Business
California backs down on AI laws so more tech leaders don’t flee the state
California’s tech companies, the epicenter of the state’s economy, sent politicians a loud message this year: Back down from restrictive artificial intelligence regulation or they’ll leave.
The tactic appeared to have worked, activists said, because some politicians weakened or scrapped guardrails to mitigate AI’s biggest risks.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a bill aimed at making companion chatbots safer for children after the tech industry fought it. In his veto message, the governor raised concerns about placing broad limits on AI, which has sparked a massive investment spree and created new billionaires overnight around the San Francisco Bay Area.
Assembly Bill 1064 would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors unless the chatbots weren’t “foreseeably capable” of certain conduct, including encouraging a child to engage in self-harm. Newsom said he supported the goal, but feared it would unintentionally bar minors from using AI tools and learning how to use technology safely.
“We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether,” he wrote in his veto message.
The bill’s veto was a blow to child safety advocates who had pushed it through the state Legislature and a win for tech industry groups that fought it. In social media ads, groups such as TechNet had urged the public to tell the governor to veto the bill because it would harm innovation and lead to students falling behind in school.
Organizations trying to rein in the world’s largest tech companies as they advance the powerful technology say the tech industry has become more empowered at the national and state levels.
Meta, Google, OpenAI, Apple and other major tech companies have strengthened their relationships with the Trump administration. Companies are funding new organizations and political action committees to push back against state AI policy while pouring money into lobbying.
In Sacramento, AI companies have lobbied behind the scenes for more freedom. California’s massive pool of engineering talent, tech investors and companies make it an attractive place for the tech industry, but companies are letting policymakers know that other states are also interested in attracting those investments and jobs. Big Tech is particularly sensitive to regulations in the Golden State because so many companies are headquartered there and must abide by its rules.
“We believe California can strike a better balance between protecting consumers and enabling responsible technological growth,” Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, said in a statement.
Common Sense Media founder and Chief Executive Jim Steyer said tech lobbyists put tremendous pressure on Newsom to veto AB 1064. Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that rates and reviews technology and entertainment for families, sponsored the bill.
“They threaten to hurt the economy of California,” he said. “That’s the basic message from the tech companies.”
Advertising is among the tactics tech companies with deep pockets use to convince politicians to kill or weaken legislation. Even if the governor signs a bill, companies have at times sued to block new laws from taking effect.
“If you’re really trying to do something bold with tech policy, you have to jump over a lot of hurdles,” said David Evan Harris, senior policy advisor at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which supported AB 1064. The group focuses on finding state-level solutions to threats that AI, disinformation and emerging technologies pose to democracy.
Tech companies have threatened to move their headquarters and jobs to other states or countries, a risk looming over politicians and regulators.
The California Chamber of Commerce, a broad-based business advocacy group that includes tech giants, launched a campaign this year that warned over-regulation could stifle innovation and hinder California.
“Making competition harder could cause California companies to expand elsewhere, costing the state’s economy billions,” the group said on its website.
From January to September, the California Chamber of Commerce spent $11.48 million lobbying California lawmakers and regulators on a variety of bills, filings to the California secretary of state show. During that period, Meta spent $4.13 million. A lobbying disclosure report shows that Meta paid the California Chamber of Commerce $3.1 million, making up the bulk of their spending. Google, which also paid TechNet and the California Chamber of Commerce, spent $2.39 million.
Amazon, Uber, DoorDash and other tech companies spent more than $1 million each. TechNet spent around $800,000.
The threat that California companies could move away has caught the attention of some politicians.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who has investigated tech companies over child safety concerns, indicated that despite initial concern, his office wouldn’t oppose ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s restructuring plans. The new structure gives OpenAI’s nonprofit parent a stake in its for-profit public benefit corporation and clears the way for OpenAI to list its shares.
Bonta blessed the restructuring partly because of OpenAI’s pledge to stay in the state.
“Safety will be prioritized, as well as a commitment that OpenAI will remain right here in California,” he said in a statement last week. The AG’s office, which supervises charitable trusts and ensures these assets are used for public benefit, had been investigating OpenAI’s restructuring plan over the last year and a half.
OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said he’s glad to stay in California.
“California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other companies do and threaten to leave if sued,” he posted on X.
Critics — which included some tech leaders such as Elon Musk, Meta and former OpenAI executives as well as nonprofits and foundations — have raised concerns about OpenAI’s restructuring plan. Some warned it would allow startups to exploit charitable tax exemptions and let OpenAI prioritize financial gain over public good.
Lawmakers and advocacy groups say it’s been a mixed year for tech regulation. The governor signed Assembly Bill 56, which requires platforms to display labels for minors that warn about social media’s mental health harms. Another piece of signed legislation, Senate Bill 53, aims to make AI developers more transparent about safety risks and offers more whistleblower protections.
The governor also signed a bill that requires chatbot operators to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content. But advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, removed their support for Senate Bill 243 because they said the tech industry pushed for changes that weakened its protections.
Newsom vetoed other legislation that the tech industry opposed, including Senate Bill 7, which requires employers to notify workers before deploying an “automated decision system” in hiring, promotions and other employment decisions.
Called the “No Robo Bosses Act,” the legislation didn’t clear the governor, who thought it was too broad.
“A lot of nuance was demonstrated in the lawmaking process about the balance between ensuring meaningful protections while also encouraging innovation,” said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy.
The battle over AI safety is far from over. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said she plans to revive the legislation.
Child safety is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans are examining after parents sued AI companies such as OpenAI and Character.AI for allegedly contributing to their children’s suicides.
“The harm that these chatbots are causing feels so fast and furious, public and real that I thought we would have a different outcome,” Bauer-Kahan said. “It’s always fascinating to me when the outcome of policy feels to be disconnected from what I believe the public wants.”
Steyer from Common Sense Media said a new ballot initiative includes the AI safety protections that Newsom vetoed.
“That was a setback, but not an overall defeat,” he said about the veto of AB 1064. “This is a David and Goliath situation, and we are David.”
Business
Sony Pictures invests $100 million in virtual reality venue Cosm
Sony Pictures will invest $100 million and take a minority stake in virtual reality venue operator Cosm, as the studio continues to build a business in communal experiences.
As part of the investment, Sony Pictures Chief Executive Ravi Ahuja will also join Cosm’s board of directors, the studio said Wednesday. The size of Sony’s minority stake was not disclosed.
The El Segundo-based Cosm currently operates three venues — one at Hollywood Park in Inglewood, and the others in Dallas and Atlanta. The company plans to open additional venues in Detroit and Cleveland.
Cosm bills itself as a “shared reality venue,” and its facilities center around a massive, wraparound screen that is intended to envelop viewers with additional digital effects. The company has largely focused on sports, though it has also shown Cirque du Soleil shows and done several collaborations with Warner Bros., including recent screenings of 2001’s “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” in honor of the film’s 25th anniversary.
“Cosm sits at the intersection of several trends shaping the future of entertainment,” Ahuja said in a statement. “We’ve followed Cosm since before launch and have been impressed with the quality of the experience and the enthusiasm it’s generating with audiences.”
The investment is Sony’s latest venture into experiential entertainment. In 2024, the Culver City-based studio acquired dine-in theater chain Alamo Drafthouse Cinema.
Business
Los Angeles tries again to phase out urban oil production
The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday unanimously advanced an ordinance to halt new oil and gas drilling and phase out all existing production over the next 20 years. L.A. is home to more than 2,000 active oil wells.
The measure revives a similar ban passed in 2022, which was struck down by a judge following legal challenges from the oil and gas industry.
It must pass a second vote before final adoption later this summer, and would make L.A. the largest city in the United States to phase out existing oil wells.
“Today, Los Angeles is making a decision that aligns with our need to turn the page on urban oil drilling,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said during Tuesday’s council meeting. “The absence of an enforceable oil ordinance has had real consequences for our communities.”
The ban in 2022 was seen as a historic move for a region built on the petroleum industry.
But in 2024, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge invalidated the law, ruling that the state, not the city, has jurisdiction over petroleum production. The legal challenge was brought by oil companies including Warren Resources, which operates a large oil field in Wilmington. Much of the field is beneath the city of Long Beach, but it also extends under Los Angeles.
Shortly after that, state legislators advanced Assembly Bill 3233, which reaffirmed city and county authority to regulate oil and gas activity. It was largely seen as the missing piece that made the original ordinance vulnerable.
“It’s now unequivocal that cities have the authority to regulate, limit and prohibit oil and gas operations within our jurisdiction,” Yaroslavsky said.
The new ordinance, written by the Department of City Planning, prohibits new oil and gas extraction, including drilling, redrilling or deepening existing oil wells for the purposes of production. It also designates all existing and active idle wells as “nonconforming uses,” meaning they may only operate during the phaseout period and are no longer compliant with current zoning.
Warren Resources, which led the lawsuit against the previous ban, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company previously argued that the 2022 ban was rushed and would lead to more oil imports to the area, causing increased emissions from tankers and trucks and other environmental consequences.
Many wells in the city operate near schools, homes and parks. Most are concentrated in low-income areas and communities of color, such as Wilmington and the harbor district, West L.A. and South L.A., where residents have long reported respiratory issues, headaches, throat irritation and other health problems. Studies have found oil wells can emit carcinogens and are linked to adverse health effects.
“This ordinance is such an important step toward giving every frontline community in Los Angeles access to clean air,” Silvia Esparza, a South L.A. resident and member of environmental justice group Stand-L.A., said in a news conference ahead of Tuesday’s vote.
Ashley Hernandez, a Wilmington resident and organizer with the nonprofit Communities for a Better Environment, said bloody noses and noxious fumes were a regular part of life in the neighborhood growing up.
She noted that in addition to oil drilling, L.A. residents continue to face other environmental hazards, such as the recent oil pipeline rupture that sent crude into the L.A. River or the ongoing cold storage warehouse fire in Boyle Heights that is spewing toxic smoke.
“I’m here to remind L.A. city and these toxic neighbors that Wilmington residents are more important than any ‘black gold’ under their homes,” Hernandez said. “We need our city to protect our families now and to stop the oil industry’s reign of power in our city. A passage of the oil phaseout ordinance today gives the city a chance to correct this wrong.”
Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.
Business
SpaceX stock returns to Earth after record IPO
Shares in Elon Musk’s rocket company SpaceX halted their three-day slide that had erased roughly $600 billion off its market value.
SpaceX shares closed at $156.11 with a nearly 1% gain on Tuesday, a slight recovery from a 16% fall on Monday.
That loss dropped the stock below $160.95, where it ended the day June 12 after a 19% surge during its record initial public offering. The IPO gave it a market cap of $2.2 trillion, making SpaceX one of the world’s most valuable public companies.
It also turned Musk into the world’s first trillionaire, a status he retains despite the sell-off.
The downturn probably reflects investor unease over the company’s spending plans and potential debt load, analysts say.
SpaceX raised a total of $86 billion after underwriters exercised their right to sell additional shares, on top of the $75 billion initially raised. It was the largest IPO in history.
A little more than half a billion shares were distributed to institutional and retail investors at a price of $135, with the stock opening at $150 as some holders immediately flipped shares for a profit.
Shares rose as high as $176.52 during the IPO before settling at the $160.95 price. In the weeks since, shares reached a high of $225.64, meaning that some investors lost money or are underwater with paper losses.
Since the IPO, SpaceX has dropped some big bucks.
It announced last week that it was acquiring AI coding startup Cursor for $60 billion in a deal expected to close in the third quarter. The San Francisco company, founded in 2022, enables engineers to instruct software in English to run coding tasks autonomously.
It also sold $25 billion in bonds on Tuesday , unusual for a company that just went public, much less for one that just raised a record sum.
The IPO surpassed the 2019 offering by Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil giant, which raised $29.4 billion, the prior record holder.
S&P Global issued a report last week that assigned SpaceX a “BBB” credit rating, the lowest possible rating to qualify as an investment grade credit risk. It noted the company will have “elevated capital expenditure” through 2029.
SpaceX rivals OpenAi and Anthropic filed this month for initial public offerings that, while not expected to be as large as Musk’s company, will be large in their own right.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, who has been bullish on SpaceX stock, said the market is digesting “massive debt and equity raises from Big Tech players” in the coming years.
“This is part of an industry wave of debt offerings on Wall Street, like Alphabet and SpaceX among others,” he wrote in an email.
With the stock already giving up gains since the IPO, it will be further tested when tranches of locked-up shares held by current and former employees are released.
At least 20% of the shares will be released after second-quarter results are disclosed sometime in the coming months, with all the lockups expiring in December.
SpaceX, based in Texas, is the leading launch services company in the world, with its Falcon 9 rocket accounting last year for the vast majority of satellites sent into space.
It is also the leading satellite-based broadband provider with its Starlink service. But the extraordinary interest in the IPO was driven by Musk’s plans to make the company an AI leader — including plans to launch orbiting satellite data centers powered by the sun that crunch AI data.
He merged his xAI artificial intelligence company into SpaceX this year, with the combined entity recently announcing it was leasing computer power to rivals Anthropic and Google at two terrestrial data centers it has constructed.
Musk moved the company’s headquarters from Hawthorne to Texas in 2024, but it retains large operations in the South Bay city and blasts off regularly from Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County.
Investment research firm Morningstar placed a $780-billion valuation on SpaceX, focusing on its core rocket and Starlink broadband satellite businesses. It suggested investors wait a few months for the stock to settle before buying in.
“I think the day-to-day stock price movements are usually based on market sentiment,” said report co-author Nicolas Owens, an equity analyst at Morningstar. “So I was not surprised when it went way up right after the IPO — and I’m not surprised it [came down]. Not much has really changed in the fundamentals.”
Mike Alves, founder of Pasadena’s Vida Vision Fund, has a stake in SpaceX that accounts for 46% of his AI and robotics fund.
He said he was not perturbed by the stock drop, noting that Facebook fell under $18 a share just months after its May 2012 IPO closed at $38 a share. It has since risen more than 1,000% above its offering price.
“The volatility doesn’t really matter because you’re going to multiply your best investment many times, so I’m not so worried about it,” he said, adding that investors seeking shares could now “scoop them up at a good deal.”
-
West Virginia3 minutes agoYeager Airport director receives four percent pay increase – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming8 minutes agoSpeedy Cow community-owned internet service goes live in Wyoming County
-
Crypto15 minutes ago14 AI Models Including Claude, ChatGPT and Grok Predict Bitcoin’s Price Outlook
-
Finance18 minutes agoG7 Recommits to Development, Investment Finance to Drive Shared Prosperity
-
Fitness18 minutes agoSocial Fitness: Why Independent Living Communities Are Vital for Healthy Aging
-
Movie Reviews33 minutes ago‘Supergirl’ review: DC Studios serves up a second less-than-super movie
-
World45 minutes ago
FACT FOCUS: Norway brought its own food to the World Cup. But not because it distrusts US products
-
Health1 hour agoDoes Metformin Help With Weight Loss? How To Maximize Your Results