California AI Bills Signed September 2026: All Twenty-Seven, With Dates and Penalties

Governor Newsom signed twenty-seven AI bills in September 2026, by this article’s count, between September 9 and September 30, thirteen of them on the last day. He vetoed four others and issued two executive orders. If your company employs people in California, runs a chatbot, generates images or audio, uses software to discipline or fire workers, or audits AI systems, at least one of the twenty-seven reaches you. Most take effect on January 1, 2027. Two are already in force. One is SB 1000, which now reaches any generative-AI provider accessible in California whose system makes or alters images, video, or audio, at $5,000 per violation per day. One table gives every bill with its chapter number, the date it takes effect, who enforces it, and the penalty, each cell sourced to the chaptered text, meaning the final text as enacted.

Key Takeaways

• Twenty-seven bills in twenty-two days. The batch runs from SB 813 on September 9 to the thirteen signed on September 30. It reaches employers, chatbot operators, generative AI providers, platforms that host user uploads, lawyers, landlords, health-care providers, colleges, and auditors rather than one industry.
• January 1, 2027 is the date for twenty-five of them. They go into effect that day under the Constitution’s ninety-day rule; SB 1000 and AB 502 took effect on signing as urgency statutes. Five of the twenty-five defer some duties. SB 947, SB 1119’s child-safety duties, and AB 1159’s higher-education chapter start July 1, 2027, AB 2212’s campus definitions August 1, 2027, and AB 2504 only when the Legislature funds it.
• Three themes carry the weight. The workplace bills bar sole reliance on automated discipline and add an AI layoff notice; the child-safety bills put risk assessments and audits on companion chatbots; AB 1405 and SB 813 create an AI-auditor registry and a verification-organization framework that run on agency deadlines.
• The four vetoes rest on stated grounds. AB 2575 on Labor Commissioner enforcement, AB 2656 on redundant administrative layers and collective bargaining, SB 903 on overbreadth, and SB 1130 on imprecise definitions and existing law. Only the SB 903 message invites the author back.
• The executive orders bind the state, not you. N-9-26 moves the agency clocks on the auditor registry and verification criteria to 2027 and orders frontier-safety recommendations by November 16, 2026; N-10-26 keeps California saying “AI.”

Which AI bills did California sign in September 2026?

California enacted twenty-seven AI bills in September 2026, by this article’s count, and the footnote states the test.¹ The table runs in signing order. Rows in bold are the ones the firm’s AI regulation tracker discusses in detail; this table gives all twenty-seven the same columns. “Default” in the date column means the Constitution, not the bill, sets the date the bill goes into effect: January 1, 2027. A date after the semicolon is a later date the bill sets, or an executive order moves, for a duty, or the date a section ends. Two of the twenty-seven are urgency statutes, in force the day they were signed.

California AI bills signed September 2026: the full table

Read down the enforcer column and one pattern holds wherever a row names an enforcer. These bills regulate uses of AI through the enforcers California already has: the Labor Commissioner, public prosecutors (the Attorney General and local district and city attorneys), licensing boards, and private plaintiffs. None of them creates a new regulator for AI developers or deployers; AB 1405’s registry sits inside an agency that already exists.

If you build or deploy AI for California users, read the date column first. Everything without a date of its own takes effect on January 1, 2027, and the two urgency statutes are already in force.

Which AI bills did Newsom veto in September 2026, and why?

Governor Newsom vetoed four AI bills on September 30, 2026. The AB 2575 message faults its enforcement by the Labor Commissioner. The AB 2656 message calls its notice rule redundant, and the SB 903 message calls the bill overly broad. The SB 1130 message faults its definitions and points to existing law. Only the SB 903 message invites the author back.³¹

AB 2575 would have let a worker providing direct patient care override a clinical decision support system. It also would have barred retaliation based solely on the override or on reliance on the system. The Governor wrote that “This bill’s anti-retaliation provisions do not protect workers as intended.” A bar on adverse action based solely on an override, he wrote, “ties the Labor Commissioner’s hands in establishing a violation.” It sets “a higher bar than other retaliation protections, which simply prohibit action because of a protected activity.” The ground the message calls more important is that the bill “puts the Labor Commissioner in the position of adjudicating the standard of care for patients.”³² The clinical-judgment half of the subject became law the same day in AB 1979, which appears in the table above.

AB 2656 would have required public employers to notify their unions before introducing generative AI. The message agrees with the premise, that “employees should be made aware when employers introduce new technologies that significantly impact them.” It rejects the mechanism: “this measure would impose redundant administrative layers on public agencies and slow the deployment of even the most innocuous tools.” The Governor’s answer is collective bargaining, “which allows employees and employers to tailor rules appropriate for their workplace.”³³

SB 903 would have limited the use of AI in psychotherapy. The Governor called the bill “overly broad.” He wrote that it “would drastically limit a clinician’s use of tools that benefit the delivery of care today, including by requiring routine screening determinations to receive direct approval.” Its definition of “psychotherapy services,” he wrote, “would capture general-purpose AI systems not even structured or deployed to deliver that care.” The letter closes by encouraging “the author and stakeholders to revisit this issue next year.”³⁴

SB 1130 would have regulated wearable recording devices. The message gives two grounds. The first is definitional. “This measure defines several terms too broadly or imprecisely,” the Governor wrote. His example is a definition of “wearable recording device” that “could include certain smartwatches or other worn devices widely used in public spaces and capable of recording.” The second is that “existing law already makes it a crime to use an electronic device to record a person in any area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”³⁵

If your product touches clinician override, AB 1979’s independent-judgment rule, not the vetoed bill, governs your health-care customers from January 1, 2027. If it touches AI therapy, the SB 903 message invites the question back next year.

What do Newsom’s September 2026 AI executive orders do?

Neither of Governor Newsom’s September 2026 AI executive orders, N-9-26 and N-10-26, binds anyone outside state government. Each directs state agencies, and each provides that it “is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity.” They belong in this inventory for two reasons. The first order moves the state’s own clock on two of the September statutes. It also orders recommendations on amending the state’s AI safety laws, including the frontier-model law that reaches the largest general-purpose AI models. The second answers the federal government’s change of terminology.²

Executive Order N-9-26 of September 18 gives the Government Operations Agency three deadlines. By May 1, 2027, it must complete the requirements of Government Code section 8898.1, which SB 813 adds, and post the “application requirements, procedures, and criteria for independent verification organizations.” The statute itself allows until January 1, 2028.³ By December 1, 2027, it must build the auditor registry AB 1405 creates and “begin taking the actions required by subdivision (b).” The statute’s bar on conducting a covered AI audit without registration still starts January 1, 2029.⁴ By November 16, 2026, it must submit recommendations, with the Office of Emergency Services and “national experts,” on the feasibility of amendments to the state’s AI safety laws, including at least four. The first is placing independent verification organizations onsite at large frontier developers to run “periodic audits and evaluations.” The second is independent verification of the safety frameworks, transparency reports, and risk assessments those developers already file. The third is “Requiring the creation of a ‘kill switch’ for frontier models, with the efficacy of the switch verified on an ongoing basis by an independent verification organization.” The fourth is widening the definition of a reportable critical safety incident “to include a range of loss-of-control incidents.” The order’s preamble gives the reason in the Governor’s words: “apparent attempts by individuals to use AI products to create bioweapons and AI agents working, at times independently and at times collectively, to defeat security protocols.”²

Executive Order N-10-26 of September 30 has one operative sentence. State agencies “shall refer to Artificial Intelligence and AI as ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI,’ notwithstanding any rebranded or different terminology used by the federal government, unless inconsistent with the law.” It answers a September 29, 2026 federal order under which the executive branch “shall use the terms ‘Super Intelligence’ and ‘SI’ in place of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI.’” It changes nothing for a company.³⁶

If you train frontier models or plan to sell AI audits, three dates now govern. Frontier-safety recommendations reach the Governor by November 16, 2026, verification-organization criteria by May 1, 2027, and the auditor registry by December 1, 2027 instead of January 1, 2029.

Which of the new laws take effect January 1, 2027?

Twenty-five of the twenty-seven take effect on January 1, 2027 under the California Constitution’s default rule, and five of those defer some duties by an express operative clause. Article IV, section 8(c)(1) provides that a statute enacted at a regular session “shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment.” Every bill signed in September 2026 clears ninety days before the new year. So every non-urgency bill in the batch goes into effect that day, and the table marks “default” each row whose date comes from that rule alone.³⁷ A bill can still defer some duties by an express operative clause, and five do.

Two bills were in force the day they were signed. The Constitution provides that “urgency statutes shall go into effect immediately upon their enactment,” and defines an urgency statute as one “necessary for immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety,” passed by two-thirds of each house. SB 1000, the AI Transparency Act amendment, took effect September 30, 2026. AB 502, the election-deepfake rewrite, took effect September 19, 2026 so that it would “apply to the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.” Its window runs 30 days before an election and, for content about elections officials or voting equipment, through 38 days after.³⁷

Five of the twenty-five defer some duties by an express operative clause, and the table holds other dates that matter as much. July 1, 2027 is when SB 947’s bar on automated discipline begins,²⁵ when SB 1119’s child-safety duties begin,⁵ and when AB 1159’s higher-education chapter starts.⁷ August 1, 2027 is when AB 2212’s definitions bring AI-made sexual images into campus sexual-harassment law.¹⁵ January 1, 2029 is when AB 1405’s registration requirement arrives,⁴ and when SB 1119’s first audits are due, with operators under $500 million in revenue exempt from the audits until 2032.⁵ AB 2504’s pilot starts only when the Legislature funds it.¹¹ Four sunsets are written in. SB 951’s EDD-report section ends January 1, 2029, though its notice duty does not,²⁶ and SB 1000’s $50,000 penalty for falsely claiming assistive-technology status ends the same day.²⁷ SB 867’s toy ban ends January 1, 2031,⁶ and AB 2504’s pilot January 1, 2033.¹¹ AB 686 moves an existing sunset to January 1, 2031.¹⁴

If you are planning 2027 compliance from this batch, budget for January 1 as the default. The Transparency Act amendments have applied since September 30, 2026; calendar the July 1 dates in the table.

What should a California AI company do before January 1?

Sort the twenty-seven by who you are; most companies are reached by only a few of them. The list below gives the first step for each group and links the companion guide where this series has one.

If you employ people in California. Four bills reach you: SB 947 on discipline and termination, SB 951 on layoff notices, and AB 1331 and AB 1883 on surveillance. Inventory every tool that scores, ranks, or flags workers. For each, record whether a human decides and, where the tool’s output primarily drives discipline or firing, who corroborates it and what written notice the worker gets. The workplace guide lays the four statutes, the anti-discrimination regulations, and the privacy rules on one table by use.

If you operate a chatbot that talks to consumers. SB 1119 reaches every operator of a companion chatbot, the relationship-style chatbot SB 243 defined in 2025,³⁸ other than college-only and workplace-only deployments.⁵ Each must determine users’ ages or give every user the child protections.⁵ SB 243’s duties toward known minors end January 1, 2027, six months before SB 1119’s own child duties begin. SB 867 bars companion chatbots in toys, and AB 1609 bars a large business from representing a customer-service chatbot as human. Decide which definition your product meets, because the duties follow from that cell. The companion-chatbot guide puts every state’s statute beside California’s.

If you provide a generative AI system. SB 1000 is already in force. With the user threshold gone, it reaches any provider whose system is accessible in California and makes or alters images, video, or audio. Where technically feasible, the provider must embed latent disclosures. It must also offer a free verification tool. The penalty is $5,000 per violation per day.²⁷ AB 2713’s revised duties for large platforms take effect January 1, 2027.²²

If you host what users upload. AB 1946 tightens a social media platform’s duty to take reports of child sexual abuse material, AI-made forgeries included, and to block it within 48 hours. AB 1705 requires a site that takes uploaded sexually explicit content to use ordinary care to keep off depictions of anyone who did not consent or was a minor. Digitally made images are included. It presumes a violation where the site lacks each uploader’s certification. It allows statutory damages up to $75,000 per violation, and counts each full day the content stays up as a separate violation. Map your reporting, review, and uploader-certification flows to each statute before January 1, 2027.

If you use automated decisionmaking technology for significant decisions about Californians. For a business subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act, the privacy agency’s rules set a January 1, 2027 compliance deadline; no September bill does.³⁹ SB 947 adds a second layer for discipline and firing on July 1, 2027.

If you audit AI systems or want to. AB 1405’s registry opens under the Governor’s December 1, 2027 order, and registration becomes mandatory January 1, 2029.

Each group’s first step turns on a definition, such as “companion chatbot,” “primarily relies,” or “significant decision,” and the definition decides the date. Contact us to map your products, workforce, and tools to these duties and dates.

Conclusion

September 2026 did not give California a single AI law. It gave twenty-seven separate ones, each enforced, where enforced at all, by an enforcer that already existed. The work for a company is matching the ones that reach it to the dates they take effect. The table above is current to the date in the change log below, and each later change will be logged there. If you want that matching done for your company, contact Astraea Counsel.

“The question I get is not whether California regulated AI in September. It is which of the twenty-seven reach my client, and on what date. That is a table, not a theory.”—Chanté Eliaszadeh, Principal Attorney, Astraea Counsel APC

Related Resources

• California AI Laws 2026: The AI Regulation Tracker
• California AI Workplace Laws 2027: The Rules That Reach a Hiring, Monitoring, or Firing Tool
• AI Companion Chatbot Laws by State: Twelve Statutes, One Rule, and Every Date
• California Frontier AI Law (SB 53): A Compliance Guide
• Not an Agent. Not a Defense: Seven Doctrines That Already Hold AI Deployers Liable
• State AI Law Patchwork: 50-State Compliance Map
• Federal AI Regulation Landscape: Where Things Stand in 2026

Change log

• October 29, 2026: first publication, current to the Governor’s September 30, 2026 signing deadline and the executive orders of September 18 and 30.

This article provides general information for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Artificial intelligence regulation is evolving rapidly. Consult qualified legal counsel for advice on your specific situation.

Footnotes

1. California Legislative Information, bill history and chaptered text for the 2025—2026 Regular Session (bulk data refreshed October 25, 2026), https://downloads.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/; Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, press releases of September 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, and 30, 2026, https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/09/. The count is this article’s own. A bill is counted when a duty, prohibition, program, or definition it adds, amends, or extends is about how artificial intelligence, an automated decision system, or a chatbot is built, used, or disclosed, or expressly reaches images, audio, or video that are AI-generated, digitally created or altered, or otherwise manipulated; a bill is not counted when AI appears only in legislative findings, in a budget appropriation, in text the bill restates without change, or as one topic among several for instruction or planning. A.B. 2392 and A.B. 2504 are in on that test because their programs are keyed to generative AI; A.B. 1331 is in because its exception for badges and safety devices does not reach a tool with “physically embedded or attached artificial intelligence” (Labor Code section 1561(c)(2)(B)); A.B. 686 is in because it extends Elections Code section 20010, which reaches media “intentionally manipulated” to appear authentic; and four bills are in because they carry sexual-content rules to digitally made images: S.B. 1276 amends the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act’s definition of sexual exploitation (Penal Code section 11165.1) to include “digitally altered or artificial-intelligence-generated matter”; A.B. 1946 (Stats. 2026, ch. 185) PDF brings a “digital forgery,” one made “through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means,” into the child sexual abuse material a social media platform must let users report and must block (Civil Code section 3273.65(c), (g), (k)); A.B. 2212 (Stats. 2026, ch. 388) PDF makes creating “digitized sexually explicit materials” without the depicted person’s written consent, or distributing them when the distributor knows or should have known that the depicted person did not provide written consent to the disclosure, a form of sexual exploitation under the Equity in Higher Education Act (Education Code section 66262.5(a)(8)(F), (G), operative August 1, 2027); and A.B. 1705 (Stats. 2026, ch. 890) PDF requires a pornographic website’s operator to keep off sexually explicit content, “including, but not limited to, imagery created or substantially altered through digitization,” of a person who did not consent or was a minor (Business and Professions Code sections 22610, 22612). Seven AI-adjacent chapters signed in September 2026 fail the test and are excluded: A.B. 1709 (Stats. 2026, ch. 183) PDF, which restricts a personalized “addictive feed” for users under sixteen without naming artificial intelligence or an automated decision system, and mentions algorithmic recommendation only in its findings; A.B. 2071 (ch. 186) PDF, which makes artificial intelligence one of six elements of a digital-wellness instruction plan due January 1, 2028; and A.B. 2298 (ch. 188) PDF, which requires the Instructional Quality Commission to consider incorporating cybersecurity skills content into the computer-science standards at their next revision after January 1, 2027, leaves AI literacy as one topic the commission must consider for curriculum frameworks, and changes only a conjunction in its AI-literacy definition, all three signed September 10; A.B. 1792 (ch. 273) PDF, signed September 18, which lists deepfakes and “the misuse of generative artificial intelligence” among sexual-health topics the Instructional Quality Commission must consider; S.B. 354 (ch. 481), signed September 27, which rewrites the insurance privacy act and names artificial intelligence only as one format personal information can take; and A.B. 1864 (ch. 852), which requires gene-synthesis screening and never mentions artificial intelligence although the Governor announced it with the AI bills, and A.B. 1766 (ch. 894), which lists deepfakes among online-safety topics for the health framework, both signed September 30. A.B. 1651 (Stats. 2026, ch. 116) PDF, signed August 22, 2026, falls outside the September window. ↩

2. Cal. Exec. Order No. N-9-26 (Sept. 18, 2026), at 2—3 PDF, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/FINAL-N-9-26-AI-EO-9.18.26-SIGNED.pdf; Cal. Exec. Order No. N-10-26 (Sept. 30, 2026), at 1 PDF. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

3. S.B. 813, Stats. 2026, ch. 179 (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 8898 to 8898.4) PDF. ↩ ↩²

4. A.B. 1405, Stats. 2026, ch. 178 (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 11549.80 to 11549.86) PDF. ↩ ↩² ↩³

5. S.B. 1119, Stats. 2026, ch. 190 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 21810 to 21818, 22602) PDF. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

6. S.B. 867, Stats. 2026, ch. 189 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22601, 22604.5) PDF; S.B. 243, Stats. 2025, ch. 677 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22605) PDF. ↩ ↩²

7. A.B. 1159, Stats. 2026, ch. 182 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22584 to 22587.2) PDF. ↩ ↩²

8. S.B. 1276, Stats. 2026, ch. 192 (Cal. Penal Code §§ 311.3, 11165.1) PDF. ↩

9. A.B. 1946, Stats. 2026, ch. 185 (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3273.65(c), (g), (k), 3273.66(a), (b)(2), (d)(1), 3273.67(a)(1)(A), (b)) PDF. ↩

10. S.B. 1050, Stats. 2026, ch. 246 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17610) PDF. ↩

11. A.B. 2504, Stats. 2026, ch. 305 (Cal. Educ. Code §§ 78026 to 78026.6) PDF. ↩ ↩² ↩³

12. Kohls v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-02527 (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 101 (Aug. 29, 2025) PDF, reported at 797 F. Supp. 3d 1177, 1191 PDF (defendants “PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing AB 2839 against the named Plaintiffs”). A CourtListener RECAP search for filings after September 15, 2026 that mention the Elections Code together with section 20012 or A.B. 502 returned none, https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=r&q=%22Elections+Code%22+AND+(%2220012%22+OR+%22AB+502%22+OR+%22A.B.+502%22+OR+%22Assembly+Bill+502%22)&filed_after=09%2F15%2F2026 (last visited Oct. 29, 2026). ↩

13. A.B. 502, Stats. 2026, ch. 333 (Cal. Elec. Code § 20012) PDF. ↩

14. A.B. 686, Stats. 2026, ch. 334 (Cal. Elec. Code § 20010; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 35) PDF. ↩ ↩²

15. A.B. 2212, Stats. 2026, ch. 388 (Cal. Educ. Code § 66262.5(a)(3), (4), (8)(F), (G), (9)(B)(i), (b), operative Aug. 1, 2027) PDF. ↩ ↩²

16. A.B. 2025, Stats. 2026, ch. 572 (Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.11; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 10140.8) PDF. ↩

17. A.B. 1609, Stats. 2026, ch. 733 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22625 to 22629) PDF. ↩

18. A.B. 1331, Stats. 2026, ch. 851 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1560 to 1565) PDF. ↩

19. A.B. 1883, Stats. 2026, ch. 853 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1580 to 1583) PDF. ↩

20. A.B. 1979, Stats. 2026, ch. 854 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22758.5; Cal. Civ. Code §§ 56.05, 56.06) PDF. ↩

21. A.B. 2392, Stats. 2026, ch. 855 (Cal. Educ. Code §§ 66098 to 66098.3) PDF. ↩

22. A.B. 2713, Stats. 2026, ch. 856 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.3.1) PDF; S.B. 1000, Stats. 2026, ch. 861 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22757.1(i), 22757.4) PDF. ↩ ↩²

23. S.B. 503, Stats. 2026, ch. 857 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22758) PDF. ↩

24. S.B. 574, Stats. 2026, ch. 858 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6068.1, 6173; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 128.7, 180, 1282.1) PDF. ↩

25. S.B. 947, Stats. 2026, ch. 859 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1520 to 1526.7) PDF. ↩ ↩²

26. S.B. 951, Stats. 2026, ch. 860 (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1400.5, 1401, 1402.7) PDF; Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1403 PDF, 1404 PDF. ↩ ↩²

27. S.B. 1000, Stats. 2026, ch. 861 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22757.1 to 22757.5) PDF. ↩ ↩² ↩³

28. S.B. 1111, Stats. 2026, ch. 862 (Cal. Civ. Code § 3344; Cal. Penal Code § 540) PDF. ↩

29. S.B. 1159, Stats. 2026, ch. 863 (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7920.520, 8319, 9072, 11121.5, 11342.575, 11370.1.5, 11405.70, 11500, 54951.5; Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21066, 30111) PDF. ↩

30. A.B. 1705, Stats. 2026, ch. 890 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22610(b), (g)(1), 22612, 22614(a), 22616) PDF. ↩

31. Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, veto messages of September 30, 2026 on A.B. 2575 PDF, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/VETO-msg-AB-2575.pdf; A.B. 2656 PDF, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/VETO-msg-AB-2656.pdf; S.B. 903 PDF, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/VETO-msg-SB-903.pdf; and S.B. 1130 PDF, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/VETO-msg-SB-1130.pdf. S.B. 1130 is counted among the AI vetoes because its veto message addresses wearable devices “containing cameras, microphones, and artificial intelligence systems.” ↩

32. Veto message on A.B. 2575 (Sept. 30, 2026), at 1 PDF. ↩

33. Veto message on A.B. 2656 (Sept. 30, 2026), at 1 PDF. ↩

34. Veto message on S.B. 903 (Sept. 30, 2026), at 1—2 PDF. ↩

35. Veto message on S.B. 1130 (Sept. 30, 2026), at 1—2 PDF. ↩

36. Cal. Exec. Order No. N-10-26 (Sept. 30, 2026) PDF, https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/SIGNED_EO-N-10-26_9.30.26.pdf; Exec. Order No. 14434, Inaugurating the Era of Super Intelligence, 91 Fed. Reg. 63129, § 1 (Sept. 29, 2026) PDF, https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/91-FR-63129. ↩

37. Cal. Const. art. IV, § 8(c)(1), (c)(3), (d) PDF, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter=&article=IV; S.B. 1000, Stats. 2026, ch. 861 (urgency clause) PDF; A.B. 502, Stats. 2026, ch. 333 (effective Sept. 19, 2026) PDF. ↩ ↩²

38. S.B. 243, Stats. 2025, ch. 677 (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22601) PDF. ↩

39. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 7200(b) PDF. ↩