California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Died Bipartisan · 4 D · 1 R cosponsors

AB 886 — California Journalism Preservation Act.

Last action — From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (August 15). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. Died in session

This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law generally regulates online platforms, including by requiring, on a semiannual basis and as specified, a social media company to submit to the Attorney General a terms of service report that includes, among other things, the current version of the terms of service of the social media platform. This bill, the California Journalism Preservation Act, would require a covered platform, as defined, to either pay at least $____ annually to compensate digital journalism providers, as defined, for accessing the internet websites of the providers for a California audience, where the money is annually adjusted, as specified, and annually distributed to digital journalism providers, as described, or to participate in a final arbitration process, as specified, and fully pay the arbitration award, as provided. The bill would require, commencing not later than March 1, 2025, a covered platform to compile and post on its internet website a list of digital journalism providers, as described, that the platform accessed for a California audience during the preceding 12 months. The bill would require a covered platform to provide the above-described list to any digital journalism provider upon request, as specified, and to establish a designated email address to which a request may be submitted. This bill would prohibit a covered platform from retaliating against a digital journalism provider for asserting its rights under the act by refusing to access content or changing the ranking, identification, modification, branding, or placement of the content of the digital journalism provider on the covered platform. The bill would require a digital journalism provider to spend at least 70% of funds received pursuant to the act on news journalists and support staff employed by the digital journalism provider. The bill would require an eligible digital journalism provider with 5 or fewer employees, to spend at least 50% of funds received pursuant to these provisions on news journalists and support staff employed by the digital journalism provider. This bill would require, no later than one year after the end of an arbitration proceeding or reaching a settlement in lieu of an arbitration proceeding, or receiving a payment, as specified, and each year thereafter, the digital journalism provider to compile a report containing, among other things, an attestation that the digital journalism provider has complied with the revenue sharing provisions described above. The bill would require a digital journalism provider to publish and distribute that report, as specified. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a digital journalism provider to seek and obtain injunctive relief to compel compliance, as specified, and would require court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to be awarded to a prevailing provider. The bill would state that its provisions are severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (August 15). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  2. In committee: Reconsideration of a favorable vote granted.

  3. In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file.

  4. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (June 25).

  6. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  7. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  8. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  9. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  10. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  11. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 55. Noes 6. Page 2139.)

  12. Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 1934.)

  13. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  14. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (May 2).

  15. Coauthors revised.

  16. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  18. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  19. Coauthors revised.

  20. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  21. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.

  22. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. Read second time and amended.

  23. Referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and JUD.

  24. From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.

  25. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 5 co-sponsors · 116 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (5)

Not signed on (116)

116 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 116 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

[08-15-2024] set for [First] hearing: Reconsideration of favorable vote granted

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 4000
Republican 2000
Unaffiliated 0001
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Not Voting
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 9 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Unaffiliated 1100
Republican 0100
Total 9200
% of votes cast 82%18%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay

Subjects

civil-rights labor technology
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 886 do?
Existing law generally regulates online platforms, including by requiring, on a semiannual basis and as specified, a social media company to submit to the Attorney General a terms of service report that includes, among other things, the current version of the terms of service of the social media platform. This bill, the California Journalism Preservation Act, would require a covered platform, as defined, to either pay at least $____ annually to compensate digital journalism providers, as defined, for accessing the internet websites of the providers for a California audience, where the money is annually adjusted, as specified, and annually distributed to digital journalism providers, as described, or to participate in a final arbitration process, as specified, and fully pay the arbitration award, as provided. The bill would require, commencing not later than March 1, 2025, a covered platform to compile and post on its internet website a list of digital journalism providers, as described, that the platform accessed for a California audience during the preceding 12 months. The bill would require a covered platform to provide the above-described list to any digital journalism provider upon request, as specified, and to establish a designated email address to which a request may be submitted. This bill would prohibit a covered platform from retaliating against a digital journalism provider for asserting its rights under the act by refusing to access content or changing the ranking, identification, modification, branding, or placement of the content of the digital journalism provider on the covered platform. The bill would require a digital journalism provider to spend at least 70% of funds received pursuant to the act on news journalists and support staff employed by the digital journalism provider. The bill would require an eligible digital journalism provider with 5 or fewer employees, to spend at least 50% of funds received pursuant to these provisions on news journalists and support staff employed by the digital journalism provider. This bill would require, no later than one year after the end of an arbitration proceeding or reaching a settlement in lieu of an arbitration proceeding, or receiving a payment, as specified, and each year thereafter, the digital journalism provider to compile a report containing, among other things, an attestation that the digital journalism provider has complied with the revenue sharing provisions described above. The bill would require a digital journalism provider to publish and distribute that report, as specified. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a digital journalism provider to seek and obtain injunctive relief to compel compliance, as specified, and would require court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to be awarded to a prevailing provider. The bill would state that its provisions are severable. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 886?
AB 886 is sponsored by Wicks, Buffy (Democratic), Lowenthal, Josh (Democratic), McGuire, Mike (Democratic), Skinner, Stern, Henry I. (Democratic), and Essayli, Bill (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 886?
This bill died with 2023-2024 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 886?
Track AB 886 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 886

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 886

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →