20250HR__011799INT INTRODUCED 2026-06-09 2025 HR INT Introduced by Assembly Members Bauer-Kahan and Dixon LEAD_AUTHOR ASSEMBLY Bauer-Kahan LEAD_AUTHOR ASSEMBLY Dixon Relative to

Section of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Section of the federal Communications Decency Act of

WHEREAS,

Section of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which was intended to create a liability shield for neutral online platforms from most harms arising from third-party content, helped create the modern internet, fostering free expression online and allowing an array of innovative services and spaces to flourish, from search engines to social platforms; and

WHEREAS, Thirty years after its enactment, this well-intentioned law has become outdated and has led to destructive real-world consequences by absolving Big Tech companies of legal responsibility for their own design decisions and their own facilitation of third-party abuse, which is a protection not available to brick-and-mortar businesses; and

WHEREAS, Enacted in response to court decisions suggesting that online platforms could face liability for user-generated content if they engage in any content moderation,

Section was intended to promote development of the nascent internet and encourage “Good Samaritan” efforts by platforms to voluntarily screen objectionable material; and

WHEREAS,

Section 230(c)(1) provides 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,”

Section 230(c)(2) protects platforms from liability for good-faith efforts to restrict access to material that is “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,” and

Section 230(e)(3) preempts enforcement of contrary state laws; and

WHEREAS,

Section was intended to encourage and empower online platforms to self-regulate harmful and offensive material by immunizing them from liability for decisions made in the course of responsible content moderation but instead has been used by Big Tech companies as a license to take a hands-off approach to content moderation and willfully disregard known abuses on their platforms; and

WHEREAS,

Section was intended to provide protections only for the types of online services offering users a great deal of control over the information that they receive but instead has been used by Big Tech companies to shield new online products being willfully designed and deployed in a manner that deprives users of that control; and

WHEREAS, Courts have interpreted

Section expansively, shielding Big Tech companies from civil liability in a vast range of cases, including ones involving harassment and stalking, sexual exploitation and abuse, identity theft, scams against seniors, organized crime, the sale of illegal drugs, child sexual abuse, serial predators on dating apps, dissemination of child sexual abuse material, online retailers selling suicide kits, incitement to violence, and terrorist recruitment, and enabled these market-dominant platforms to disregard even grave offline consequences as acceptable collateral damage of their online growth; and

WHEREAS, Courts have applied

Section immunity even in cases where platforms have affirmatively solicited, edited, promoted, or algorithmically curated harmful content, refused to remove illegal material after repeated notices, or profited from illegal activities facilitated through their services; and

WHEREAS, This immunity regime denies victims justice and has undermined incentives for today’s most powerful companies to implement reasonable safety features, act on actual knowledge of illegal material, avoid making material misrepresentations to consumers, or design products that minimize foreseeable harms to users, which effectively transfers the costs of platform-facilitated abuse onto victims while platforms reap historic profits; and

WHEREAS, The harms facilitated by platforms and shielded by

Section fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations, including children, women, and minorities who face online abuse, harassment, stalking, nonconsensual intimate imagery, exploitation, and other violations that silence their voices and chill their participation in online life; and

WHEREAS,

Section 230’s sweeping immunity has kept the public in the dark about platform design choices and safety practices, as most cases are dismissed before evidence can be discovered, with harmful practices often revealed only through congressional investigations, whistleblower disclosures, or not at all; and

WHEREAS,

Section 230’s broad grant of immunity stands in sharp contrast to regulatory frameworks in other jurisdictions, including the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which require platforms to implement notice-and-takedown procedures and other accountability measures; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has declined multiple opportunities to construe

Section more narrowly in line with its original intent, despite divided courts’ requests for clarification, making legislative action necessary to address the expansive judicial

interpretation of the immunity shield’s application; and

WHEREAS, Three decades of experience with

Section has demonstrated that voluntary promises from Big Tech companies have not adequately addressed platform-facilitated harms, and that targeted and surgical reform of

Section is necessary to restore fundamental principles of legal responsibility, decades of state and federal product liability and negligence jurisprudence, and parity with brick-and-mortar businesses, which must internalize the costs of foreseeable harms caused by their products and services through liability insurance, safety innovations, a reasonable degree of transparency, and responsible business practices; and

WHEREAS, To the extent some courts allowed cases to proceed, Big Tech is now taking new measures to avoid liability and frustrate plaintiffs, including by adding new terms to their terms of service agreements and enforcing forum selection clauses, arbitration clauses, choice-of-law, class action waivers, and jury waivers; and

WHEREAS, With the advancement of generative artificial intelligence, Big Tech has begun claiming in court that the output of its own chatbots are entitled to

Section immunity despite it clearly not being the type of third-party content

Section was designed to address; and

WHEREAS, California, as home to many of the world’s most profitable Big Tech companies and as a state with strong consumer protection and civil rights traditions, has a compelling interest in ensuring that federal law does not shield powerful corporations from accountability for facilitating egregious harms inflicted on California residents; and

WHEREAS, A growing, bipartisan coalition, including multiple presidents, state attorneys general, members of Congress from both parties, legal scholars, victim advocates, and some technology industry leaders, has called for

Section reform to restore basic and reasonable accountability for a corporation’s own actions and representations; and

WHEREAS, In December 2025, United States Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), Ashley Moody (R-Florida), and Peter Welch (D-Vermont) introduced the Sunset

Section Act, which would repeal

Section two years after the date of enactment; and

WHEREAS, Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-Wyoming) introduced the Sunset to Reform

Section Act; and

WHEREAS, The two-year sunset window is not intended to remove all reasonable protections but rather to provide a firm deadline to ensure that Big Tech participates in

Section reform efforts in good faith in order to restore appropriate balance and accountability;

now, therefore,

be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly respectfully urges the United States Congress to reform

Section of the federal Communications Decency Act of to restore meaningful accountability for powerful online companies, beginning with the first step of passing the bipartisan effort to sunset

Section 230; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.