its WHOLESOME and everyone is included and nobody has to feel unsafe or worried about being groomed June 2025 Calendar - Wellness Center West
THE WELLNESS CENTER WEST IN GARDEN GROVE IS THE
ONLY ONE OF THE 3 IN THE COUNTY NOT MANAGED BY
CLARVIDA, BUT CLARVIDA IS USING COUNTy $ TO FUND THEIR
ACTIVITIES INCLUDING THE ENTIRE MONTH OF JUNE 2025
The Manager of Wellness Center West in Garden Grove is Ms Carolina Narvaez and she seems to be doing a great job ! SAMPLE LETTER – feel free to edit according to preference To Whom it May Concern,
It has come to my attention that members of the Wellness Center Central in Orange are being forced to participate in “Pride” celebration and regularly scheduled groups are being cancelled.
Members are also told to come make jewelry for “pride” all month long.
Many members are DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED to various degrees, and thus especially vulnerable to grooming. A significant minority of members of the Wellness Center are not allowed to obtain a driver’s license from the State of Ca or open a bank account due to some of them having mild- to-moderate mental retardation. Many are under full or partial conservatorship. These are not adults who can “ just say no”
Even those members who are able to make everyday adult decisions for themselves should not be forced into participation by default nor should they have to forfeit crucial classes that are cancelled due to the pride” celebration. The times on the calendar are not accurate. Just because something has a “ start time” does not mean there are other options before and after.
By way of example: last week’s Member Carnival, which began at noon, members started lining up by 10:30 am for free food and staff was busy signing members in and assisting with the food truck. That left no staff to run classes, and the event did not end until well after 4 pm, with regular activities resuming around 5 pm.
Itis also unethical to lure Wellness Center members – many of whom are food insecure - into this event with free catered food. Enticing participation by offering a free meal is targeted promotion of the homosexual/ transexual/ pansexual agenda to vulnerable persons. 401 S Tustin Street in Orange is technically COUNTY PROPERTY and in 2023 the OC BoS voted to BAN “pride” flags from county buildings. The Wellness Center is situated in a compound where literally ALL other buildings are county owned and operated and that cater to Disabled and Mentally or Behaviorally challenged populations, who are in need of care centric services that enhance their well being.
I am writing this letter out of goodwill and compassion for those whose voices are left unheard and whose safety is being recklessly disregarded. I am especially concerned about survivors of Sexual Assault, Child Sex Abuse and Human Trafficking.
Will the County take responsibility for harassment against those who disagree with the “pride celebration” as well in situations where innocent persons are groped or sexually harassed as is so common at these types of pride-themed events ?
To protect the vulnerable members, I ask you move the pride event off site and cease inducing or coercing members to participate in “pride” themed activitiesTheir safety should take first priority over displays of sexual vulgarity.
Sincerely Yours [ Name, Address or email handle and / or phone # for contact ] PRIDE” is a Partisan, Political “Social Justice” issue. Per Clarvida’s own website political themed events ARE NOT PERMITTED to be put on by staff. Such events are certainly not even allowed at County owned, operated or contracted Health facilities.
The “ pride” flag was banned from County property in 2023.
If Wellness Center allows this event, they will also have to allow Free Palestine, Free the October 7th hostages, Free the Ukraine, and practically every other Socio-Political issue from every side of the spectrum.
Interestingly, “MAGA” clothing is prohibited at Clarvida Wellness Centers and Christian themed clothing that pushes back against “pride” is also prohibited eg “Reclaim the Rainbow”, even though the latter statement is not inherently offensive to anyone except queer activists
Clarvida Wellness Centers did not observe Easter or Christmas. They do celebrate cultural heritage with ethnic monthly observances for Asia, Hispanic Heritage and Black Heritage month, but no ethnic themed event is inherently offensive, because one can not choose one’s Racial or genetic makeup.
There is not one single shred of evidence of a “homosexual gene”, so comparing “pride” to ethnic heritage makes no sense. There IS, however an alcoholic gene, and genetic qualities that make one predisposed to drug addiction. There are no celebrations for alcoholics or drug abusers, even though scientifically these groups are least likely to choose their condition. And the comparison with “pride” to racial makeup is bogus.
As one Black Pastor famously said: “Don’t compare your SIN to my SKIN”
From: Bobby Ol ea <
Se nt: Tue sday, June 10, 2025 9:30 AM
To: Natal ie Rubal cava < NRubal cava@anahe im. ne t>; Ji m Vanderpool < JV anderpool @anaheim. ne t>; Kri ste n Maahs < KMaahs@anahe im. ne t>; Norma C. Kurtz < NKurtz@anahe im. ne t>; Carlos A. Le on <CLe on@anaheim. net>; Ashleigh Ai tke n <AAi tke n@anahe im. ne t>; Natal ie Me eks N Me eks@anahe im. ne t>; The resa Bass < TBass@anaheim. net> Subje ct: [ EXTERN AL]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
I apply for the library board.
Date: 5/30/2025 5:16:58 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] California is a lousy State to live in,Democrats yukkk Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 5/30/2025 8:25: 32 PM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Workers breaking into my Hotel Room Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 5/31/2025 6:18: 20 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] # TEN COMANDMENTTS
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 5/31/2025 6:54: 10 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] # You don't know the BIBLE , NOT OF THIS WORLD NOW Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 5/31/2025 10:58:43 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Rotten peoples at Hotels I stay
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/1/2025 11:16:07 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Panhandling is against the Law
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unle ss you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/2/2025 7:26: 29 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] # it's too late, walk away you know how Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/2/2025 7:45:56 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] # Hate to a REAL AMERICAN
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/3/2025 4:51: 44 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] # Todd Spitzer!!!!
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/3/2025 6:37:06 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] # I don't Disrespect Women Dude' s
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/3/2025 9:48: 08 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Deported
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message .
Date: 6/3/2025 11: 53: 02 AM
From:" Rube n Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expe cting the message.
Date: 6/3/2025 8:29: 17 PM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Spying and stocking, privacy act , against my constitutional Rights, privacy act Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/4/2025 12:51:38 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Revenge to Anaheim Downtown Disneyland Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/4/2025 6:38: 55 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] $$$$$ Who' s Inappropriate?
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/4/2025 9:59: 25 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL]
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message .
Date: 6/5/2025 7:33:51 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] #$!? Some Men have all the Luck,only if you fight for Ladies rights ChaCha that' s ME Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/5/2025 8:12: 35 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] Guatemalans breaking into my house stealing my stuff with my ex-wife she don't deserve to be a Soto
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/5/2025 9:06: 40 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] You been exposed men the way you talk about woman Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/6/2025 7:16: 15 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Men hate woman even your mother right boys Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you re cognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/6/2025 10:01:03 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Orange County credit Union liars Fullerton PD bulletin liars public defenders District attorneys liars Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/6/2025 1:38: 24 PM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Punk , sick police and men and Christian churches in California Warning: This email originate d from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/6/2025 4:37: 53 PM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] ungrate ful Americans and non-americans in my country USA Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 5/30/2025 1:47: 04 PM
From:" Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea@mail8. housecommunications. gov To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Honoring my neighbors in Orange County.
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Hello,
This week, I was back in Orange County celebrating our community and honoring those who gave their lives to defend our freedom. I started the week at Anaheim Cemetery paying respect to the fallen heroes who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom. I also celebrated the incredible accomplishments of Orange County students and I also worked with my neighbors to create more greenspace. As I continue to bring your voice to the halls of Congress. I'd like to show you what I’ve been working on.
RE MEMBERING OUR NATIO N'S HEROE S
I spent Memorial day at the Anaheim Cemetery, paying respect to the service men and women who gave their lives to keep us safe. I have spent my career honoring those brave Americans who selflessly fought to defend liberty and justice for all. Memorial Day reminds us that freedom isn’t free–some paid the ultimate price. We remember them, we thank them, and we carry their legacy forward.
Con gressman Correa join ed the Anaheim VFW Post 3173 and American Legion Post 72 to commemorate the fallen service members of our nation on Memorial Day at the Anaheim Cemetery.
SPOT LIG HTING ORANG E COUNTY SCHO OLS
This month marks the end of the year for schools across Orange County. I spent the week congratulating our graduates and celebrating the accomplishments of our students. Whether it be middle school promotion, high school graduation, or beyond, this transition is an exciting step towards the future. Congratulations to all of the students, parents, and teachers who worked so hard to achieve this milestone!
Congressman Correa delivered remarks in honor of Middle College High’s class of 2025
STOPPING BY THE ST RAWBE RRY FESTIVAL
I joined my neighbors at the kickoff of the Strawberry Festival Celebration by serving all who attended strawberry shortcake! We kept the party going at the parade, where I was honored to join my son, Adan, and countless other constituents who call our community home. Did you know this year marks the 65th anniversary of the Strawberry Festival? It celebrates our district’ s strawberry growing heritage!
Congressman Correa joined in the celebration kicking off the 65th Strawberry Festival, where delicious strawberry shortcake was served to all during opening day.
WORKING WIT H MY NEIG HBORS TO PRESERVE GRE EN SPACE S
I also had the privilege of sitting down with my neighbors to share updat es on the Santiago Creek project following my recent tour of the creek. I was joined by leaders from the Army Corps of Engineers, Orange County Public Works ( OCPW) representatives, Orange County Water District OCWD), locally elected officials, and representatives from Congresswoman Young Kim’s office to visit portions of the creek which included the Santiago Basins and Channel that run from the I-5 Freew ay to the Santa Ana River. We are all proud to live in beautiful Santa Ana and I will keep working with my community to save our trees and protect our precious greenspaces.
Congressman Correa joined his neighbors to discuss ways to keep Santiago Creek green As always, I am committed to serving you, advocating for issues that mat ter to our community, and connecting you to important resources. If you are experiencing any issues with a federal agency, my office is here to help. Give us a call at (714) 559- 6190.
Sincerely,
Rep. Lou Correa
Member of Congress
Sign up for my newsletter to get updates on this issue and others! Sign Up!
Visit my website to learn more!
correa. house. gov
Contact Me
Washington D.C.
2082 Rayburn House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202) 225- 2965
Santa Ana
Rancho Santiago
Community College Building
2323 N. Broadway, Suite 319
Santa Ana, CA 92706
714) 559- 6190
Flav out for now)
Un subscribe from futu re messages.
Date: 6/4/2025 1:39: 18 PM
From:" Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea@mail8. housecommunications. gov To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Should Congress help provide early childhood services? Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear neighbor,
I believe that every child should have resources they need to succeed. This includes making sure that children aged 0-5 receive child care, education, and medical care that will best prepare them for elementary school and beyond. Head Start is a federally funded program that provides services for young children including nutrition, health care, and child care. Eliminating this program would keep approximately 80,000 children across California from getting critical resources.
I am committed to fighting to ensure that our children have what they need to build successful futures. As we address this bipartisan effort in Congress, I want your opinion.
I WANT YOUR OPINION:
Should Congress continue to provide early childhood
services?
Yes
No
Taking this survey will sign you up for future news and updates from our office.
As I work with my colleagues in Congress to make housing more affordable, I will keep your thoughts in mind. My job is to bring your voice to Washington, and I want to continue hearing from you as Congress considers taking action.
Sincerely,
Rep. Lou Correa
Member of Congress
Sign up for my newsletter to get updates on this issue and others! Sign Up!
Visit my website to learn more!
correa. house. gov
Contact Me
Washington D.C.
1039 Longworth House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202) 225- 2965
Santa Ana
Rancho Santiago
Community College Building
2323 N. Broadway, Suite 319
Santa Ana, CA 92706
714) 559- 6190
Unsubscribe from future messages.
Date: 6/6/2025 12: 30: 05 PM
From:" Rep. Lou Correa" repcorrea@mail8. housecommunications. gov To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Fighting for Main Street
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Dear [ Mr./ Ms.] [Surname],
This week, I was in Orange County and Washington D.C., talking about how to low er costs for hardworking American taxpayers on Main Street. In Washington, I joined law makers and real estate professionals to talk about ways we can make it easier to buy a home, Istood up for affordable public higher education, introduced legislation to help prevent suicide among college students. I also joined my neighbors to discuss how Medicaid cuts will increase health care costs back home. As I continue to bring your voice to the halls of Congress, I'd like to show you what I’ve been working on.
MAKING HO ME OWNE RSHIP MO RE ACCE SSIBLE
This week, I met with real estate professionals, developers, brokers, and law makers, to discuss how we can make it easier for hard- working American taxpayers on Main Street to buy their first home.
Home ownership is a key way to build wealth and achieve the American dream, and too many Orange County residents feel that buying a house is out of reach. Making home ow nership more accessible means working on delivering good public policy that supports Americans on Main Street.
Congressman Correa sat down with lawmakers and real estate professionals about how to make homeownership a reality for more American s
FIG HT ING FOR AFFORDABLE HIGHER EDUCAT ION
This week, while my Republican colleagues were talking about the price of Ivy League education, I stood up for affordable public education. I attended Cal State Fullerton—the Harvard of the west coast— thanks to federally funded programs like the Pell Grant that helped me get my degree without paying a dime. Getting a good education is an important step to achieving the American Dream. I believe that our federal tax dollars should support programs that reduce the cost of public education for hard- working American taxpayers on Main Street.
Congressman Correa addressed the House Judiciary Committee about the need to make higher education more affordable
CO MBAT TING THE ME NTAL HEALT H CRISIS
This week I introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to help prevent suicide in young adults.
Currently, suicide is the second leading cause of death for college students. Adding suicide prevention information will ensure that at-risk students have support resources available. The Improving Mental Health Access for Students Act would require colleges and universities to provide contact information for the 988 Suicide and Crisic Lifeline, Crisis Text line, and an on-campus mental health center on student identification cards.
Congressman Correa’ s bill would require colleges and universities to provide contact information for the 988 Suicide an d Crisis Lifelin e, Crisis Text Line, and a campus mental health center on newly printed student identification cards.
MEET ING WIT H MAIN ST REET : ME DICAID CUT S
I also joined my neighbors to talk about how passing the so-called “ Big Beautiful Bill” would strip health care from thousands of hard-working taxpayers in Orange County. It would cut nearly $ 10 billion in California Medicaid funding, increase taxes, and drive up costs. Families depend on Medicaid and affordable health care in times of crisis. These drastic cuts mean put ting their lives at risk. I will keep fighting to ensure everyone can get the health care they need without breaking the bank.
Congressman Correa sat down with local stakeholders to discuss how poten tial Medicaid cuts would affect Orange County
As always, I am committed to serving you, advocating for issues that mat ter to our community, and connecting you to important resources. If you are experiencing any issues with a federal agency, my office is here to help. Give us a call at (714) 559- 6190.
Sincerely,
Rep. Lou Correa
Member of Congress
Sign up for my newsletter to get updates on this issue and others! Sign Up!
Visit my website to learn more!
correa. house. gov
Contact Me
Washington D.C.
2082 Rayburn House
Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202) 225-2965
Santa Ana
Rancho Santiago
Community College Building
2323 N. Broadway, Suite 319
Santa Ana, CA 92706
714) 559-6190
Flav out for now)
Un subscribe from futu re messages.
View in browser
Date: 6/3/2025 11:19:28 AM
From:" Craig ADurfey"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Fwd: Meet the AI Trailblazers Transforming Youth Wellbeing Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Forwarded message ---------
From: Project Liberty <hello@projectliberty. io>
Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 7:58 AM
Subject: Meet the AI Trailblazers Transforming Youth Wellbeing To: <
June 3rd, 2025 // Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up to receive your own copy here.
Meet the AI Trailblazers
Transforming Youth Wellbeing
When it comes to the frontier of AI development, Big Tech companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google get all of the attention.
But when it comes to responsible AI, nonprofits are at the forefront.
Those seeking best practices and pioneering examples of how organi zations are blending cutting- edge technology with human values and principles around data privacy and online safety need look no further than the growing movement of AIpowered nonprofits. These organizations aren’t just leading the conversati on, they’re applying innovative technologies to solve real-world problems.
In this newsletter, we focus on an emerging trend and uncover bright spots: how small but fast-growing nonprofits are leveraging AI to build a safer internet.
The Rise of AI Nonprofits
Fast Forward, a member of the Project Liberty Alliance, is a nonprofit that provides resources and funding to build the tech and AI-powered nonprofit sector.
Fast Forward hosts a nonprofit accelerator, which has supported over 100 mission-driven organizations that have improved the lives of more than 262 million people. In the past year, Fast Forward has observed a remarkable shift in the landscape of AI-powered nonprofits.
In a series of articles in Stanford’s Social Innovation Review last year, they reported seeing a 600% increase inAI-powered nonprofit applicants to their program compared to the year prior, with four major themes of how AI is deployed:
1. Structuring Data: Supercharging what humans can do with data.
2. Advising: Scaling human-to-human, high-touch experi ences.
3. Translating: Translating language and decoding information.
4. Platforms: AI infrastructure that equips nonprofits to deploy their own AI tools.
Kevin Barenblat, Fast Forward’s Co-Founder and President, said: “On average, nonprofits feel like they get the benefits of many new technologi es last.
But with AI, it's actually the nonprofits that are at the forefront of thinking about AI responsibly—from the way they think about their data and privacy and bias to the kinds of structures and guardrails they create.”
Kevin Barenblat, Fast Forward Co-Founder & President
Project Liberty teamed up with Fast Forward to interview the leaders of two AIpowered nonprofits in the youth mental health field. Below we highlight their stories and their models, exploring how ethical AI use can improve youth mental health.
Lenny Learning
Personal Story
Ting Gao, Co-founder and CEO of Lenny Learning, said that her entire life story has culminated in what Lenny does. Growing up, her brother had an undi agnosed and untreated mental illness. Despite being raised in the same home, they went on different paths, in part because he never got the right mental health resources at the right time. This idea of the right resources at the right time stuck with her.
Ting Gao, Co-Founder & CEO of Lenny Learning
After university, Gao was working on a startup with business partner Bryce Bjork.
In 2020, Bjork lost his brother to suicide. Gao and Bjork started incubating a project focused on mental health literacy—called Brain Health Bootcamp— through Bjork's family foundation. After two years of validating, piloting, and building, they went full-time and evolved the model into what would become Lenny Learning.
The Problem
The teachers, counselors, and administrators in a school system are on the frontlines in supporting the mental health of young people. The problem is they’re often underequipped and overwhelmed. Gao said that the average counselor-tostudent ratio in the United States is 1:385 (one counselor serves an average of 385 students). Meanwhile, 9/10 teachers don’t feel equipped to address mental health issues and respond effectively. These adults interact with students every day, but they often lack the right resources at the right time.
The Solution
Lenny is an AI-enabled behavioral health platform. It provides a toolkit of lessons, interventions, family engagement, and analytics that are aligned with proven research and best practices.
Teachers and counselors can log in to the platform and explain to the AI-powered system the issue or challenge they’re facing. Trained on a library of evidencebased methodologies, Lenny creates a set of personalized resources and tools for the educator. It delivers evidence- based lesson plans, creates targeted interventions, and assesses student needs.
The Model & Traction
Lenny is a nonprofit, but it sells access to its platform to school districts nationwide. It raises philanthropic funding to provide the platform to underresourced districts at no cost. It also offers free access to the platform for individual educators, allowing anyone to sign in and try it for free.
Lenny grew by 10x in 2024 alone. It is in 700 schools in every state, reaching over 300,000 students. Gao and Bjork' s vision is to be in every school in the country by 2030.
Koko
Personal Story
Dr. Rob Morris, the founder of Koko, has always been fascinated by psychology and the study of the mind. When he was pursuing his PhD at MIT focused on digital mental health, he found he was struggling with his own mental health. So he started to build a tool just for himself. “It was bespoke to me. If I could help myself, maybe I could build something that would help others, too,” he said. That was the genesis of Koko. Today, Koko has reached over 4,000,000 people by working with digital platforms to provide free, evidence-based mental health interventions.
The Problem
The results from a survey by the CDC in 2023 highlighted how we're in the midst of a youth mental health crisis in the United States.
One in three students experiences poor mental health most of the time.
One in three students has felt persistent sadness or hopelessness for 2 weeks or more during a 12-month period.
One in five students has seriously considered attempting suicide during a 12-month period.
One in 10 students has attempted suicide during a 12-month period.
Meanwhile, American teens ages 13-18 spend an average of 5.6 hours per day on their phones.
The Solution
The philosophy behind Koko is to be pragmatic. “ Idon't think it's realistic that we're going to shut these platforms down entirely,” Dr. Morris said. “You have to go where the millions of eyeballs already are.”
This means that Koko’ s tech adapts to the specific architecture of each social platform. If a user is searching for content on a social media platform that suggests they might need help (such as searching for pro-anorexi a content), Koko uses AI to work with the platform to suppress that content and redirect the user to evidence- based resources.
On Discord, the model is different. Over 24,000 Discord servers have installed Koko’ s AI bot, allowing Discord users on that server to chat with a Koko chatbot and get support.
On Instagram, users might come across a Koko video in their feed. When they click on the video, it opens a Whatsapp chat where users can interact with Koko resources.
On TikTok, Koko uses hundreds of thousands of dollars of ad credits provided by the platform to direct young people to mental health services.
The Future
Today, a young person completes an intervention via Koko every 90 seconds ( an intervention is considered an instance when a user completes a course, recei ves peer support, or is connected to a crisis line). Dr. Morris' s goal is to scale to a point where someone completes an intervention every second of every day. So far, users have completed 738,000 interventions. To scale, Koko is addi ng new platforms and expanding its work with university partners (it has completed multiple randomized control trials at MIT).
Building a Responsible Tech Ecosystem
One hallmark of a responsible AI company (nonprofit or otherwise) is their relationship to data—both in what they collect and what they don’t. In our conversations with Lenny Learning and Koko, what data they chose not to collect was indicative of their values around data privacy.
Lenny intentionally doesn’t collect any student data on its platform. They only interact with adult educators.
Koko’s data collection is minimal: The only data collected automatically is the social platform the user came from. Koko doesn’t know the IP address, username, or search history. Data privacy is just one of their ethical commitments.
Lenny and Koko are two of dozens of AI nonprofits in Fast Forward’ s portfolio and in the Project Liberty Alliance that are building a safer, better internet.
We’d love to hear from you. What organizations are at the forefront of responsi ble AI development? Who is responsibly using AI to build The People’ s Internet? Project Liberty updates
Project Liberty Institute is announcing a strategic partnership with VentureESG and ImpactVC at SuperVenture 2025 in Berlin this week.
Together, these networks of over 1,200 leading VCs and LPs are committed to integrating ESG principles and advancing responsible investment in data and AI.
The first joint initiative: a sector-wide survey to benchmark current practi ces and chart a path toward more accountable, resilient, and future- ready investment models. Learn more here.
Other notable headlines
A new law in Texas requires Apple and Google to verify ages for app downloads, giving parents more control over the apps that minors use, according to an article in the New York Times. (Paywall).
The AI browser wars are about to begin. Artificial intelligence is already writing an obituary for the internet as we know it. An article in The Platformer asks:
Why is everyone building new web browsers? (Free).
An article in The New Yorker explored the two paths forward for AI. The technology is complicated, but our choices are simple: we can remain passive, or assert control. (Paywall).
An article in Noema Magazine considered how Pope Leo can address distributive justice in the age of AI. (Free).
According to a new study, more than half of the top 100 mental health TikToks contain misinformation. An investigation by The Guardian reveals the promotion of dubious advice, questionable supplements, and quick-fix healing methods.
Free).
In a world first, Brazilians will soon be able to sell their digital data.
According to an article in Rest of World, Brazil is piloting dWallet, a project that lets citizens earn money from their data. (Free).
Partner news & opportunities
Negotiating a Future with AI and Us
June 9 | 6:30-9:00pm ET | Betaworks, New York, NY
Join thought leaders for an immersive evening at Betaworks examining how AI is reshaping our perceptions, work, and decision-making. This interactive event hosted by All Tech Is Human and Andus Labs invites partici pants to reflect, reorient, and envision a more human-centered technological future. Space is limited register here.
Vana Academy: Accelerator for Data-Driven Startups
Applications close June 4 (tomorrow!)
Today and tomorrow Vana is accepting their final applications for its 9-week accelerator focused on building businesses powered by human data. Parti cipants will learn to create DataDAOs— decentralized data organizations— with real user contributions, token models, and go-to-market strategies. Teams can earn up to 5,000 and pitch to top investors. Apply here.
Humanity Hardwired: A New Voice from an Early Ally
Omidyar Network, one of the Project Liberty Alliance’ s first partners, has launched Humanity Hardwired, a new monthly newsletter exploring the culture, governance, and business of tech with a human-first lens. This month’s edition covers the proposed federal ban on state AI laws, recent antitrust developments, and tips for working with employees to harness AI. Subscribe here.
What did you think of today's newsletter?
We'd love to hear your feedback and ideas. Reply to this emai l.
Project Liberty builds solutions that help people take back control of their lives in the digital age by reclaiming a voice, choice, and stake in a better internet.
Thank you for reading.
10 Hudson Yards, Fl 37,
New York, New York, 10001
Unsubscribe Manage Preferences
2025 Project Liberty LLC
Date: 6/3/2025 12:11:46 PM
From:" Michael Mavrovouniotis"
To:" Public Comment" [email protected]
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] CITYCOUNCIL, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
a)
We’ ve been saying the county animal shelter doesn’ t have enough Animal Care Attendants. The proposed county budget for FY 2025-2026 now states:
Add Seven Positions to Expand OC Animal Shelter Operating Hours”. Please ask OCAC to mak e sure that these positions will be Animal Care Attendants.
A big thank you to OC Supervisors Janet Nguyen and Vicente Sarmiento – and to the articulate op-ed contributors that documented the shortage in Animal Care Attendants: Jackie, Margot, Romina, and Karen. b)
In the recent California Journalism Awards, Voice of OC won first place in multiple categories in its Division ( on-line only publications).
In the Public Service category, Angelina Hicks won first place in her Division for her articles about the shelter. The award is listed as " Reopening OC’ s Animal Shelter”.
Voice of OC Recognized For General Excellence and Public Service By California News Publishers c)
Work remains to be done: The shelter’ s Strategic Plan. The plan should not be diluted, it should be implemented! You can revisit Teri Sforza’ s February article in the Register:
New plan for OC Animal Care: To boost survival, or dampen expectations? While you’ re at it, check out her coverage of the disappearanc e of hundreds of OC’ s small pets ( many of which, we found out later, were shipped to Arizona, and are likely to have met a grim fate).
Advoc ates horrified over mysterious fate of small animals Date: 6/6/2025 4:55:59 PM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] People get priority straight veterans are not loved Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/8/2025 8:05:30 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] America is going down if government don't get their head out of their ass Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/8/2025 8:23:05 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Black Panthers AKA black lives matter Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/8/2025 8:32: 52 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] PTSD that' s me! hidden wounds
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/8/2025 8:39: 28 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] A memory from Facebook
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
G
Date: 6/8/2025 8:47:57 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] #revenge is a badthing to do Christians Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/8/2025 9:00:44 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Kicked out downtown Disney
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/8/2025 10:23:48 AM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Predators in the prison system
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/8/2025 10:37:23 PM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Something good inOrange County
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/10/2025 1:06:27 PM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Hateful man that hate me that you can't be me vibrators Brea Mall Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/10/2025 1:38: 47 PM
From:" Ruben Soto"
To:
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] The real reason I got arrested April 18th 2025 Warning: This email originate d from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Date: 6/10/2025 2:36:44 PM
From:" durfeycraig778@gmail.
To:
Subject:[
EXTERNAL] PUBLIC COMMENT CALLING ASOCIAL MEDIA RESOLUTION TO RAISE AREWARENESS OF HARM FROM TO MUCH SCREENTIME.
Attachment:
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF HEAL TH.pdf;Resolution Addressing Social Media Use, Screen Time, and Youth.pdf;202520260AB2_Assembly Privacy And Consumer Protection.pdf;202520260AB2_Assembly Judiciary.pdf;202520260AB2_Assembly Floor Analysis.pdf; Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
P.R. D. D.C.)(
CHILDRENPARENTS PARENTS FOR THE RIGHTS OF DEVELELOPMENTALLY OPMENTAL LY DISABLEDED CHIL DREN CRAIG A. DURFEYEY FOUNDER FOUNDER OF P.R.D.D.C.
42P. P.O.BOX 200101 GARDEN GROVE, CA 92884 2
COMSOCIALEMOTIONALPAWS. SOCIAL EMOTIONALPAWS. COM
DURFEYFACEBOOK: FACEBOOK: CRAIG DURFEY
U ..S. HOUSE OU SE OF CONGRESS GRESS H2 40 4 - HONORING HONORING CRAIG DURFEYDURFEY FOROR HIS FIGHT IG HT AGAINST AGAINST AUTISM ... AU TISM ... Ms. ORETTALORETTA L SANCHEZSANCHEZ of Californ California. ia.
dfhttps:// https:// www. goovinfo. fo .gov/v/content/ co nte nt/pkg/ kg /CREC- 2003- 00 3-03-3-27/ 7/pdf/ df/CREC- 200 3-03-27.pdf new website orgsocialemotionalpaws. socialemotionalpaws. org SupervisorOrange Orange County Board of Supervisor
NorthCounty County Administration North
Drive400 400 W. Civic Center Drive
92701Santa Santa Ana, CA 92701
EducationOrange Orange County Board of Education
Drive200 200 Kalmus Drive
92626Costa Costa Mesa, CA 92626
4012Phone: Phone: 714- 966- 4012
1916Fax: Fax: 714- 432- 1916
usE- E-mail: contact@ocbe. us
CorreaCongressman Congressman Lou Correa
Building1127 1127 Longworth House Office Building
20515Washington, Washington, DC 20515
2415Phone: ( Phone: ( 202) 225- 2415
TranCongressman Congressman Derek Tran
Building2082 2082 Rayburn House Office Building
20515Washington, Washington, DC 20515
2965Phone: ( Phone: ( 202) 225- 2965
StricklandSenator Senator Tony Strickland
67301021 1021 O Street, Suite 6730
4900Sacramento, Sacramento, CA 95814- 4900
4036Phone: ( Phone: ( 916) 651- 4036
TaAssemblyman Assemblyman Tri Ta
21114361 14361 Beach Blvd Ste 211
92683Westminster, Westminster, CA 92683
0970Phone - Phone - 714- 379- 0970
StephanieMayor Mayor Stephanie
HallGarden Garden Grove City Hall
Parkway11222 11222 Acacia Parkway
92840Garden Garden Grove, CA 92840
StephanieDear Dear Mayor Stephanie
Request Request place as a agenized agenized proposal proposal RESOLUTION RESOLUTION ADDRESSING ADDRESSING SOCIAL MEDIA USE, SCREEN TIME,
HEALTHAND AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH
mediaWHEREAS, WHEREAS, according according to a recent survey one- third of all teens report being online and using social media almostplatforms " platforms " almost
andconstantly"; constantly"; 1 and
WHEREAS, WHEREAS, a 2023 U.S. Surgeon Surgeon General' General' s Advisory Advisory warned that while social media may offer benefits, benefits, growingthere there is growing
andevidence evidence of risks to youth mental health including including anxiety, anxiety, depression, depression, and reduced reduced quality quality of sleep; 2 and healthWHEREAS, WHEREAS, studies studies have found correlations correlations between between time spent on social media and mental health studyincluding including one study
onthat that found risk of anxiety anxiety and depression depression doubled doubled in youth that spent more than three hours daily on andsocial social media; 3 and
reportedWHEREAS, WHEREAS, adolescence adolescence represents represents a critical critical time in the brain development development and studies studies have reported maysocial social media may
andresult result in addictive addictive behavior, behavior, decreased decreased attention attention span, and lower test scores; scores; and inappropriateWHEREAS, WHEREAS, growing growing reports reports suggest suggest social media can expose youth to cyberbullying, cyberbullying, inappropriate heavilycontent, content, and heavily
andedited edited comparisons comparisons that can lead to eating disorders, disorders, body dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction, and suicidal suicidal ideation; ideation; 6 and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, evidence- evidence- based strategies strategies to reduce the risks of social media include include implementing implementing device- devicefree school policies, thesetting setting screen- screen- time limits at home, avoiding avoiding screens screens before bedtime, bedtime, and educating educating families families about the effectspsychological psychological effects
andof of social media; and
timeWHEREAS, WHEREAS, time spent on social media and screens screens decreases decreases time for exercise, exercise, sleep, in-person time andwith with friends, and
andother other activities activities that are thought thought to improve improve mental health and healthy healthy social development ( development ( for youth and adults).
https:// https:// www. orangecountync. orangecountync. gov/ DocumentCenter/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 31474/ Resolution- Resolution- Addressing- Addressing- Social- Social- Media- UseScreen- Screen- Time- and- Mental- Mental- Health_ Health_ Approved- Approved- 20250326_ 20250326_ For- Sharing? Sharing? bidId= LawsNew New Poll Reveals Reveals Strong Bipartisan Bipartisan Opposition Opposition to Proposed Proposed Ban on State AI Laws aboutPoll Poll from Common Sense Media and Echelon Echelon Insights Insights reveals reveals strong and bipartisan bipartisan concern concern about decadea a congressional congressional proposal proposal to ban state-level AI laws for the next decade theSAN SAN FRANCISCO, FRANCISCO, May 29, 2025 — Common Sense Media and Echelon Echelon Insights Insights today released released the findings findings of a new poll showing showing that Americans Americans across the political political spectrum spectrum strongly strongly aoppose oppose a passeddecade- decade-long ban on state AI safety laws included included in the budget reconciliation reconciliation bill narrowly narrowly passed by the House on May 22 and now being considered considered by the Senate. Senate.StrongNew New Poll Reveals Strong Bipartisan OppositionAIto to Proposed Ban AI
The key takeaways takeaways from the poll include: include:
andConcern Concern about the potential potential effects effects of AI — especially especially on kids and teens — teens — is widespread widespread and bipartisan.
highly93% 93% of voters — voters — including including 95% of Republicans — Republicans — are concerned concerned about kids being exposed exposed to highly sexualized AI-generated content online. onNine- Nine-in-ten (90%) worry about the effect of social media on kids and teens.
dangersSome Some 86% of voters prefer an approach approach that focuses focuses on protecting protecting kids and teens from dangers online, online, while only 7% prioritize prioritize an economicapproach approach that generally generally avoids regulation regulation in pursuit pursuit of economic growth and innovation. innovation.AINew New Poll Reveals Reveals Strong Bipartisan Bipartisan Opposition Opposition to Proposed Proposed Ban AI AND SocialSocial ResolutionMedia Media Resolution
OffCommerce Commerce Committee Committee Advances Advances Schatz- Schatz-Cruz Bipartisan Bipartisan Legislation Legislation To Keep Kids Safe, Healthy, Healthy, Off MediaSocial Social Media
ToKids Kids Off Social Media Act Sets Social Media Age Minimum Minimum To 13, Prohibits Prohibits Use Of Algorithms Algorithms To Feed Addictive Addictive Content Content To Teens Under 17.
OffToday, Today, the U.S. Senate Commerce, Commerce, Science, Science, and Transportation Transportation Committee Committee approved approved the Kids Off Social Media Act. Authored Authored by U.S. Senators Senators Brian Schatz ( Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), a senior themember member of the ChrisSenate Senate Commerce Commerce Committee, Committee, Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Texas), Chair of the Senate Commerce Commerce Committee, Committee, Chris mediaMurphy ( Murphy (D-Conn.), Conn.), and Katie Britt ( Britt (R-Ala.), the bipartisan bipartisan legislation legislation will keep kids off social media and help protect protect them from its harmful harmful impacts. impacts. 13To To do that, the bill would set a minimum minimum age of 13 to use social media platforms platforms and prevent prevent social media companies companies from feeding feeding algorithmically- algorithmicallythetargeted targeted content content to users under the age of 17. In addition addition to Schatz, Schatz, Cruz, Murphy, Murphy, and Britt, the Kids Off Social Media Act is cosponsored cosponsored by U.S. Senators Senators Peter Welch ( Welch (D-Vt.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), John Fetterman ( Fetterman ( D-Pa.), Angus King (I-Maine), Maine), Mark Warner ( Warner (D-Va.), and John Curtis ( Curtis (R-Utah).
There is no good reason for a nine-year-old to be on Instagram Instagram or Snapchat. Snapchat. The growing growing evidence evidence“ is clear: social media is making kids more depressed, depressed, more anxious, anxious, and techmore more suicidal. Yet tech urgentcompanies companies refuse to anything anything about it because because it would hurt their bottom line. This is an urgent Senatorhealth health crisis, crisis, and Congress Congress must act with the boldness boldness and urgency urgency it demands,” demands,” said Senator Schatz. “ Schatz. “ Protecting Protecting kids online is not a partisan partisan includesissue, issue, and our bipartisan bipartisan coalition – coalition – which includes countryseveral several parents parents of kids and teenagers – teenagers – represents represents the millions millions of parents parents across the country who’ve long been asking for help.”
conductedParents Parents overwhelmingly overwhelmingly support support the mission mission of the Kids Off Social Media Act. A survey conducted by Count on Mothers Mothers shows that overminimum90 90 percent percent of mothers mothers agree that there should be a minimum companiesage age of 13 for social media. Additionally, Additionally, 87 percent percent of mothers mothers agree that social media companies should not be allowed allowed to use personalized personalized recommendation recommendation systems systems to deliver deliver content content to children. children.
Pew parentsfinds finds similar similar levels of concern concern from parents, parents, reporting reporting that 70 percent percent or more of parents socialworry worry that their teens are being exposed exposed to explicit explicit content content or wasting wasting too much time on social media, with two-thirds of parents parents saying that parenting parenting is harder today compared to 20 years ago— and many of them cited social media as a contributing contributing factor. factor.
The Kids Off Social Media Act is supported supported by Public Citizen, Citizen, National National Organization Organization for Women, National Association of Social Workers, ofNational National League for Nursing, Nursing, National National Association Association of CounselingSchool School Nurses, Nurses, KidsToo, KidsToo, Count on Mothers, Mothers, American American Federation Federation of Teachers, Teachers, American American Counseling Association, Association, National National Federation Federation of Families, Families, National National Association Association of Pediatric Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, Practitioners, NationalClementiCouncil Council for Mental Wellbeing, Wellbeing, Parents Parents Television Television and Media Council, Council, Tyler Clementi DigitalFoundation, Foundation, Parents Parents Who Fight, Conservative Conservative Ladies of America, America, David’s Legacy Foundation, Foundation, Digital Progress, Progress, HAS Coalition, Coalition, Parents Parents Defending Defending Education Education Action, Action, Concerned Concerned Women Americafor for America Legislative Legislative Action Committee, Committee, and the American American Academy Academy of Child and Adolescent Adolescent Psychiatry. Psychiatry.
Kids Off Social Media Act Sets Social Media Age Minimum To 13, Pr asRequest Request support support to address address other bodies of government government agencies agencies to support support this resolution resolution as action item to raise awareness awareness of harm the lack of duty of care.
AB-2 Injuries Injuries to children: children: civil penalties.( penalties.(2025-2026) Bill Text - AB- 2 Injuries to children: civil penalties.
READINGASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2 (Lowenthal and Patterson)
2025As As Amended April 3, 2025
stableSocial Social media harms to children. children. From 2010 to 2019, " 2019, "rates of depression depression and anxiety— anxiety—fairly stable during the 2000s—rose by more than 50% in many studies" studies" and "[t]he suicide suicide forrate rate rose 48% for tradedadolescents adolescents ages 10 to 19." This trend tracks " tracks "the years when adolescents adolescents in rich countries countries traded particularlytheir their flip phones for smartphones smartphones and moved much more of their social lives online— online—particularly onto social- social-media platforms platforms designed designed for virality virality1and and addiction."1 According to the Surgeon General:
T]he current current body of evidence evidence indicates indicates that while social media may have benefits benefits for some[ children children and adolescents, adolescents, there are ample indicators indicators that social media can also profoundhave have a profound Atrisk risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children children and adolescents. adolescents. At
JUDICIARYASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
ChairAsh Ash Kalra, Chair
2025AB AB 2 (Lowenthal) – Lowenthal) – As Amended Amended April 3, 2025 PENALTIESSUBJECT: SUBJECT: INJURIES TO CHILDREN: CIVIL PENALTIES DAMAGESKEY KEY ISSUE: SHOULD SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS PLATFORMS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIFIED SPECIFIED STATUTORY STATUTORY DAMAGES
TOFOR FOR BREACHING BREACHING THEIR DUTY OF ORDINARY ORDINARY CARE AND SKILL TO A CHILD BY CAUSING CAUSING INJURY TO THE CHILD?
According to the author:
AB 2] amends Section Section 1714 only by adding statutory statutory damages damages against against platforms platforms that are found in[ court to be liable under current current law for negligently negligently causing causing harm to children children under the age of 18.
Under the bill, ifofa a company company is proven to have failed to exercise exercise its already already established established duty of careoperating operating with ordinary care , the company company becomes becomes financially financially liable for a set amount of $5,000, per violation, violation, up to a maximum maximum penalty penalty of $1 million million per child, or three times thethehe amount of the incentivizechild’ child’s actual damages, damages, whichever whichever is applicable. applicable. This financial financial liability liability aims to incentivize againstplatforms platforms who count their profits profits in the tens of billions billions to proactively proactively safeguard safeguard children children against potential potential harm by changing changing how they operate operate their platforms.
PROTECTIONASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY PRIVACY AND CONSUMER CONSUMER PROTECTION ChairRebecca Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair
2025AB AB 2 (Lowenthal) – Lowenthal) – As Amended Amended March 17, 2025
AMENDMENTSPROPOSED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
penaltiesSUBJECT: SUBJECT: Injuries to children: civil penalties
SYNOPSISSYNOPSIS
dutyState State law provides provides that everyone, everyone, including including individuals, individuals, businesses, businesses, and other entities, entities, has a duty of “ordinary care and skill” establishedin in the “management” management” of their “ their “property property or person” – person” – the long-established passedstandard standard for negligence. negligence. This bill, which is identical identical to last year’s AB 3172 (Lowenthal) Lowenthal) as it passed out of this Committee, Committee, provides provides that a large social media platform platform that violates violates harmsthis this duty and harms ofa a minor is additionally additionally liable for the higher of $5,000 per violation, violation, with a per-child maximum maximum of 1,000,000, or three times the amount of the child’s actual$ YouThank Thank You
DurfeyCraig Craig Durfey
Founder Founder of P.R.D.D.C.
AB 2
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2025
Fiscal: No
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair
AB 2 (Lowenthal) – As Amended March 17, 2025
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
SUBJECT: Injuries to children: civil penalties
SYNOPSIS
State law provides that everyone, including individuals, businesses, and other entities, has a duty of “ ordinary care and skill” in the “ management” of their “ property or person” – the longestablished standard for negligence. This bill, which is identical to last year’ s AB 3172 Lowenthal) as it passed out of this Committee, provides that a large social media platform that violates this duty and harms a minor is additionally liable for the higher of $5,000 per violation, with a per-child maximum of $1,000,000, or three times the amount of the child’s actual damages.
The bill is sponsored by Common Sense Media and the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and supported by educational and children’ s safety groups. Proponents contend that augmented financial liability will incentivize platforms, who count their profits in the tens of billions, to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.
Opponents include TechNet, California Chamber of Commerce, Computer and Communications Industry Association, and Electronic Frontier Foundation. They argue, among other things, that the bill is largely preempted by federal law, will lead to a flood of unmeritorious litigation, and will restrict protected speech.
Clean- up amendments are proposed in Comment # 6.
If passed by this Committee, this bill will next be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
THIS BILL:
1) Finds and declares:
a. Subdivision ( a) of Section 1714 of the Civil Code already makes every person and corporation, including social media platforms, financially responsible for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person.
b. Children are uniquely vulnerable on social media platforms. c. The biggest social media platforms invent and deploy features they know injure large numbers of children, including contributing to child deaths.
AB 2
d. The costs of these injuries are unfairly being paid by parents, schools, and taxpayers, not the platforms.
e. The bill is necessary to ensure that the social media platforms that are knowingly causing the most severe injuries to the largest number of children receive heightened damages to prevent injury from occurring to children in the first place. 2) Provides that a social media platform that violates subdivision (a) of Section 1714 and breaches its responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child is, in addition to any other remedy, liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
a. $ 5,000 per violation up to a maximum, per child, of $1,000, 000. b. Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages. 3) Makes waivers of the bill’ s provisions void and unenforceable. 4) Defines:
a. “ Child” as a minor under 18 years of age.
b. “ Social media platform” as a social media platform, as defined in Section 22675 of the Business and Professions Code ( see below), that generates more than 100,000,000 per year in gross revenues.
5) States that the duties, remedies, and obligations imposed by the bill are cumulative to the duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under other laws and shall not be construed to relieve a social media platform from any duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under any other law.
6) Contains a severability clause and clarifies that its provisions do not apply to cases pending before January 1, 2026.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Prohibits, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, treating a provider or user of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).) 2) Defines “social media platform” as a public or semipublic internet-based service or application that has users in California and that meets both of the following criteria:
a. A substantial function of the service or application is to connect users in order to allow them to interact socially with each other within the service or application. (A service or application that provides email or direct messaging services does not meet this criterion based solely on that function.)
b. The service or application allows users to do all of the following:
i. Construct a public or semipublic profile for purposes of signing into and using the service or application.
AB 2
c. Populate a list of other users with whom an individual shares a social connection within the system.
d. Create or post content viewable by other users, including, but not limited to, on message boards, in chat rooms, or through a landing page or main feed that presents the user with content generated by other users. ( Bus. & Prof. Code § 22675( f).) 3) Provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned by their want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon themselves. ( Civ. Code § 1714( a).) COMMENTS:
1) Author’ s statement. According to the author:
AB 2 amends Section 1714 of the Civil Code by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child’ s actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.
2) Social media’ s impact on children. In May 2023, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory warning of the potential mental health impacts of social media on young people. 1 The advisory calls for more research and concludes that while “ the current body of evidence indicates that while social media may have benefits for some children and adolescents, there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.” 2
According to the Surgeon General, adolescents, in a critical formative period of brain development, are especially vulnerable to potential mental health impacts of social media.3 While noting that several complex factors shape social media’ s influence on children and adolescents, the Surgeon General points to two primary risk factors: 1) harmful content, and 2) excessive and problematic use.
Harmful content. According to the Surgeon General, “ extreme, inappropriate, and harmful content continues to be easily and widely accessible by children and adolescents” and is “ spread 1 “ Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’ s Advisory” ( May 23, 2023) p. 6 (emphasis added), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf. (“Surgeon General’ s Advisory”)
2 Id. at p. 4.
3 “ Extractive Technology is Damaging our Attention and Mental Health,” Center for Humane Technology, https://www.humanetech.com/attention-mental-health.
AB 2
through direct pushes, unwanted content exchanges, and algorithmic designs.” 4 Such content includes:
Extreme content such as live depictions of self-harm acts, like asphyxiation or cutting, which can normalize such behaviors, including through the formation of suicide pacts and posing of self-harm models for others to follow.”5
Bullying and harassment: roughly two-thirds of adolescents are “ often” or “ sometimes” exposed to hate-based content, with nearly 75% of adolescents stating that social media sites do a fair to poor job of addressing online harassment and bullying. 6 Predatory behaviors, including financial or sexual exploitation of children and adolescents; nearly 6-in-10 adolescent girls surveyed had received unwanted advances from strangers on social media platforms.7
Leaked internal platform studies indicate that youth exposure to unwanted, disturbing, graphic, or sexual content is common and facilitated by platform design.8 According to documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal, one in eight users under the age of 16 experienced unwanted sexual advances on Instagram, facilitated by lax privacy settings.9 Additionally, the advisory cites a synthesis of 20 studies demonstrating that many users, especially adolescent girls, experience envy and social comparison, leading to body dissatisfaction, disordered eating behaviors, and low self- esteem. “ When asked about the impact of social media on their body image, nearly half (46%) of adolescents aged 13–17 said social media makes them feel worse, 40% said it makes them feel neither better nor worse, and only 14% said it makes them feel better.” 10 Internal studies by platforms also indicate similar patterns of social comparison, with negative effects on wellbeing. 11 In an internal Meta study, younger and female users reported much greater rates of feeling “worse about yourself because of other 4 Surgeon General’ s Advisory, supra, at p. 8.
5 Ibid.
6 Alhajji et al., “Cyberbullying, Mental Health, and Violence in Adolescents and Associations With Sex and Race:
Data From the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey” Global pediatric health (2019), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2333794X19868887; Vogels, “Teens and Cyberbullying,” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech (2022), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/12/15/teens-andcyberbullying-2022/. 7 Nesi, et al. “Teens and mental health: How girls really feel about social media” Common Sense Media (2023), https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/teens-and-mental-health-how-girls-really-feel-about-social-media. 8 “ Minnesota Attorney General’ s Report on Emerging Technology and Its Effects on Youth Well-Being” (Feb. 2025), p. 10-11. https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Reports/EmergingTechnology_2025.pdf. (“Minnesota Attorney General’ s Report”)
9 Jeff Horwitz, “His Job Was to Make Instagram Safe for Teens. His 14-Year-Old Showed Him What the App Was Really Like” The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 2, 2023), https://www.wsj.com/tech/instagram-facebook-teensharassment-safety-5d991be1?mod=hp_featst_pos3. 10 Bickham et al., “Adolescent Media Use: Attitudes, Effects, and Online Experiences” Boston Children’ s Hospital Digital Wellness Lab (2022), https://digitalwellnesslab.org/wpcontent/uploads/Pulse -Survey_Adolescent-AttitudesEffectsand-Experiences.pdf . 11 Minnesota Attorney General’ s Report, supra, p. 11-12.
AB 2
peoples’ posts on Instagram,” with 27.4% of 13-15 year old females reporting this experience over a 7-day period, compared to 14.6% of males in the same age group.12 Excessive and problematic use. The advisory cites studies showing that on a typical weekday, nearly one in three adolescents report using screens – most commonly social media – until midnight or later. 13 One third or more of girls aged 11-15 feel “ addicted” to certain platforms.
Excessive use correlates with attention problems, feelings of exclusion, and sleep problems.14 Poor sleep, in turn, is linked with neurological development issues, depression, and suicidality. 15 These findings are borne out by the observations of platforms themselves: internal Meta research detailed in a recent lawsuit concluded that “ when social media use displaces sleep in adolescents, it is negatively correlated to indicators of mental health.” 16 Excessive use is driven in part by systems that are optimized to maximize user engagement through design features, such as recommendation algorithms, likes, push notifications, auto-play, and endless scroll. 17 According to a former social media company executive’ s statements, such features were designed intentionally to increase time spent through features that “give you a little dopamine hit every once in awhile.” 18 These features “ can trigger pathways comparable to addiction.” 19 Young people with still-developing pre-frontal cortexes who crave social reward and lack inhibition are especially susceptible. 20
3) Negligence. Civil Code section 1714(a) provides: “ Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” To establish negligence, “ the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to use due care, that he breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.”21 “ A duty exists only if ‘the plaintiff's interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant’ s conduct.’” 22 “‘[ A]s a general matter, there is no duty to act to protect others from the conduct of third parties.’” 23 However, “[ i]n a case involving harm caused by a third party, a person may have an affirmative duty to protect the victim of another’ s harm if that person is in what the law calls a ‘ special relationship’ with either the victim or the person who created the 12 Arizona et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-05448, Complaint (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.496039/gov.uscourts.nmd.496039.36.2.pdf . 13 Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. “Social media, social life: Teens reveal their experiences” Common Sense Media 2018), https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2018-social-mediasocial-lifeexecutive-summary-web.pdf. 14 Surgeon General’ s Advisory, supra, at p. 10.
15 Ibid.
16 Arizona et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., supra.
17 Burhan & Moradzadeh, “ Neurotransmitter Dopamine and its Role in the Development of Social Media Addiction” 11 Journal of Neurology & Neurophysiology 507 (2020), https://www.iomcworld.org/openaccess/neurotransmitter- dopamine-da-and-its-role-in-the-development-of-social-mediaaddiction.pdf. 18 Alex Hern, ‘Never get high on your own supply’ – why social media bosses don’t use social media,” The Guardian (Jan. 23, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/23/never-get-high-on-your-own-supplywhy-social-media-bosses-dont-use-social-media. 19 Surgeon General’ s Advisory, supra, at p. 9.
20 Ibid.
21 Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 292. 22 Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 213, internal quotes omitted. 23 Id. at p. 214.
AB 2
harm.” 24 A special relationship “‘ gives the victim a right to expect’ protection from the defendant, while a special relationship between the defendant and the dangerous third party is one that ‘ entails an ability to control [ the third party’ s] conduct.’” 25 4) This bill augments liability for social media platforms that negligently harm children.
This bill provides that a social media platform that violates Section 1714( a) and breaches its responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child – defined as a minor under 18 years of age – is, in addition to any other remedy, liable for statutory damages for the larger of:
5,000 per violation up to a per- child maximum of $1,000, 000; or Three times the amount of the child’ s actual damages.
A social media platform for these purposes is one that meets an existing statutory definition and generates more than $100, 000,000 per year in gross revenues. The bill would also provide that any waivers of the bill’s provisions are void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
The bill is identical to last year’ s AB 3172 as it passed this Committee, by an 11-0 vote. The bill was amended in Senate Appropriations to apply only to knowing and willful failure to exercise ordinary care to a child, cap statutory damages at $250,000, and require no less than 51% of the penalties to go to a state fund dedicated to raising awareness among adolescents on safe social media use. The bill was moved to the Senate’ s inactive file. 5) Constitutional considerations. Opponents of the bill raise concerns relating to freedom of speech and federal preemption.
First Amendment. The United States and California Constitutions prohibit abridging, among other fundamental rights, freedom of speech. 26 “ The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment can serve as a defense in state tort suits.” 27 “[ T]he basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’ s command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears.” 28 Additionally, “the creation and dissemination of information are speech . . . .” 29 Dissemination of speech is different from “ expressive conduct,” which is conduct that has its own expressive purpose and may be entitled to First Amendment protection.30 Laws that are not content specific are generally subject to “ intermediate scrutiny,” which requires that the law “be ‘ narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.’” 31 In other words, the law “‘ need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of’ serving the government’ s interests,” but “‘ may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.’” 32 This bill does not 24 Id. at p. 215.
25 Id. at p. 216.
26 U.S. Const., 1st and 14th Amends; Cal. Const. art. I, § 2. 27 Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. 443, 451.
28 Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson (1952) 343 U.S. 495, 503.
29 Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011) 564 U.S. 552, 570. 30 Ibid.
31 Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) 582 U.S. 98, 98. 32 McCullen v. Coakley (2014) 573 U.S. 464, 486, emphasis added.
AB 2
regulate expression; it augments liability for large platforms that violate an existing duty and harm children.
Federal preemption. Section 230( c)(1) of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields online platforms from liability for third-party content: “ No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 33 This provision has been hailed as the law that created the modern internet, fostering free expression online and allowing an array of innovative services and spaces to flourish, from search engines to social media.34 It has also come with a destructive side, absolving platforms of responsibility for virtually all third- party harms arising from the use of their services – “ a protection not available to print material or television broadcasts.” 35
Section 230 was intended to promote investment in online companies and encourage “‘ Good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material” 36 without fear of liability for defamation.37 Courts soon adopted an expansive interpretation – a key early decision construed publisher” immunity as encompassing “ traditional editorial functions” such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or even alter content.38 Consequently, the plaintiff, a victim of online defamation by an anonymous user, had no recourse against the platform despite its failure to timely remove the content, which would have resulted in liability in the offline world. Following this logic, courts have extended Section 230 well beyond the defamation context, routinely concluding that online intermediaries are not liable for harms related to third-party illicit content. 39 “ The common thread weaving through these cases is that the courts have sapped 230’s Good Samaritan concept of its meaning.” 40
This sweeping grant of immunity has been the subject of widespread criticism and calls for reform.41 Senators Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin are planning to introduce a bill that would sunset Section 230. 42 Justice Clarence Thomas has called for the Supreme Court to review the scope of Section 230.43 Ninth Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson recently stated that courts have stretch[ ed] the statute’ s plain meaning beyond recognition,” leading to “ perverse effects.” 44 The 33 42 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Section 230 also (1) provides a safe harbor for good faith content moderation, (2) preempts contrary state laws, and (3) enumerates exemptions for enforcement of federal criminal statutes, intellectual property laws, communications privacy laws, and sex trafficking. 34 See e.g., Kosseff, The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet (2019). 35 Quinta Jurecic, “ The politics of Section 230 reform: Learning from FOSTA’ s mistakes” Brookings (Mar. 1, 2022), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-politics-of-section-230-reform-learning-from-fostas-mistakes. 36 § 230(c).
37 Fair Hous. Council v. Roommates.com, LLC (9th Cir. 2008) 521 F.3d 1157, 1163. 38 Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc (4th Cir. 1997) 129 F.3d 327. 39 Michael Rustad & Thomas Koenig, “ The Case for a CDA Section 230 Notice-and-Takedown Duty” (2023) 23 Nev.L.J. 533, 561-574.
40 Danielle Keats Citron, “How to Fix Section 230” ( 2023) 103 B.U.L. Rev. 713, 727. 41 E.g., John Lucas, “ AG Moody Joins with Other Attorneys General to Urge Congress to Stop Protecting Illegal Activity on the Net,” Capitolist (May 23, 2019), https://thecapitolist.com/ag-moody-joins-with-other-attorneysgeneral-to-urge-congress-to-stop-protecting-illegal-activity-on-the-net. 42 Lauren Feiner, “ Lawmakers are tyring to repeal section 230 again” The Verge (Mar. 21, 2025), https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/lawmakers-are-trying-to-repeal-section-230-again/arAA1BptAI?ocid=BingNewsVerp. 43 Doe ex rel. Roe v. Snap, Inc. (2024) 144 S. Ct. 2493 (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). 44 Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 103 F.4th 732, 747 (Nelson, J. concurring) (Calise).
AB 2
Ninth Circuit “ should revisit our precedent,” he urged, particularly in light of “ artificial intelligence raising the specter of lawless and limitless protections.” 45 Courts have emphasized, however, that Section 230 immunity is not limitless. 46 Section 230 is not “ an all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card” 47 that “ create[s] a lawless no-man’ s-land on the internet.’” 48 The Ninth Circuit has “ consistently eschewed an expansive reading of the statute that would render unlawful conduct ‘magically . . . lawful when [conducted] online,’ and therefore ‘ giv[ing] online businesses an unfair advantage over their real- world counterparts.’” 49 Under Ninth Circuit precedent, Section 230(c)(1) immunity exists for “(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service ( 2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.” 50 With respect to the third prong, Section 230 protection extends only to claims that derive[] from the defendant’ s status or conduct as a publisher or speaker.” 51 If, instead, the claim “ springs from something separate from the defendant’ s status as a publisher, such as from . obligations the defendant has in a different capacity,” Section 230 immunity does not apply.52 Examples of such cases involving negligence include:
A networking website owner’ s negligent failure to warn a woman who was raped by two users of the website who posed as talent scouts to lure her to a fake audition, where it was alleged that an outside source had informed the owner about the predatory scheme. 53 Snap’ s allegedly defectively-designed app, which promoted content that encouraged two teen boys who died in a high- speed car accident to drive at dangerous speeds. 54 While these cases are highly fact-specific and there are precedents to the contrary,55 these cases show that negligence claims against social media platforms can survive a Section 230 defense. 6) Amendments. The author has agreed to the following technical clean-up amendments:
a) A social media platform that violates subdivision ( a) of Section 1714 and breaches its responsibility of ordinary care and skill by causing injury to a child shall, in addition to any other remedy, be liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
b) Any waiver of this subdivision section shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
45 Ibid.
46 Calise, supra, 103 F.4th at p. 739, citing cases.
47 Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc. (9th Cir. 2016) 824 F.3d 846, 853. 48 HomeAway.com v. City of Santa Monica (9th Cir. 2018) 918 F.3d 676, 683. 49 Ibid.
50 Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. (9th Cir. 2009) 570 F.3d 1096, 1109. 51 Id. at p. 1102.
52 Calise, supra, 103 F.4th at p. 742.
53 Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., supra, 824 F.3d at pp. 852-853. 54 Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (9th Cir. 2021) 995 F.3d 1085, 1092. 55 Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (5th Cir. 2008) 528 F.3d 413.
AB 2
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The Los Angeles County Office of Education, co-sponsors of the bill, write:
Social media platforms must be held accountable for the harm they cause, particularly to minors who are uniquely vulnerable to the harmful effects of online engagement. Research has repeatedly shown the detrimental impact of social media on young people’ s mental health, contributing to a range of issues, including increased instances of cyberbullying, mental health crises, and even acts of violence.
While social media platforms prioritize user engagement and growth, they often fail to adequately consider the safety and wellness of younger users. Given this imbalance, it is crucial that social media companies are required to uphold a standard of ordinary care in their management of content and interactions involving minors. This bill would establish muchneeded accountability by holding social media platforms liable for civil penalties if they fail to exercise the necessary care to protect children on their platforms.
Just as institutions and businesses serving youth are held accountable for ensuring the safety and well-being of their patrons, social media companies should be held to the same standard.
AB 2 represents an important step toward protecting the mental and physical health of children and ensuring that platforms act responsibly toward the younger population that depends on them.
Children’ s Advocacy Institute writes:
Making platforms pay more if a court finds they have negligently hurt children is not in any way, shape, or form burdensome or unfair to stubbornly bad acting platforms. As the former, long- time Chair of the Orange County Republican Party, Fred Whitaker, wrote in supporting a similar bill before this Committee last year:
Thus, all the opposition to this bill needs to do to avoid any prospect of liability under the bill is simply exercise reasonable care not to harm children. Surely, a company like Meta which in 2021 earned an incredible 100 billion profit (General Motors which we used to think of as a big company earned 10 billion) can afford to exercise such care. If it doesn’ t, it should pay for the harm it causes.
That’ s the American way.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, TechNet, California Chamber of Commerce, and Computer and Communications Industry Association jointly write:
To the extent this bill provides an incentive for platforms to change their policies and features, the extreme risk of liability will likely result in companies severely limiting or completely eliminating online spaces for teens.
Litigation leads to uneven and inconsistent outcomes, with different companies choosing to limit the immense exposure this bill will create in different ways. There are two main ways AB 2
platforms could respond to the vague requirements and extreme liability in this bill, neither of which are good outcomes for teens.
First, companies could adjust their policies and terms of service to exclude all users under the age of 18. This would be a tremendous and detrimental blow to teens’ ability to access information and the open internet. As discussed below, this violates First Amendment principles and protections for teens. However, even if a platform stated in its terms of service that teens under 18 were not allowed on the platform and took steps to prevent their access, that may not be enough to avoid liability for a teen who accesses the site anyway and has a negative outcome.
Second, companies could also adjust their terms of service so that users under the age of 18 have a heavily sanitized version of the platform. This could include limiting which users teens can interact with (e.g. only users approved by parents), which features they have access to (no messaging or public posting), and even what content they can interact with or view ( no political, news, or other “potentially harmful” content). This might reduce but would not prevent every instance of harm to teens given the nebulousness and subjectivity that is inherent in defining “harm”.
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 for teens. For instance, content promoting healthy eating could be restricted due to concerns it could lead to body image issues. Similarly, content about the climate crisis or foreign conflicts would need to be restricted as it could lead to depression, anxiety, and self- harm. Additionally, beneficial information like anti- drug or smoking cessation programs, mental health support, and gender identity resources could get overregulated because of the impossibility of deciding what is harmful to every user.
Furthermore, platforms would need to evaluate whether to eliminate fundamental features and functions of their platform, features that are the reason teens and users go to their platforms, due to the legal risk involved. For instance, since direct messaging features could potentially be misused for contacting and bullying other teens, such features would likely be removed.
Teens’ use of these platforms would be overly policed and sanitized to such a degree that they would surely leave our sites in favor of others that don’t meet AB 2’ s $100 million revenue threshold. Collectively, our organizations represent platforms that take their responsibility to their users incredibly seriously and have devoted millions of dollars to increasing the safety and enjoyment of their platforms. Teens will seek out the ability to interact online, whether it is on our platforms or on others, including ones that don’t prioritize their safety and well- being.
Electronic Frontier Foundation adds:
AB 2
The heavy statutory damages imposed by A.B. 2 will result in broad censorship via scores of lawsuits that may claim any given content online is harmful to any child. California should not enact a law that would be more harmful to children and will not be enforceable in any event. Further, should it become law, it will also be ineffective because federal law preempts Californian’ s ability to hold online services civilly liable for harm caused by user- generated content.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Common Sense Media
Los Angeles County Office of Education ( Sponsor)
California Charter Schools Association
Childrens Advocacy Institute
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Organization for Social Media Safety
Opposition
CalChamber
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Technet-technology Network
Analysis Prepared by: Josh Tosney / P. & C.P. / ( 916) 319- 2200 AB 2
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ash Kalra, Chair
AB 2 (Lowenthal) – As Amended April 3, 2025
SUBJECT: INJURIES TO CHILDREN: CIVIL PENALTIES
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIFIED
STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR BREACHING THEIR DUTY OF ORDINARY CARE AND SKILL TO A CHILD BY CAUSING INJURY TO THE CHILD?
SYNOPSIS
Social media has become a ubiquitous element of our society. Across platforms, social media is used as a tool to establish and maintain personal relationships; keep up to date with current events; engage in political organizing; and develop professional relationships. In the United States alone, approximately 70 percent of people use some form of social media. These demographics broken down by age demonstrate a significant percentage of younger users. This bill presents the latest approach to the issue of social media platforms’ responsibility to these younger users by imposing statutory damages on social media platforms who breach their duty of ordinary care and skill in relation to a minor. Like a number of its predecessors, including the author’ s practically identical version from just last year, the current measure seeks to squarely situate social media platforms’ liability within existing parameters of tort law.
This bill is sponsored by Common Sense Media and supported by the California Charter Schools Association, the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy ( CITED), the Children’ s Advocacy Institute, the Consumer Federation of California, the Jewish Family and Children’s Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and the Organization for Social Media Safety. It is opposed by a coalition of tech- industry and advocates led TechNet, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF). The bill was previously heard by the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection where it was approved on a vote of 9-0.
SUMMARY: Provides for statutory penalties available in a negligence cause of action brought on behalf of a child- user of a social media platform for harm caused by the platform.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Makes findings and declarations regarding the duty of care imposed on everyone by Civil Code Section 1714 (a) and the risks to children on social media platforms. 2) Authorizes recovery of the larger of the following in a successful claim against a social media platform that alleges the platform violated Civil Code Section 1714 (a) by causing injury to a child:
a) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation up to a maximum, per child, of one million dollars ($ 1,000, 000);
b) Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages; AB 2
3) Makes any waiver of 2) void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy. 4) Defines the following:
a) “ Child” means a minor under 18 years of age;
b) “ Social media platform” means a social media platform, as defined in Section 22675 of the Business and Professions Code, that generates more than one hundred million dollars 100,000,000) per year in gross revenues.
5) Establishes that the duties, remedies, and obligations imposed by the provisions of the bill are cumulative to the duties, remedies or obligations under other law and shall not be construed to relieve a social media platform from any duties, remedies, or obligations imposed under any other law.
6) Includes a severability clause.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Establishes, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. ( 47 U.S.C. Section 230( c)(1).) 2) Provides that every person is responsible, not only for the result of their willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by the person’ s want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon themselves. ( Civil Code Section 1714 ( a).) 3) Defines “social media platform” as a public or semipublic internet-based service or application that has users in California and meets specified criteria. ( Business and Professions Code Section 22945.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non- fiscal.
COMMENTS: Social media has become a ubiquitous element of our society. Across platforms, social media is used as a tool to establish and maintain personal relationships; keep up to date with current events; engage in political organizing; and develop professional relationships. In the United States alone, approximately 70 percent of people use some form of social media. These demographics, when broken down by age, include a significant percentage of younger users.
Approximately 84 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 29 years use at least one social media site, while the utilization rate for those between the ages of 50 to 84 years drops to 73 percent. Participation rates also vary between the social media platforms themselves. For example, while 65 percent of users between 18 and 29 years use Snapchat, only 42 percent have Twitter accounts. Perhaps particularly relevant to this bill, over 70 percent of 18 to 29 year -olds use Instagram, while that number drops to 48 percent for those between 30 to 49 years, and to 29 percent for those between the ages of 50 and 64. (Social Media Fact Sheet, ( April 7, 2021) Pew Research Center available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/.) As usage of social media apps and websites has grown, so has the research on its consequences. The prevalence of social media in daily life impacts all demographics but has had, perhaps predictably, an outsized effect on younger populations.
AB 2
Over the course of the last few years, the Legislature has evaluated a substantial number of bills attempting to hold social media platforms accountable for harms caused to minors who use their products. Bills have taken a variety of approaches, including attempting to make platforms liable for addicting children (AB 2408 (Cunningham, 2022)); requiring platforms that provide services to children to comply with certain safety requirements ( AB 2273 ( Wicks, 2022)); establishing reporting mechanisms to facilitate removal of child pornography on platforms (AB 1394 (Wicks, 2023)); authorizing individuals to bring claims against entities that distribute child pornography SB 646 (Cortese, 2023)); and making platforms liable for features that cause harm to child users SB 680 ( Skinner, 2023)). Last year, the author shepherded a measure nearly identical to this bill through the Legislature (AB 3172), which died on the Senate Floor.
According to the author:
AB 2] amends Section 1714 only by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child’ s actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.
This bill presents the latest approach to the issue of quantifying social media platform’ s responsibility to its young users. The bill imposes statutory damages on social media platforms who breach their duty of ordinary care and skill to a minor. Like a number of its predecessors, the current measure seeks to squarely situate social media platforms’ liability within existing parameters of tort law. The bill does so by cross- referencing Civil Code section 1714 ( a), which provides that “[ e]veryone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”
The text of this bill is fairly straightforward. In a new section immediately after Civil Code Section 1714, the bill makes a social media platform that violates subdivision ( a) of Section 1714 by causing injury to a child liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
1) Five thousand dollars per violation up to a per- child maximum of one million dollars; 2) Three times the amount of the child’s actual damages The bill defines social media platform as a public or semipublic internet- based service or application that has users in California and meets specified criteria regarding their function, and generates more than one hundred million dollars per year.
Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act. The federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides that “[ n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” and affords broad protection from civil liability for the good faith content moderation decisions of interactive computer services. (47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(c)(1) and (2).) AB 2
Though Section 230 was originally passed in response to judicial inconsistency with respect to the liability of internet service providers under statutes pertaining to “publishers” of content created by others, it has since been interpreted to confer operators of social media platforms and other online services with broad immunity from liability for content posted by others.
Section 230 also indicates that “[ n]othing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section,” but further provides that “[ n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” ( 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(e)(3).) The latter provision has generally been interpreted to expressly preempt any state law that has the effect of treating a social media or other online platform as the publisher of information posted by other users, including prescriptive requirements relating to content moderation. This is consistent with the law’ s original intent, which was to ensure that internet platforms facilitating the sharing of content can do so without considerable risk of liability in the event that content is not meticulously policed.
Since the development of social media platforms, the extent of Section 230’s immunity shield has been heavily litigated. Questions have arisen regarding what elements of a user’ s experience and therefore of a social media platform’s business model, benefit from Section 230, and which fall outside its scope. In Fair Housing Council v. Roommates. com, LLC, Roommates. com was sued by a coalition of fair housing councils in California for allegedly violating the federal Fair Housing Act and state housing discrimination laws. ( Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (2007).) The claim was based largely on the website’ s search function which appeared to prefer certain profiles over others, seemingly on the basis of elements of the user’ s identity, including their gender and sexual orientation, which were collected by Roommate. com through a mandatory questionnaire developed by the website. The District Court ruled in favor of Roommates.com, holding that the website was protected by Section 230. The councils subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which held that the website’ s use of the information they required users to submit in order to utilize the website rendered Roommate. com outside the protection of Section 230. In its analysis, the court reasoned that a “ website operator can be both a service provider and a content provider: If it passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, then it is only a service provider with respect to that content. But as to content that it creates itself, or is ‘responsible, in whole or in part’ for creating or developing, the website is also a content provider.” ( Roommates. com, LLC, 521 F.3d at p. 1163 (2007).) With regard to Roommate.com’ s own role in developing the users’ profiles, the court argued, “ Roommate is ‘ responsible’ at least ‘ in part’ for each subscriber’ s profile page, because ever such page is a collaborative effort between Roommate and the subscriber.” ( Id. at p. 1167)
Two years later in Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., the Ninth Circuit established a three-part test for determining whether a website benefits from the liability shield of Section 230. According to Barnes, Section 230 “only protects from liability (1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service ( 2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.” Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1100 - 1101 ( 2009).) In 2023, the Court issued a decision in a pair of cases addressing the same practice – Twitter v.
Taamneh and Google v. Gonzalez. In November 2015, the Islamic State ( ISIS) took responsibility for a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris. Among the at least 130 people killed was 23- year- old American Nohemi Gonzalez. Shortly after Nohemi’ s death, her father AB 2
filed suit against Google, Twitter, and Facebook, arguing that the platforms were liable for aiding and abetting international terrorism by failing to appropriately respond to, or address, terrorist organizations’ use of their services. ( They additionally argued that Google was not immune under Section 230 because their algorithm recommended ISIS videos to their users who ultimately conducted the acts of terrorism. The petitioners lost in both district court and on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and subsequently appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In June, 2023, the Court issued its decision in both matters, holding that “ the failure to allege that the platforms here do more than transmit information by billions of people – most of whom use the platforms for interactions that once took place via mail, on the phone, or in public areas – is insufficient to state a claim that defendants knowingly gave substantial assistance and thereby aided and abetted ISIS’ acts. A contrary conclusion would effectively hold any sort of communications provider liable for any sort of wrongdoing merely for knowing that the wrongdoers were using its services and failing to stop them.” ( Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, ( 2023) 143 S. Ct. 1206, 1213.) In issuing its ruling the Court never reached the question of whether Section 230 shielded platforms from liability, and instead only adjudicated the question of whether either platform was liable under the Antiterrorism Act as aiders and abettors. However, the same logic would seem to apply for both questions. While we cannot assume how the Court would rule on the matter, it seems likely that it would hold on a similar line of reasoning.
The extensive jurisprudence relating to liability of a social media platform for content distributed by a user on the site that may have led to injury appears to bolster the immunity conferred by Section 230. However, the question over whether choices made by the platform itself, is not quite so straightforward.
In Lemmon v. Snap, Snap ( commonly known as Snapchat) attempted to argue that the CDA immunized them from liability in a negligent design lawsuit. (Lemmon v. Snap, Inc. (2021) 995 F.3d 1085.) In Lemmon, the plaintiff- parents’ children were tragically killed in a car accident. At the time of the accident, one of the young men, Landen Brown, opened Snapchat, and used a feature called the “ Speed Filter,” which allowed users to superimpose the speed the user is going at the time of the image or video is taken. At the time of the accident, the boys were going as fast as 123 miles per hour. The parents claim against Snapchat focused, not on Landen’ s video, but on the “Speed Filter,” and that Snapchat “ allegedly knew or should have known that its users believed [ that Snapchat will reward them for ‘ recording a 100- MPH or faster [ s] nap’” using the filter. (Id. at pp. 5- 6.)
In response, Snap argued that Section 230 shielded them from liability for the publication of third party materials, in this case referring to the image with the superimposed speed. (Id. at pp. 1090 – 1091.) The Ninth Circuit applied the three- pronged test set forth by Barnes v. Yahoo! Inc. 2009) 570 F.3d 1096 described above. (Id. at p. 1091) The court ultimately decided against Snap “ because the Parents’ claim turns on Snap’ s design of Snapchat.” ( Id. at p. 1092.) While the merits of the parents’ claim in Lemmon were not ultimately adjudicated, nonetheless this case may indicate that basing liability on a platform’ s own feature that they knew or reasonably should have known would be a substantial factor in causing harm to its users may preserve a law from being struck down under a Section 230 preemption argument.
The opposition argues that the bill violates Section 230, because it “effectively assumes that all features are harmful and imposes liability on a site for offering any of those features to children.” It is possible this bill presents an opportunity for plaintiffs to bring claims more akin to Lemmon than Twitter v. Taamneh, particularly considering that the language of the measure itself includes AB 2
no reference to specific types of content. Ultimately, as with numerous measures introduced in the Legislature each year, whether or not this bill survives legal challenge is a question to be answered by the courts.
First Amendment Concerns. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that, “ Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” As applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and as interpreted by the courts, the First Amendment prohibits any law or policy, at any level of government, from abridging freedom of speech. Legislation seeking to regulate speech can generally be distinguished as either contentbased or content- neutral. Content- based laws, or laws that target a particular type of speech, must meet a strict scrutiny standard and must therefore be the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government purpose in order to withstand legal challenge. Content neutral laws, on the other hand, or laws which serve a purpose unrelated to the speech itself, need only pass intermediate scrutiny. Under this standard, the law “ need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of’ serving the government’ s interests,” but “may not regulate expression in a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.” It is also possible for a law that is facially neutral on the issue of speech may nonetheless violate the First Amendment if it creates a “ chilling effect.” Both organizations opposed to AB 2 argue that this bill runs afoul of the First Amendment. EFF contends:
Under AB 2, allowing online discussion of these higher-risk activities could lead to courtimposed penalties for the online information provider based on claims that discussing these activities online harmed a child.
That’ s a big problem for every Californian’ s ability to access information online. It’ s also a First Amendment violation. Requiring platforms to apply the vague standard of ‘ordinary care and skill’ is subjective and depends on many factors. The state cannot enact a law that forces online services to steer clear of conversations about controversial or benign topics such as LGBTQ+ youth or high school football, the overwhelming majority of which will be protected speech. Relatedly, the state cannot set up a legal regime that allows anyone to seek to censor speech they disagree with or view as dangerous.
Nothing in the text of the bill imposes a requirement on social media platforms to avoid specific topics or content. Rather, EFF’ s argument appears to be that that the economic risk of hosting content that may cause harm to a child is so significant that social media platforms will overcorrect and in so doing result in a silencing of particular conversations on the platform:
allowing online discussion of these higher-risk activities could lead to court-imposed penalties for the online information provider based on claims that discussing these activities online harmed a child.”
It is worthwhile to note that any legislation imposing requirements or potential liability on a social media platform risks a chilling effect. Whether or not the current measure, and the liability it proposes, would inevitably cause a chilling effect and thus violate the First Amendment depends in no small part in the success rate of claims brought under the bill’s provisions and thus the actual liability to platforms. As discussed throughout this analysis, platforms would only face actual liability if a plaintiff is able to bring a successful claim. If a claim is barred under either Section 230 or the First Amendment, they would be dismissed and no liability would attach.
AB 2
While this analysis is free to speculate on whether the bill violates the First Amendment, much like the question of whether the bill is preempted by Section 230, the constitutional validity of the proposal is a question that would be answered by the courts.
The opposition contends that the standard of care proposed by AB 2 is unclear and will result in significant financial risk to platforms. TechNet submits:
It is entirely unclear what will constitute a violation of a platform’ s ‘ responsibility of ordinary care and skill’ in this context. Feasibly, any sort of negative impact on a child could be sufficient for a plaintiff to allege a breach of the platform’s responsibility of ordinary care and skill. Every platform feature, every interaction between users, and every post that a teen sees could be the basis for a lawsuit. Reasonable people, even parents in the same household, might disagree about what is harmful to a particular teen. AB 2 asks social media to decide what is harmful to every user and exercise ordinary care to prevent that harm. This ambiguity will be impossible for platforms to operationalize. […] This vagueness, combined with high per-violation statutory penalties […] that are decoupled from a plaintiff’s actual harm and potential lawsuits from outside of California, will invite a flood of frivolous litigation.
The sponsors contend that the bill does not create any new duty of care, but rather specifies damages for a violation of an existing duty of care owed to a child user ( as opposed to an adult).
Under this theory, a claim brought under this new provision that is not dismissed as barred by either Section 230 or the First Amendment would need to establish the same elements of any other negligence claim – duty, breach of duty, causation (encompassing cause in fact and proximate cause), and harm. Each of these claims are sure to be fact- specific. In practice it seems that many claims will likely face steep uphill climbs to success. However, it is not impossible that a court may find merit in a claim that hinges, not on any particular content, but on an element of the platform itself, more akin to the approach suggested in Lemmon.
The difficulty of bringing a negligence claim against the platforms is not raised to throw water on the concept proposed by this bill. Rather, it is raised to demonstrate that despite the potential appearance of significant economic liability for platforms, the actual risk is arguably quite minimal. It seems that platforms subject to liability under this measure, which is already limited to those generating more than $ 100,000, 000 per year in gross revenue, are unlikely to face significant financial losses as a result of claims arising from the new statute. While it is possible that the potential of such a high reward could draw additional claims to be filed, it is far from a foregone conclusion that every claim will be successful.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by Common Sense Media. It is supported by the California Charter Schools Association, the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy ( CITED), the Children’ s Advocacy Institute, the Consumer Federation of California, the Jewish Family and Children’ s Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties, the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and the Organization for Social Media Safety. In support of the bill the sponsors submit:
This bill establishes statutory damages under California’ s existing negligence law for harms to minors related to social media that can be proven in court. That is the only change to California law that this bill makes. These financial penalties are needed and intended to motivate large social media companies to do what they currently refuse to do - ensure that the way they design and operate their platforms does not injure young users. There is mounting evidence, including from internal company communications, that social media platforms AB 2
contribute to our youth mental health crisis and to other direct harms to kids and teens, including accessing fentanyl and other illegal drugs.
As the use of social media continues to climb among children and adolescents, so too does the urgency for legislative action. AB 2 offers a path to mitigate the risks faced by our youth in an increasingly connected world, ensuring that social media companies operate with the due care our children deserve.
Again, AB 2 makes no other change to California law other than to introduce specific financial liabilities for platforms whose products or designs are proven in court to result in harm to minors, incentivizing those companies to prioritize the safety of their younger users.
In light of the compelling association between social media use and injuries to young users, including effects on their mental well- being, we strongly urge your support for AB 2. Your action on this bill will be a significant step toward protecting our children and teens from the avoidable harms perpetuated through the negligence of social media companies.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: It is opposed by a coalition of tech-industry and advocates led TechNet, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF). EFF submits:
We respectfully oppose A.B. 2, authored by Assemblymember Lowenthal, which would restrict all Californians’ access to online information. A.B. 2 would allow for plaintiffs suing online information providers to collect statutory damages of up to $1 million dollars based on the vaguest of claims that the service violated “ its responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child.” To be sure, children can be harmed online. A.B. 2, however, takes a deeply flawed and punitive approach to protecting children that will disproportionately harm everyone’ s ability to speak and to access information online.
A.B. 2 picks up where Assemblymember Lowenthal’ s A.B. 3172 left off. Where A.B. 3172 set forth breaches of “ordinary care” that are “ knowingly and willfully” made, A.B. 2 returns to the lower negligence standard in existing section 1714( a) and simply refers to a social media company breaching its “responsibility of ordinary care and skill to a child.” The negligence standard is constitutionally deficient under the First Amendment, and what constitutes a social media company’ s duty of care to a minor remains vague.
The heavy statutory damages imposed by A.B. 2 will result in broad censorship via scores of lawsuits that may claim any given content online is harmful to any child.
California should not enact a law that would be more harmful to children and will not be enforceable in any event. Further, should it become law, it will also be ineffective because federal law preempts Californian’ s ability to hold online services civilly liable for harm caused by user-generated content.
The platforms that do not block or moderate spaces where certain topics are discussed will likely instead attempt to age- verify users, in order to shield minors from allegedly harmful conversations, and to serve as a defense in lawsuits. As EFF has explained in other contexts, mandatory online age verification is itself a bad idea.
AB 2
As age verification requirements spread, Californians will be required to hand over much more private data simply to access online information. Mandatory online age verification invariably harms adults’ rights to speak anonymously or to access lawful speech online.
Further, age verification that relies on government-issued identification harms the tens of millions of Americans, already vulnerable and often low-income, who do not have an ID.
Age verification induced by A.B. 2 could cause these Californians to lose access to basic online information and services, such as the ability to seek housing and employment.
Californians should be concerned about the various ways children are harmed online, and should be exploring ways to prevent those harms. This includes enacting legislation that protects everyone’ s privacy online, including children. Those proposals have the benefit of reducing many online harms and being constitutional. A.B. 2 unfortunately will not reduce online harms to children and will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. For all these reasons, we must oppose A.B. 2 and respectfully urge the committee’ s “ no” vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Charter Schools Association
California Initiative for Technology & Democracy, a Project of California Common CAUSE California School Boards Association
Children’ s Advocacy Institute
Common Sense
Consumer Federation of California
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Organization for Social Media Safety
Opposition
California Chamber of Commerce
Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Electronic Frontier Foundation
TechNet- Technology Network
Analysis Prepared by: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 AB 2
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2 (Lowenthal and Patterson)
As Amended April 3, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Augments the liability large social media platforms may face if they violate existing law by causing an injury to a minor through failure to exercise ordinary care.
Major Provisions
1) Provides that a social media platform that, with respect to a minor, violates the existing statute governing liability for negligent harm caused to others and causes injury to the minor, is, in addition to any other liability owed, liable for statutory damages for the larger of the following:
a) $ 5,000 per violation up to a maximum, per minor, of $1 million. b) Three times the amount of the minor' s actual damages. 2) Provides that a waiver of the bill's provisions is void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
3) Applies only to social media platforms that generate more than $100 million per year in gross revenues.
4) Provides that all other duties, remedies, and obligations imposed under other provisions of law continue to apply.
COMMENTS
Social media harms to children. From 2010 to 2019, " rates of depression and anxiety— fairly stable during the 2000s—rose by more than 50% in many studies" and "[ t]he suicide rate rose 48% for adolescents ages 10 to 19." This trend tracks " the years when adolescents in rich countries traded their flip phones for smartphones and moved much more of their social lives online— particularly onto social- media platforms designed for virality and addiction." 1 According to the Surgeon General:
T]he current body of evidence indicates that while social media may have benefits for some children and adolescents, there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well- being of children and adolescents. At 1 Haidt, End the Phone-Based Childhood Now (March 13, 2024) The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/teen-childhood-smartphone-use-mental-healtheffects/677722/.
AB 2
this time, we do not yet have enough evidence to determine if social media is sufficiently safe for children and adolescents.2
Social media companies have known for some time that social media use can be harmful to young users, and despite that knowledge, have continued to use algorithms and other design features to capture and hold their attention. Whistleblower Frances Haugen, for instance, revealed in 2021 that Facebook was well aware of the apparent connection between the teen mental health crisis and social media – including the severe harm to body image visited disproportionately on teen girls as a result of social comparison on these platforms – but nonetheless sought to recruit more children and expose them to addictive features that would lead to harmful content.3 Such revelations underscore the culpability of some social media companies in propagating features detrimental to the wellbeing of youth through intentional design choices that maximize engagement with profit-motivated online services.
Enhanced liability for negligence. State law provides that everyone, including individuals, businesses, and other entities, has a duty of "ordinary care and skill" in the "management" of their " property or person" – the long- established standard for negligence. This bill provides that a social media platform that violates this duty and harms a minor is additionally liable for either 5,000 per violation, with a per- minor maximum of $1,000, 000, or three times the amount of the minor's actual damages.
Under existing law, social media platforms, like other entities, owe everyone a duty of care. The breach of this duty in a manner that causes harm can give rise to negligence lawsuits. This bill does not change those underlying principles. It simply increases the amount of damages that may be recovered if the injured party in such cases is a minor.
Constitutional considerations. Under existing law, some cases against social media platforms do not make it past the hurdles posed by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Section 230 states, " No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 4 Case law suggests that social media platforms continue to have a duty of care to users and that negligence claims arising from a platforms' independent conduct, rather than their status as publishers of third party content, are compatible with Section 230.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other things, prohibits states from abridging freedom of speech. Because the bill does not regulate speech, it likely does not facially violate First Amendment. Nevertheless, as with negligence claims under existing law, there may be some cases in which the application of the bill to a particular situation unduly infringes on speech.
2 Surgeon General's Advisory, Social Media and Youth Mental Health (2023), p. 4, https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html. 3 Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen Testifies on Children & Social Media Use: Full Senate Hearing Transcript (Oct. 5, 2021), https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-testifieson-children-social-media-use-full-senate-hearing-transcript. 4 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1).
AB 2
See the policy committee analyses for more discussion of these issues.
According to the Author
AB 2 amends Section 1714 of the Civil Code by adding statutory damages against platforms that are found in court to be liable under current law for negligently causing harm to children under the age of 18. Under the bill, if a company is proven to have failed to exercise its already established duty of operating with ordinary care, the company becomes financially liable for a set amount of $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $1 million per child, or three times the amount of the child's actual damages, whichever is applicable. This financial liability aims to incentivize platforms who count their profits in the tens of billions to proactively safeguard children against potential harm by changing how they operate their platforms.
Arguments in Support
The Los Angeles County Office of Education, co- sponsors of the bill, write:
Social media platforms must be held accountable for the harm they cause, particularly to minors who are uniquely vulnerable to the harmful effects of online engagement. Research has repeatedly shown the detrimental impact of social media on young people's mental health, contributing to a range of issues, including increased instances of cyberbullying, mental health crises, and even acts of violence.
While social media platforms prioritize user engagement and growth, they often fail to adequately consider the safety and wellness of younger users. Given this imbalance, it is crucial that social media companies are required to uphold a standard of ordinary care in their management of content and interactions involving minors. This bill would establish muchneeded accountability by holding social media platforms liable for civil penalties if they fail to exercise the necessary care to protect children on their platforms.
Arguments in Opposition
A coalition of industry opponents jointly write:
First, companies could adjust their policies and terms of service to exclude all users under the age of 18. This would be a tremendous and detrimental blow to teens' ability to access information and the open internet. As discussed below, this violates First Amendment principles and protections for teens. However, even if a platform stated in its terms of service that teens under 18 were not allowed on the platform and took steps to prevent their access, that may not be enough to avoid liability for a teen who accesses the site anyway and has a negative outcome.
Second, companies could also adjust their terms of service so that users under the age of 18 have a heavily sanitized version of the platform. This could include limiting which users teens can interact with (e.g. only users approved by parents), which features they have access to (no messaging or public posting), and even what content they can interact with or view ( no political, news, or other "potentially harmful" content). This might reduce but would not prevent every instance of harm to teens given the nebulousness and subjectivity that is inherent in defining "harm".
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 AB 2
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 for teens. For instance, content promoting healthy eating could be restricted due to concerns it could lead to body image issues. Similarly, content about the climate crisis or foreign conflicts would need to be restricted as it could lead to depression, anxiety, and self-harm. Additionally, beneficial information like anti-drug or smoking cessation programs, mental health support, and gender identity resources could get overregulated because of the impossibility of deciding what is harmful to every user.
Furthermore, platforms would need to evaluate whether to eliminate fundamental features and functions of their platform, features that are the reason teens and users go to their platforms, due to the legal risk involved. For instance, since direct messaging features could potentially be misused for contacting and bullying other teens, such features would likely be removed.
Teens' use of these platforms would be overly policed and sanitized to such a degree that they would surely leave our sites in favor of others that don't meet AB 2's $100 million revenue threshold. Collectively, our organizations represent platforms that take their responsibility to their users incredibly seriously and have devoted millions of dollars to increasing the safety and enjoyment of their platforms. Teens will seek out the ability to interact online, whether it is on our platforms or on others, including ones that don't prioritize their safety and well-being.
FISCAL COMMENTS
As currently in print, this bill is keyed nonfiscal.
VOTES
ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 9-0-6
YES: Dixon, Berman, Bryan, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Patterson, Pellerin, Ward ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer- Kahan, DeMaio, Irwin, Macedo, Petrie- Norris, Wilson ASM JUDICIARY: 9-0-3
YES: Kalra, Wicks, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Stefani, Zbur ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon, Sanchez, Tangipa
UPDATED
VERSION: April 3, 2025
CONSULTANT: Josh Tosney / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0000226 You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Date: 6/10/2025 4:54:03 PM
From:" Sandra Gregware"
To:" Public Comment" publiccomment@anaheim. net
Subject:[ EXTERNAL] Housing for me and my husbands service dog Warning: This email originated fromoutside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachme nts unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Hi my name is Sandra Lynn Gregware- Warner me and my Husband Timothy Warner which is no longer with us he passed away on April 28th 2025,and now that he has passed away I have his service dog and we are currently on the streets now cause before he passed he had a voucher which because I was his wife I was on his voucher but we had gotten into a fight to where the cops was called and I left the apartment and then the voucher was terminated, so the reason for this I think that Anaheim housing authority has not been a help to me because they asked me to go get a restraining order on my husband they would help me with a voucher but didn't even gave me a chance to even appeal their decision at all.After I went to the office and was begging them for help for them to try to get me a emergency voucher I was left on the streets to try to figure out who could help me I even hired a housing lawyer and still today I'mcurrently on the streets,and then they chose me for the section 8 lottery and now it says as of April 28th 2025 I am no longer on the wait list due to returned mail so the day that my husband died I was taken off the wait list only because of Anaheim housing authority I'mback on the streets cause if they would of helped me when my husband decided to put his hands on me and they didn't even help me out with resources or anything and never even kept in contact with me to let me know wat was going on cause Dionne Said she was gonna help me as soon as I either got the police report or the restraining order and she also told my husband the same thing if he filed a restraining order on me he would be able to keep the voucher and take me off of his voucher but they canceled the voucher due to the apartment complex wouldn't sign the HAP contract due to homeless people going and coming from the apartment and bikes parked in the unit and the guest had pets with them is the reason why they wouldn't sign the HAP contract me and my husband was homeless before we moved into the apartment complex but I think they have done me wrong I have appealed why there decision is wrong and I haven't heard anything back from about my housing voucher and because of I really am on the streets cause I can't do a homeless shelter again because my mental health can't handle it again,and it's getting much worse now that my husband is gone ifI could have a chance to have my own place I think I could turn my life back around and accomplish what I need to do to get a job and succeed but I've been on the streets I've been raped out here and need some help and when I went and actually asked I was ignored so I'mreaching out for help one more time so if anyone can help me with housing please I really need it
Sincerely Sandra Lynn Gregware- Warner