CA AB 392
withdrawnPornographic internet websites: consent.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 392 pass?
No. CA AB 392 was withdrawn and is no longer under consideration. Latest recorded action (2025-08-29): In committee: Held under submission.
What is CA AB 392 about?
Existing law generally regulates obscene content on internet websites, including by requiring a social media platform to provide, in a mechanism that is reasonably accessible to users, a means for a user who is a California resident to report material to the social media platform that the user reasonably believes is, among other things, child sexual abuse material. This bill would require a person who operates an internet website to exercise ordinary care and reasonable diligence to ensure that any sexually explicit content, as defined, uploaded to the operator's pornographic internet website does not include a depicted individual, as defined. The bill would require a user to, before uploading sexually explicit content to a pornographic internet website, submit, among other things, a statement certifying, not under penalty of perjury, that any individual depicted in the sexually explicit content was not a minor at the time the sexually explicit content was created, consented to being depicted in the sexually explicit content, and consents to the sexually explicit content being uploaded to the internet on the pornographic internet website. The bill would make knowingly providing false information in that statement an infraction punishable by a fine, as specified. By creating a new infraction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require an operator of a pornographic internet website to verify a user's email address before permitting the user to upload sexually explicit content to the operator's pornographic internet website. This bill would authorize a depicted individual and a public prosecutor to bring a civil action to enforce the bill, as prescribed. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors CA AB 392?
Dixon is the primary sponsor of CA AB 392.
Description
Existing law generally regulates obscene content on internet websites, including by requiring a social media platform to provide, in a mechanism that is reasonably accessible to users, a means for a user who is a California resident to report material to the social media platform that the user reasonably believes is, among other things, child sexual abuse material. This bill would require a person who operates an internet website to exercise ordinary care and reasonable diligence to ensure that any sexually explicit content, as defined, uploaded to the operator's pornographic internet website does not include a depicted individual, as defined. The bill would require a user to, before uploading sexually explicit content to a pornographic internet website, submit, among other things, a statement certifying, not under penalty of perjury, that any individual depicted in the sexually explicit content was not a minor at the time the sexually explicit content was created, consented to being depicted in the sexually explicit content, and consents to the sexually explicit content being uploaded to the internet on the pornographic internet website. The bill would make knowingly providing false information in that statement an infraction punishable by a fine, as specified. By creating a new infraction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require an operator of a pornographic internet website to verify a user's email address before permitting the user to upload sexually explicit content to the operator's pornographic internet website. This bill would authorize a depicted individual and a public prosecutor to bring a civil action to enforce the bill, as prescribed. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Introduced
- 2025-03-26
- Latest action
- 2025-08-29 — In committee: Held under submission.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Dixonauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2025-08-29
In committee: Held under submission.
2025-08-18
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-07-14
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
referral-committee
2025-07-14
Withdrawn from committee.
withdrawal
2025-07-10
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-07-09
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (July 8).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2025-06-30
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-06-18
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and PUB. S.
referral-committee
2025-06-09
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-06-05
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 2111.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-05-27
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-05-23
Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Ayes 51. Noes 16. Page 1644.)
2025-05-23
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage
2025-05-23
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-04-30
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-04-24
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
referral-committee
2025-04-23
Read second time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2025-04-22
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 22).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2025-04-02
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 1). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-03-27
Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
referral-committee
2025-03-26
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-11
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
2025-03-03
Referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and JUD.
referral-committee
2025-02-04
From printer. May be heard in committee March 6.
2025-02-03
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
- 02/03/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-03Compare
- 03/26/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-03-26Compare
- 04/23/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-04-23Compare
- 05/23/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-05-23Compare
- 06/30/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-06-30Compare
- 07/10/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-07-10Compare
- AB392Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2025-04-01 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Berman: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bryan: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Ward: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: other
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-04-22 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Kalra: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Lee: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Bryan: yes
Do pass as amended.
2025-05-23 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Calderon: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Hart: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Solache: yes
- Ta: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Fong: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Sanchez: other
AB 392 Dixon Assembly Third Reading
2025-06-05 · pass · 78-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Lee: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Ta: yes
- Berman: yes
- Soria: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Patel: yes
- Flora: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Haney: yes
- Fong: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Davies: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Rogers: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Ward: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Chen: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Papan: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Addis: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Hart: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Ortega: other
- Schultz: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Solache: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Bains: yes
- Krell: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Public Safety]
2025-07-08 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Arreguín: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Allen: yes
- Stern: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Laird: yes
- Niello: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Umberg: yes
Placed on suspense file
2025-08-18 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Grayson: yes
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 392. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.