California Tech Policy News Today
California often sets the template for technology regulation in the United States. This section tracks state privacy law, AI legislation, gig economy rules, and other policy fights in Sacramento that directly affect the companies headquartered in Silicon Valley and beyond.
Legislative sessions bring bills on AI safety and transparency, children's online safety, privacy enforcement by the state's dedicated agency, and labor rules for gig platforms. Coverage follows these measures through amendments, industry lobbying, vetoes, and the court challenges that often follow passage.
Because so many major technology companies call California home, a state law can function like national regulation in practice. Policy teams, legal counsel, and founders across the country monitor Sacramento, knowing that other states frequently copy whatever California enacts first.
New unsealed records reveal Amazon's price-fixing tactics, California AG claims
2026-04-16Newly unsealed documents from California's antitrust lawsuit against Amazon reveal alleged price-fixing tactics used by the tech giant. The state's Attorney General claims these records demonstrate how Amazon manipulated prices, though the company firmly denies any illegal pricing practices.
I wrote to Flock's privacy contact to opt out of their domestic spying program
2026-04-14A California resident invoked the state's Consumer Privacy Act to demand that surveillance company Flock delete all personal and vehicle data from its databases. The individual formally revoked consent for the company to collect their information in the future. Flock has since responded to the privacy inquiry.
The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing
2026-04-14California’s proposed bill AB 2047 would mandate censorware on all 3D printers and criminalize the use of open-source alternatives. Critics warn that the legislation will stifle technological innovation and introduce severe consumer harms like surveillance and platform lock-in. Advocates are urging the state to reject the bill, arguing that it merely repeats the historical failures of digital rights management.