SB 41 — Privacy: genetic testing companies.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 596, Statutes of 2021.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced December 07, 2020. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
2 sponsors
1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (2 D).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 9 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
Existing law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, provides various protections to a consumer with respect to a business that collects the consumer's personal information, including biometric information such as the consumer's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) . The act requires a business that collects a consumer's personal information to, at or before the point of collection, inform the consumer as to the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the information will be used, and grants to a consumer the right to opt-out of the sale of the consumer's personal information by the business to a third party. Existing law also prohibits the disclosure by a health care service plan of the results of a test for a genetic characteristic to a third party in a manner that identifies or provides identifying characteristics of the person to whom the test results apply, except pursuant to a written authorization to do so. This bill would establish the Genetic Information Privacy Act, which would require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, as defined, to provide a consumer with certain information regarding the company's policies and procedures for the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure, as applicable, of genetic data, and to obtain a consumer's express consent for collection, use, or disclosure of the consumer's genetic data, as specified. This bill would require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to honor a consumer's revocation of consent in accordance with certain procedures, and to destroy a consumer's biological sample within 30 days of revocation of consent. The bill would further require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect a consumer's genetic data against unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, and develop procedures and practices to enable a consumer to access their genetic data, and to delete their account and genetic data, as specified. The bill would exclude from its provisions the California Newborn Screening Program, specific tests, and certain information, providers, entities, and activities subject to specified state and federal laws. This bill would provide that the act does not reduce a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company's duties, obligations, requirements, or standards under any applicable state and federal law for the protection of privacy and security and would further provide, if a conflict exists between the act and any other law, that the provisions of the law that afford the greatest protection for the right of privacy for consumers shall control. This bill would impose civil penalties for a violation of those provisions, as specified. The bill would require actions for relief pursuant to these provisions to be prosecuted exclusively by the Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of a board, officer, person, corporation, or association or upon a complaint by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the violation of the act. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill Text
- Chaptered 10/06/21 - Chaptered Current pdf October 06, 2021
- Enrolled 09/13/21 - Enrolled pdf September 13, 2021
- Amended 08/30/21 - Amended Assembly pdf August 30, 2021
- Amended 06/17/21 - Amended Assembly pdf June 17, 2021
- Amended 06/14/21 - Amended Assembly pdf June 14, 2021
- Amended 03/11/21 - Amended Senate pdf March 11, 2021
- Introduced 12/07/20 - Introduced pdf December 07, 2020
- SB41 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 596, Statutes of 2021.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:30 p.m.
-
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2552.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
-
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 80. Noes 0. Page 2909.) Ordered to the Senate.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (August 26).
-
August 19 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (July 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
-
Coauthors revised.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
-
Referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and JUD.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1277.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1180.) (May 20).
-
Set for hearing May 20.
-
March 22 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.
-
Set for hearing March 22.
-
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 422.) (March 9).
-
Set for hearing March 9.
-
Referred to Com. on JUD.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 7.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Thomas J. Umberg · Primary
- Buffy Wicks · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic
Co-sponsors (1)
- Wicks, Buffy Democratic
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 22 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 38 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Borgeas | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Newman | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Min | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Not Voting |
| Allen, Benjamin | Democratic | Yea |
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| Becker, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Cortese, Dave | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Hurtado, Melissa | Democratic | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 80 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bloom | — | Yea |
| Mullin | — | Yea |
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Wood | — | Yea |
| Smith | — | Yea |
| Cunningham | — | Yea |
| Cooper | — | Yea |
| Voepel | — | Yea |
| Cooley | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Rodriguez | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Nazarian | — | Yea |
| Ting | — | Yea |
| O'Donnell | — | Yea |
| Waldron | — | Yea |
| Medina | — | Yea |
| McCarty | — | Yea |
| Friedman | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Rendon | — | Yea |
| Villapudua | — | Yea |
| Salas | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Daly | — | Yea |
| Gray | — | Yea |
| Burke | — | Yea |
| Mathis | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Mayes | — | Yea |
| Frazier | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Cristina Garcia | — | Yea |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Jim Patterson | — | Yea |
| Lorena Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Luz Rivas | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Vince Fong | — | Yea |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bennett, Steve | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Cervantes, Sabrina | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Reyes, Eloise Gómez | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ward, Christopher M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Yea |
| Choi, Steven S. | Republican | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Valladares, Suzette Martinez | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Democratic | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 12 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 75% | 0% | 0% | 25% |
How each member voted (16)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Levine | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Bigelow | — | Not Voting |
| Eduardo Garcia | — | Yea |
| Lorena Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Vince Fong | — | Not Voting |
| Wendy Carrillo | — | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Not Voting |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Holden | — | Yea |
| Chiu | — | Yea |
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Maienschein | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Lorena Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Mark Stone | — | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Reyes, Eloise Gómez | Democratic | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Kiley | — | Yea |
| Chau | — | Yea |
| Cunningham | — | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bennett, Steve | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Carrillo, Juan | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Unaffiliated | 22 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 38 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Newman | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Borgeas | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Min | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Eggman | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Rubio | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Not Voting |
| Allen, Benjamin | Democratic | Yea |
| Archuleta, Bob | Democratic | Yea |
| Becker, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Cortese, Dave | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Hurtado, Melissa | Democratic | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Limón, Monique | Democratic | Not Voting |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Yea |
| Umberg, Thomas J. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Grove, Shannon | Republican | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Portantino | — | Yea |
| Kamlager | — | Yea |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Borgeas | — | Yea |
| Gonzalez | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | 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 |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Jones, Brian W. | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 41 do?
- Existing law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, provides various protections to a consumer with respect to a business that collects the consumer's personal information, including biometric information such as the consumer's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) . The act requires a business that collects a consumer's personal information to, at or before the point of collection, inform the consumer as to the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the information will be used, and grants to a consumer the right to opt-out of the sale of the consumer's personal information by the business to a third party. Existing law also prohibits the disclosure by a health care service plan of the results of a test for a genetic characteristic to a third party in a manner that identifies or provides identifying characteristics of the person to whom the test results apply, except pursuant to a written authorization to do so. This bill would establish the Genetic Information Privacy Act, which would require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, as defined, to provide a consumer with certain information regarding the company's policies and procedures for the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure, as applicable, of genetic data, and to obtain a consumer's express consent for collection, use, or disclosure of the consumer's genetic data, as specified. This bill would require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to honor a consumer's revocation of consent in accordance with certain procedures, and to destroy a consumer's biological sample within 30 days of revocation of consent. The bill would further require a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect a consumer's genetic data against unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure, and develop procedures and practices to enable a consumer to access their genetic data, and to delete their account and genetic data, as specified. The bill would exclude from its provisions the California Newborn Screening Program, specific tests, and certain information, providers, entities, and activities subject to specified state and federal laws. This bill would provide that the act does not reduce a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company's duties, obligations, requirements, or standards under any applicable state and federal law for the protection of privacy and security and would further provide, if a conflict exists between the act and any other law, that the provisions of the law that afford the greatest protection for the right of privacy for consumers shall control. This bill would impose civil penalties for a violation of those provisions, as specified. The bill would require actions for relief pursuant to these provisions to be prosecuted exclusively by the Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel, city attorney, or city prosecutor, as specified, in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of a board, officer, person, corporation, or association or upon a complaint by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the violation of the act. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
- Who sponsors SB 41?
- SB 41 is sponsored by Umberg, Thomas J. (Democratic) and Wicks, Buffy (Democratic).
- What is the current status of SB 41?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced December 07, 2020. Enacted.
- Where can I track SB 41?
- Track SB 41 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 41
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.
Stay ahead of SB 41
Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →