In 2026 the Legislature and Governor Newsom stopped debating whether to regulate children’s technology and artificial intelligence (AI) and started writing rules against the backdrop of rapidly shifting public sentiment about the emerging technology. In September, Newsom signed 13 youth online safety bills at a single event, a day after signing two bills that set up state oversight of AI auditors.

For schools, there are few new mandates. Of most interest, SB 1128 bars requiring kindergarten and transitional kindergarten (TK) pupils to take devices home beginning in 2027-28, and AB 2726 lets boards use new surplus technology disposal methods once they adopt a policy. Most of this year’s new laws fall on vendors: the student data privacy rewrite in AB 1159, end-to-end encryption for proctoring vendors in SB 930, chatbot operator duties in SB 1119, and provenance disclosures for generative AI providers in SB 1000. Most of these laws take effect January 1, 2027; the later dates are noted in the summaries below.

Kids’ Online Safety Package Signed in the Aftermath of the Meta Settlement

The politics of the September technology package were set in late August, when Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion to states, including California, and to limit minors to two hours a day on its platforms, block overnight use, hide likes, and drop beauty filters. The settlement was announced in the final week of the legislative session. The Governor signed several related bills with the Golden Gate Bridge behind him, calling the settlement “a drop in the bucket,” and saying:

Our children’s safety deserves to be at the center of every conversation about technology. As innovation moves faster our protections must keep pace. Today’s legislation makes clear that California will not stand by while unregulated technology puts our children at risk.

Assembly Member Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) carried the two bills this session he said are “really going to be the hammer that the settlement seeks to impose.” AB 2 raises statutory damages against large social media platforms that negligently injure a child to as much as $1 million per child or three times the amount of the child’s actual damage, whichever is larger. AB 1709 (summarized in the Student Services brief), bans personalized feeds, autoplay, and infinite scroll for users under 16 and creates an eSafety Commission to advise the Attorney General on enforcement. Lowenthal says he expects the commission “to be overwhelmed” and to need expansion over time. Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) added three bills: AB 2246 reenacts the 2022 Age-Appropriate Design Code without the provisions a federal court enjoined, AB 1856 extends the age signals that operating systems must send to app developers, and AB 1946 tightens social media reporting of child sexual abuse material.

TechNet, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) opposed the major bills, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed AB 2. It’s important to note that every bill in the package passed with heavily lopsided or unanimous support, showing lawmakers are reacting to the public’s extreme discomfort with AI and technology in schools.

Adam’s Law Settles the Chatbot Fight, for Now

Last year, the Governor vetoed AB 1064 by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), which would have barred companion chatbots for minors unless developers could guarantee safety, and signed the narrower SB 243 by Senator Steve Padilla (D-San Diego) instead. Bauer-Kahan said advocates were disappointed to see him “side with Big Tech.” This year the two authors, joined by Wicks, carried SB 1119 together. Named Adam’s Law after Adam Raine, a California teenager whose family sued OpenAI after his death by suicide, the bill requires chatbot operators either to determine users’ ages or to treat every user as a child, sets protective defaults and parental controls, bars a list of behaviors toward children, limits advertising and data use, and requires independent child safety audits of the largest operators.

Late amendments trimmed the private right of action to actual harms, clarified when a chatbot may remember prior conversations, and allowed limited advertising, among other things. OpenAI endorsed the bill only after those changes, and CEO Sam Altman contacted the Governor before the final vote. Newsom said “a book could be written just on the sausage-making” and that some parties had to be dragged “kicking and screaming” to the finish line.

The core pieces of this package take effect July 1, 2027. Weeks after the signing, Character.AI, the platform named in several teen suicide lawsuits, filed for bankruptcy. Padilla called it “a reckoning.” The law regulates operators, and it exempts postsecondary institutions that use chatbots only in educational settings. K-12 agencies are not listed in that exemption. A companion bill, SB 867, bans toys with companion chatbots for children under 16 through 2030.

Student Data Privacy Gets an AI Training Ban and a Private Right of Action

AB 1159 by Assembly Member Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) is the most significant rewrite of the state’s student data privacy laws since they were enacted in 2014. Operators of K-12 and preschool products can no longer use student information, including persistent identifiers, to train generative AI or develop AI systems, and cannot collect or disclose information about a pupil’s reproductive or sexual health, immigration status, or sexual orientation or gender identity. Vendors must keep a written retention policy capped at the LEA’s own schedule, delete data when the LEA asks, and open their deidentification process to LEA review. Pupils and parents can sue for the greater of actual damages or $500 per violation. LEAs are excluded from the definition of operator, so the obligations and the liability fall on vendors, which is why the Chamber, TechNet, and CCIA all opposed the bill. It passed the Senate 32-0 and the Assembly 70-4.

SB 930 by Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-San Bernardino), supported by county offices of education (COEs), CTA, and CITE, the statewide association of K-12 technology leaders, requires proctoring vendors serving LEAs to use end-to-end encryption beginning July 1, 2027. No opposition was filed.

AI Oversight, Pushed by the Governor

The two AI oversight bills signed in September, SB 813 by Senator Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton) and AB 1405 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan, set up state standards for independent verification organizations and a registry of AI auditors. Neither requires anyone to be audited. Anthropic and OpenAI endorsed both, and Google dropped its opposition to SB 813 only after a proposed state standards commission was removed. The signings came as a former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher’s warnings about existential risk went viral and after autonomous AI agents hacked the company Hugging Face during testing. Within weeks, Governor Newsom issued an executive order directing the Government Operations Agency to accelerate both laws and convene experts to report within two months on a “kill switch” for frontier models and on embedding independent evaluators inside AI companies.

Two other bills are important to school agencies. SB 1000 by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), an urgency statute in effect since September 30, requires every generative AI provider publicly accessible in California, regardless of size, to embed provenance disclosures in AI-generated images, video, and audio and to offer a free verification tool.

SB 1159 by Senator Christopher Cabaldon (D-Yolo) clarifies that AI agents and bots are not persons or members of the public under the Public Records Act and the Brown Act. A records request or public comment generated and submitted by an autonomous AI agent is not one from the public, a person who uses AI to write one still is – but sorting this all out is likely to be an issue going forward.

Devices and Screen Time: The State Starts in Kindergarten While Washington Weighs E-Rate

SB 1128 by Senator Henry Stern (D-Los Angeles) began as a bill with CDE model policies and a pilot program to ban take-home devices. Both were stripped in the Assembly, leaving a single prohibition on requiring kindergarten and TK pupils to take school-issued devices home beginning in 2027-28, with exceptions for IEPs, emergencies, and independent study, and a list of considerations LEAs are encouraged to weigh when they review screen-time policies. It passed without a no vote. Assembly Member Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), a joint author of AB 1709 (summarized in the Student Services brief), said conversations about classroom screen use “need to continue to happen.” His AB 2071 on digital wellness instruction is summarized in the Curriculum and Instruction brief.

On the operations side, AB 2726 by Assembly Member Mike Fong (D-Alhambra) gives boards new ways to sell, trade in, or donate surplus technology once they adopt a policy that covers data wiping and categorical fund conditions, and AB 2790 by the Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee makes district and county office data centers and administrative offices expressly eligible for California Teleconnect Fund discounts. That expansion comes as the Federal Communications Commission, under Chair Brendan Carr, has asked in a formal rulemaking whether the federal E-rate program should be “limited or sunset.”

What Comes Next

A new Governor and a new class of legislators arrive in January, elected in races where tech-funded committees spent heavily and where several of the candidates they backed publicly distanced themselves from the industry. Wicks has said student technology “is going to be a big topic next year, one that needs to be revisited,” Bauer-Kahan has floated “a real tech safety regulator,” and the Governor’s office says there is “much more to come.” Expect 2027 bills on mandatory AI safety evaluation, district device and phone policies, AI procurement standards for schools, and Public Records Act burdens, along with the recommendations of the Governor’s AI expert panel. The State Board of Education, CDE, and the Governor’s office have also been developing guidance for LEAs on AI procurement and student wellbeing, which we expect to see in draft form before the end of 2026.

Related Legislative Updates

Three bills signed this year will interest technology staff but are summarized in other Changes in Law briefs:

• AB 1709 (Lowenthal): The eSafety Commission bill that bars addictive feeds for users under 16. Summarized in Student Services (Mental Health).
• AB 2071 (Hoover): Digital wellness instruction. Summarized in Curriculum and Instruction.
• AB 302 (Bauer-Kahan): Parental communication and addictive feeds. Summarized in Governance and Operations.

Technology Bills Signed Into Law

The Governor signed the following technology bills:

Artificial Intelligence

• AB 1405 (Bauer-Kahan) – Artificial intelligence: auditors: registration.

  AB 1405 requires the Government Operations Agency to establish a public registry of AI auditors by January 1, 2029. Beginning on that date, individuals and organizations that conduct covered AI audits, meaning audits of the controls an AI system needs in order to comply with state law, must register with the state, pay the annual registration fee the agency sets, and receive a unique registration number. The registry must include a mechanism for reporting auditor misconduct, and the agency can remove an auditor from the registry and refer the matter to the Attorney General.

  The bill does not require any entity, including LEAs, to obtain an AI audit. A September 18, 2026 executive order directs the agency to accelerate implementation of AB 1405 and SB 813.

  Important dates:

  • January 1, 2029: AI auditor registry in place, registration required to conduct a covered AI audit

  Chapter 178, Statutes of 2026

• AB 2713 (Wicks) – California AI Transparency Act: system provenance data.

  This bill revises the California AI Transparency Act requirements for large online platforms, meaning public-facing social media, file-sharing, mass messaging, or search services with more than 2,000,000 unique monthly users, to identify and disclose the origin and authenticity of digital content. Beginning January 1, 2027, these platforms must give users access to available system provenance data, including whether content was generated or substantially altered by a generative AI system or captured by a camera or other capture device. To the extent technically feasible, platforms cannot knowingly strip system provenance data or digital signatures from content when it is uploaded, distributed, or downloaded. The requirements apply only to provenance information that meets widely recognized technical standards, and the bill adds a carve-out for personal information. Violations carry a civil penalty of $5,000 per violation, enforceable by the Attorney General, a city attorney, or county counsel. The bill imposes no requirements on LEAs.

  Chapter 856, Statutes of 2026

• SB 813 (McNerney) – Independent verification organizations.

  SB 813 requires the Government Operations Agency, by January 1, 2028, to develop and publish the application requirements, designation criteria, and suspension and termination procedures for independent verification organizations (IVOs) that assess the risks of AI systems and models. A designated IVO must show expertise in evaluating AI-related risks and in identifying assessment methods, metrics, and methodologies, and must report to the agency annually.

  The bill does not require anyone to engage an IVO or undergo an assessment, and it creates no liability for failing to meet an IVO standard. A September 18, 2026 executive order directs the agency to accelerate implementation of SB 813 and AB 1405.

  Important dates:

  • January 1, 2028: Government Operations Agency publishes IVO application requirements and designation criteria

  Chapter 179, Statutes of 2026

• SB 867 (Padilla) – Toys: companion chatbots.

  SB 867 prohibits manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, or possessing with intent to sell a toy that incorporates a companion chatbot. A toy is a physical product designed, marketed, or manufactured for play by children under 16. A companion chatbot is an AI system with a natural language interface that gives adaptive, human-like responses, can meet a user’s social needs, and can sustain a relationship across multiple interactions. Customer service bots, video game characters, and stand-alone voice assistant speakers are excluded.

  The prohibition runs from January 1, 2027 through December 31, 2030. A person injured by a violation can sue for injunctive relief, the greater of actual damages or $1,000 per violation, and attorney’s fees. The practical effect is that AI-enabled plush toys, dolls, and play robots marketed to children under 16 cannot be sold in California during that period.

  Important dates:

  • January 1, 2031: prohibition expires

  Chapter 189, Statutes of 2026

• SB 1000 (Becker) – California AI Transparency Act.

  SB 1000 expands who is covered by the California AI Transparency Act by removing the 1,000,000 monthly user threshold. Any person that produces a generative AI system publicly accessible in California is now a covered provider, including small vendors. Covered providers must offer a free disclosure verification tool that lets a user check whether an image, video, or audio file was created or altered by the provider’s system; the tool does not cover text. To the extent technically feasible, providers must also embed a latent disclosure in AI-generated or AI-altered images, video, and audio that identifies the provider, the system and version, the date, and whether the system created or altered the content.

  The bill dropped the prior requirement that providers offer users an optional visible (manifest) disclosure. It exempts generative AI systems designed primarily as assistive technology until January 1, 2029, and prohibits falsely claiming that status, with a $50,000 civil penalty per violation. SB 1000 is an urgency statute and took effect September 30, 2026.

  Important dates:

  • September 30, 2026: in effect immediately as an urgency statute
  • January 1, 2029: assistive technology exemption ends

  Chapter 861, Statutes of 2026

• SB 1119 (Padilla) – Companion chatbots: children’s safety.

  This bill, known as Adam’s Law, sets safeguards for children under 18 who use AI companion chatbots and replaces the minor-specific duties enacted in 2025 under SB 243. Operators must either determine a user’s age under the Digital Age Assurance Act or apply the child protections to all users. For child users, operators must maintain a crisis response protocol, provide parental controls, and set protective defaults (no persistent memory, no push notifications, a one-hour session limit, and a two-hour daily limit) that only a linked parent account can change. They must also take reasonable measures to keep the chatbot from encouraging self-harm, claiming to be human, expressing romantic interest, or encouraging emotional reliance, among other listed behaviors.

  Operators cannot sell a child’s personal information or use it beyond what the service requires, and cannot target advertising to children based on chatbot conversations. Operators with $500 million or more in annual revenue must obtain an independent child safety audit every two years, with the first due by January 1, 2029.

  Public prosecutors can seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per affected child for each negligent violation and $15,000 for each intentional violation. The bill exempts postsecondary institutions that offer chatbots only in educational settings; K-12 agencies are not listed in the exemption.

  Important dates:

  • July 1, 2027: core operator duties (defaults, parental controls, prohibited behaviors, advertising and data limits) become operative
  • January 1, 2029: first independent child safety audit due for operators with $500 million or more in annual revenue

  Chapter 190, Statutes of 2026

• SB 1159 (Cabaldon) – Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance.

  This measure provides that AI systems, autonomous agents, and robots are not persons or members of the public under the California Public Records Act, the Brown Act, the Bagley-Keene Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, CEQA, and the Coastal Act. A records request or public comment that an autonomous AI agent generates and submits on its own is not a request or comment from a member of the public. A person who uses AI to draft or submit one still is, as long as the volume and frequency of the engagement are consistent with ordinary participation by a natural person.

  Local agencies, including school districts and COEs, may use a disclosure verification tool that meets the AI Transparency Act criteria to determine whether AI is present. The bill also prohibits knowingly using AI to falsely represent that a natural person engaged with an agency. It does not change Public Records Act deadlines or Brown Act public comment procedures, and it does not prescribe how an agency determines that a submission came from an AI agent.

  Chapter 863, Statutes of 2026

Data Privacy

• AB 1159 (Addis) – Student personal information.

  AB 1159 rewrites the K-12 Pupil Online Personal Information Protection Act (KOPIPA) and the Early Learning Personal Information Protection Act (ELPIPA), and creates a parallel Higher Education Student Information Protection Act (HESIPA) operative July 1, 2027. The laws now affect any entity working on behalf of an operator and any site, service, or application that is used for school purposes and designed or marketed for them. Previously a product had to be used primarily for school purposes and both designed and marketed for them. Operators cannot use covered information, including persistent unique identifiers, to train a generative AI system or develop an AI system, and cannot collect, use, retain, or disclose information about a pupil’s reproductive or sexual health, immigration status, or sexual orientation or gender identity.

  Operators must maintain a written data retention policy, available on request to parents and K-12 personnel, that does not exceed the LEA’s own retention period for the same records. They must delete pupil data when the LEA requests it and must delete or disclose a former pupil’s data on request after 60 days of non-enrollment. Before using student data as deidentified data, an operator must make its deidentification process available for LEA review and follow any deidentification policy the LEA maintains. The bill does not require the LEA to review or approve it.

  Pupils and parents can sue an operator for the greater of actual damages or $500 per violation after a 60-day notice and cure period. LEAs and CDE are excluded from the definition of operator.

  Important dates:

  • July 1, 2027: Higher Education Student Information Protection Act operative (applies to community college districts and other postsecondary institutions)

  Chapter 182, Statutes of 2026

• SB 930 (Reyes) – Student Test Taker Privacy Protection Act: end-to-end encryption.

  SB 930 requires a business that provides proctoring services to a school district, COE, or charter school for classroom- or course-based exams to use end-to-end encryption beginning July 1, 2027. End-to-end encryption means data is encrypted on the sender’s device and stays encrypted until it reaches the intended recipient’s device, unreadable by any other party, including the proctoring vendor. Proctoring services include any service that observes, monitors, or administers an exam.

  The responsibility falls on the vendor, and the bill adds no new enforcement provision. Proctoring contracts that run past July 1, 2027 should reflect the requirement. The bill does not define the intended recipient, which the Assembly Education Committee flagged as an implementation question for making sure school staff can access results.

  Important dates:

  • July 1, 2027: proctoring vendors serving LEAs must use end-to-end encryption

  Chapter 989, Statutes of 2026

Technology

• AB 2 (Lowenthal) – Injuries to children: civil penalties.

  This bill makes a social media platform with more than $100 million in annual gross revenue liable for statutory damages when it negligently causes injury to a child under 18: the greater of $5,000 per violation, up to $1 million per child, or three times the child’s actual damages. The damages attach to the existing duty of ordinary care in Civil Code section 1714. The bill creates no new cause of action. Any waiver of the section is void. It applies prospectively and does not apply to cases pending on or before January 1, 2027. It sunsets January 1, 2035. The bill regulates platforms and imposes no requirements on LEAs.

  Important dates:

  • January 1, 2035: statutory damages provision is repealed

  Chapter 180, Statutes of 2026

• AB 1856 (Wicks) – Age verification signals: software applications.

  AB 1856 revises the Digital Age Assurance Act, which takes effect January 1, 2027. Under the Act, an operating system provider must collect the birth date or age of a device’s primary user at account setup and send an age bracket signal (under 13, 13 to 15, 16 to 17, or 18 and over) to app stores and app developers. AB 1856 extends the signal to the primary user of any device with an account setup feature, requires app stores to relay the signal to developers, requires developers to request it when an app is downloaded and launched, and treats a developer that receives a signal as knowing the user’s age range across the app and its related websites.

  For devices set up and apps downloaded before January 1, 2027, providers and developers have until July 1, 2027 to comply. Earlier versions extended the Act to browsers and websites, but those provisions were removed. The Attorney General enforces the Act, with civil penalties of up to $2,500 per affected child for each negligent violation and $7,500 for each intentional violation. The Act regulates operating system providers, app stores, and developers. It does not address school-managed devices or say whether a district that sets up devices is an account holder.

  Important dates:

  • July 1, 2027: age signal requirements phased in for devices set up and apps downloaded before January 1, 2027

  Chapter 184, Statutes of 2026

• AB 1946 (Wicks) – Reporting mechanism: child sexual abuse material.

  This bill strengthens the 2023 law that requires social media platforms to provide a way to report child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The reporting mechanism must be clear and conspicuous and free of dark patterns, and any California user can report material. Previously only the depicted minor could report. The definition of CSAM now includes an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable minor, including AI-generated or digitally altered images.

  After a report, a platform must permanently block the material within 48 hours if there is a reasonable basis to believe it is CSAM, confirm the actions taken in writing within 72 hours, and issue a final determination within seven days. Reports without a known hash match must be reviewed by a person. The Attorney General, district attorneys, city attorneys, and county counsel can seek civil penalties of up to $250,000 per day, and a depicted minor can sue for statutory damages of up to $250,000 per violation. End-to-end encrypted messaging services and services operated by 501(c)(3) nonprofits are excluded. The bill imposes no duties on LEAs.

  Chapter 185, Statutes of 2026

• AB 2246 (Wicks) – Online service, product, or feature: access by children.

  AB 2246 repeals the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act of 2022, parts of which a federal court enjoined, and reenacts its surviving requirements for businesses that provide an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children under 18. A covered business must either estimate the age of child users or apply child-level privacy protections to all users, set default privacy settings to a high level, present privacy terms in language suited to children, and signal to a child when a parent or other consumer is monitoring or tracking the child. It cannot profile a child by default without safeguards, collect or retain personal information beyond what the service needs, collect precise geolocation by default, or use dark patterns to extract personal information.

  The bill adds a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable physical, financial, or severe psychological harm to children. The data protection impact assessment requirement from the 2022 law is gone. The Attorney General or a public prosecutor can seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per affected child for each negligent violation and $15,000 for each intentional violation.

  The law applies to businesses as defined in the California Consumer Privacy Act, meaning for-profit entities above the CCPA revenue or data thresholds, so it does not apply to LEAs. It contains no exemption for educational services or for vendors under contract with an LEA.

  Chapter 187, Statutes of 2026

• AB 2726 (Fong) – School facilities: disposal of surplus technology property.

  AB 2726 lets the governing board of a school district, COE, or community college district declare district-owned technology surplus and dispose of it by public or online auction or sealed bid, through a structured trade-in or buyback program with a vendor or manufacturer (including applying the value as a credit toward replacement technology), by negotiated sale at fair market value to a public agency, nonprofit, or private entity, or by donation to a public agency or nonprofit public benefit corporation.

  This authority is in addition to existing surplus property law and is available only for the methods the board authorizes by policy. Before using it, the board must adopt policies and procedures that cover four items: how the district determines technology is no longer needed, reasonable methods to ensure competition or market testing, compliance with state and federal student and employee data protection requirements (including secure data deletion, device wiping, and verification of sanitization before transfer), and disposal of technology bought with categorical funds consistent with the funding conditions.

  Technology is defined broadly to include computers, servers, network and telecommunications equipment, mobile devices, audiovisual systems, surveillance and security systems, and associated software and licenses. Charter schools are not covered.

  This bill requires LEAs to adopt board policies and procedures before using the new disposal methods.

  Chapter 51, Statutes of 2026

• AB 2790 (Committee on Communications and Conveyance) – California Teleconnect Fund Administrative Committee Fund program.

  This bill expands the entities expressly eligible for California Teleconnect Fund (CTF) discounts on advanced communication services. The statute previously named K-12 schools, community colleges, libraries, hospitals, health clinics, and community organizations. It now also names school districts and COEs serving preschool, transitional kindergarten, and grades K-12, community college districts, and public libraries and public library systems. All noninstructional facilities operated or contracted by those entities, including their data centers and administrative offices, are eligible for the discount as well. The bill responds to a CPUC rulemaking opened in August 2025 (R.25-08-005) that proposed adding districts and COEs but raised concern among education stakeholders about backbone services housed in noninstructional facilities.

  The bill also changes how CTF stacks with the federal E-rate program. The service provider, rather than the CPUC, now applies the E-rate discount first, using an actual or representative E-rate figure as determined by the CPUC, whether or not the customer has applied for or been approved for E-rate, unless federal rules make the customer ineligible. The CTF discount applies to the remainder. The committee analysis describes the CTF discount as 50 percent of recurring monthly charges for eligible services. The bill creates no obligations for LEAs.

  Chapter 643, Statutes of 2026

• SB 1128 (Stern) – Pupils: technology-based materials: school-issued electronic devices.

  This measure prohibits a school district, COE, or charter school from requiring a kindergarten or transitional kindergarten pupil to take home a school-issued electronic device, beginning with the 2027-28 school year. The exceptions are a device required under the pupil’s IEP, a local or state emergency that prevents in-person attendance as determined by the LEA, and independent study.

  LEAs may still allow kindergarten pupils to take devices home voluntarily. The bill encourages LEAs to review and update their screen-time and device policies with input from teachers, administrators, parents, and students, considering grade-level appropriateness, cost, technical support, the LEA’s ability to monitor devices at home, equity, and safety. CDE must post resources on age-appropriate screen time and guidance on converting take-home devices to classroom devices and on e-waste recycling and buyback programs by July 1, 2027.

  Important dates:

  • July 1, 2027: CDE posts screen-time resources and device transition guidance
  • 2027-28 school year: prohibition on requiring kindergarten and TK pupils to take devices home takes effect

  Chapter 191, Statutes of 2026

• SB 1247 (Padilla) – Social media platforms: child influencers.

  SB 1247 requires a social media platform to provide a clear and conspicuous mechanism through which a child influencer can ask the parent, guardian, or family member who posted paid content featuring them (the vlogger) to delete it or edit it so the child influencer no longer appears. A child influencer is an adult who was featured as a minor in paid content. If the mechanism does not send the request directly, the platform must notify the vlogger within three business days, and the vlogger must comply within 10 business days. A child influencer can sue the vlogger for actual damages, $3,000 per day of violation, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. The bill applies to platforms and compensated family vloggers. It does not apply to LEAs or to district social media accounts.

  Chapter 1022, Statutes of 2026

Source: Adapted from the October 2026 Technology: Changes in Law brief by Capitol Advisors Group. Bills signed by the Governor take effect on January 1, 2027, unless the bill specifically states otherwise.