Tech lobbying surge may signal momentum for AI rules

SACRAMENTO -- Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said Tuesday that California lawmakers have grown increasingly adept at regulating artificial intelligence and social media platforms--a shift she said is reflected in the millions of dollars technology companies are now spending to stop them.

The San Ramon Democrat has become perhaps the most prominent voice in the Legislature trying to rein in big tech. She was the main morning speaker at a conference near the Capitol titled Safer Internet Day, in conversation with Ava Smithing, advocacy director at the Young People's Alliance, a Gen Z activist group.

Bauer-Kahan also made some bold claims about her place in the current battlefield of internet regulation. This included watching the "Today" show when the hosts began talking about AB 56, the law she wrote last year requiring warning labels on social media.

"They cited AB 56 as the reason that they were starting to see it as a public health crisis," Bauer-Kahan said. "That shift, I think, is game changing in and of itself, and something I'm really proud of."

But she said her favorite bill last year was one Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed. AB 1064, the Leading Ethical AI Development (LEAD) for Kids Act, would have created a regulatory framework for protecting children from AI systems, especially so-called "companion chatbots."

In a veto letter, Newsom wrote the bill would "impose such broad restrictions" that it would lead to "a total ban" on AI use by minors.

Bauer-Kahan had a different explanation. "In the last week of session, the social media companies spent over $1 million hiring new lobbyists trying to fight me, so it didn't make it to the governor's desk," she said.

It is hard to verify the numbers with much specificity. But a quick review suggests she has a point. Google LLC spent more than $3 million lobbying in Sacramento last year. Facebook's parent company, Meta Platforms Inc., spent nearly $5 million. Both companies' spending saw big jumps in the second half of 2025, and both listed AB 1064 among the bills they were active on.

Bauer-Kahan said she had no plans to back away from the fight, particularly after developing relationships with the families of teens who had died by suicide following AI use. Among the fights she might take up is expanding the state's "right to be forgotten" laws.

"I always say the only reason I'm an elected official is because I didn't grow up in the internet age," she joked.

But a subsequent panel at the conference offered a slightly different take on the future of regulation. Allison Merilees, recently retired after a long career as chief counsel to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, said she worked closely with Bauer-Kahan in crafting several of her bills. But she argued that courts, not lawmakers, could play the most significant role in holding tech companies accountable.

Merilees said existing legal doctrines already give judges ample authority to curb harmful practices by large platforms, if courts are willing to apply them aggressively. Chief among those tools, she said, is strict liability--the principle that companies can be held responsible for harm caused by their products regardless of intent or negligence.

As an example, Merilees pointed to a series of rulings in recent years holding Amazon.com liable for dangerous products sold through its marketplace, including items manufactured overseas. In those cases, courts treated the company as a seller rather than a passive intermediary, exposing it to product liability claims even as Amazon has successfully lobbied to blunt legislative efforts aimed at imposing similar responsibilities. A similar principle could be used to hold social media and AI companies liable, she said.

"For years and years, companies like Amazon argued, 'We're just connecting the buyer and the seller. We're not actually the seller. We're just the host that advertises this product,'" she said. "Actually, strict liability lies with the person who sold it."