Assemblywoman Rozic explained the bill would prohibit utilities from recovering labor-related legal expenses from ratepayers, requiring such costs to be borne by shareholders while preserving PSC authority. Assemblyman Gray questioned whether the PSC already has discretion to disallow such costs under current law, and whether the bill creates new precedent for legislative cost disallowance. Rozic clarified the bill is not retroactive and applies only to rates filed after PSC regulations are promulgated, citing existing precedent for legislative restrictions on utility cost recovery.
The bill codifies federal case law and ensures employees are invested in sexual harassment training by requiring written acknowledgement in their primary language, with employers retaining records for six years to ensure accountability.
The bill requires each state agency to establish a teleworking policy allowing employees to work remotely to the maximum extent possible without diminished performance. Supporters cited workforce retention benefits and federal precedent, noting the City of New York's successful 2023 pilot program. Opponents expressed concerns about the phrase "maximum extent possible" as potentially favoring remote work over agency culture preferences, questioned how performance would be measured, and raised concerns about equipment costs and impacts on Albany's economy as the state capital.
Assemblyman Norber spoke in strong support, arguing the bill is a commonsense measure to protect New Yorkers, especially children, from deliberately addictive digital platform features. He emphasized the bill does not ban technology or silence speech, but rather inserts transparency and informed choice through warning labels similar to those on cigarettes and alcohol. Norber noted that infinite scrolling, auto-play, algorithmic manipulation and constant notifications are engineered to keep users hooked, and that mental health professionals are sounding alarms about rising anxiety, depression and attention deficit disorders linked to excessive platform use.
Sponsor explained the bill creates transparency around hospital-based exclusions so consumers can make informed decisions about which hospitals provide needed services. The bill applies only to general hospitals and facility-level policies, not individual providers, and exempts restrictions based on lack of equipment, bed space, or insurance denial.
Sponsor emphasized the bill responds to alarming rise in anti-Semitic incidents on campuses. A dedicated Title VI coordinator ensures students have a clear point of contact to report discrimination and receive timely support, with examples from NYU and troubling incidents at CUNY and Columbia.
The bill requires general hospitals to develop comprehensive language assistance programs including designation of a language assistance coordinator, policies for timely identification and access to language assistance, development of informational materials, staff training on culturally and linguistically competent care, and signage promoting language assistance services. Sponsor clarified that the bill codifies existing Department of Health regulations, creates no new obligations, and allows flexibility in implementation including use of digital or virtual translation services. Concerns were raised about potential unfunded mandates on healthcare providers already facing staffing and reimbursement challenges, particularly in rural areas with lower language diversity.
Highlighted the bill as a major consumer protection in the digital marketplace, noting it provides fairness, accountability, and puts consumers first. Emphasized it is part of broader budget protections including AI companion disclosures and subscription cancellation requirements.
Highlighted the consumer protections in the budget bill, calling the algorithmic pricing disclosure requirement "a major step forward" that puts consumers first and provides fairness and accountability in the digital marketplace.
Highlighted the consumer protections in the budget bill, calling the algorithmic pricing disclosure requirement "a major step forward" that puts consumers first and provides fairness and accountability in the digital marketplace.
The bill requires each state agency to establish a teleworking policy and program allowing employees to perform duties remotely to the maximum extent possible without diminishing performance. Sponsor Rozic argued telework is necessary to compete with the private sector for talent, citing tens of thousands of state job vacancies and projections that over a quarter of state jobs will open for retirement in five years. Opponents raised concerns about implementation details, potential grievance issues if some employees are allowed remote work while others are not, impacts on Albany's economy and downtown revitalization efforts, and whether the mandatory "shall establish" language creates unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Questions were raised about whether external oversight of performance metrics would be required and whether the bill should use permissive "may" language instead of mandatory "shall."
The bill requires each State agency to establish a teleworking policy and program allowing employees to perform duties remotely to the maximum extent possible without diminishing performance. Debate focused on implementation concerns, including whether the mandate should be discretionary ('may' instead of 'shall'), potential grievance issues if policies are applied inconsistently to individual employees, impacts on Albany's economy and downtown revitalization, and whether external oversight of performance metrics is needed. Supporters emphasized the bill addresses workforce recruitment challenges and retention in a competitive labor market. Opponents raised concerns about service quality, administrative burden, and economic impacts on Albany.
Extensive debate centered on the bill's definition of "addictive feed" and its scope of application. Assemblymember Blumencranz raised concerns that the definition was overly broad and could capture platforms like Spotify, Apple News, Netflix, Goodreads, and podcast apps that use algorithms to recommend content based on user data. Sponsor Rozic argued the definition applies specifically to social media platforms where algorithmic feeds are a significant part of their services, and that the Attorney General would clarify application through regulations. Blumencranz also questioned the bill's silence on advertising, marketplace features like TikTok Shop, and the enforcement mechanism for determining compliance. Rozic emphasized the bill is content-neutral and targets the delivery mechanism rather than speech.
Debate centered on the bill's definition of "addictive feeds" and enforcement mechanisms. Assemblyman Goodell raised concerns about the ambiguity of key terms like "commercially reasonable and technically feasible methods" and "verifiable parental consent," which would be defined by the Attorney General rather than state IT experts. He argued the definition of "addictive feed" is so broad that virtually all social media platforms would be captured, and questioned how platforms could defend themselves when required to immediately delete age-verification data. Sponsor Rozic defended the approach, noting that COPPA (federal law) already requires similar data deletion for children under 13.
The bill targets algorithmic feeds designed to maximize user engagement and harm child mental health. It is content-neutral, regulating only the delivery mechanism, not speech. The bill provides the Attorney General with clear mandates to regulate and enforce compliance, protecting children during vulnerable brain development.
Debate centered on the bill's definition of "primarily directed to minors" and the standard for liability. Assemblyman Goodell questioned whether the "actually known" standard for age determination was sufficiently clear and whether platforms could adequately defend themselves if required to immediately delete age-verification data. Sponsor Rozic clarified that platforms must delete data but retain the process used to determine age, and that the Attorney General would enforce the law. Goodell expressed support for the bill's approach as more precise than the prior bill's "commercially reasonable and technically feasible" standard.
The bill targets algorithmic feeds designed to maximize user engagement and harm child mental health. It is content-neutral, regulating only the delivery mechanism, not speech. The bill provides the Attorney General with clear mandates to regulate and enforce compliance, protecting children during vulnerable brain development.
Debate centered on the bill's definition of "primarily directed to minors" and the standard for liability. Assemblyman Goodell questioned whether the "actually known" standard for age determination was sufficiently clear and whether platforms could adequately defend themselves against enforcement actions. Sponsor Rozic clarified that "primarily" means what it ordinarily means and that the "actually known" standard is straightforward. Goodell expressed support for the bill's approach as more precise than the prior bill's "commercially reasonable and technically feasible" standard.
Assemblyman Goodell opposed the bill, arguing that while reckless driving should be discouraged, it may be an overreach for the State Legislature to make reckless driving on private property a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and possible license suspension based on a public official's subjective judgment of what constitutes inappropriate driving.
Sponsor explained the chapter amendment separates cellular carriers to comply with Federal Communications Act of 1934 and removes landlord designation provisions that raised concerns in prior debate.
Extensive debate centered on the bill's definition and scope of "policy-based exclusions." Sponsor Paulin argued the bill promotes transparency by requiring hospitals to disclose restrictions on medical procedures they are licensed to provide, citing her sister's ectopic pregnancy case where a Catholic physician refused to perform a necessary abortion. Opponents, particularly Asm. Walsh, questioned whether the bill's broad language adequately distinguishes between religious/moral policy exclusions and legitimate medical limitations (lack of equipment, specialized personnel, financial constraints). Debate also addressed whether the bill specifically targets Catholic hospitals despite its neutral language, and whether existing transparency mechanisms (abortion finder websites, 113 abortion providers in NY) make additional reporting redundant.
Argued the bill creates uniformity by extending the statute of limitations to three years for all discriminatory practice claims, matching the existing three-year limit for sexual harassment and the CPLR standard for workplace harassment claims in Supreme Court.
Explained the bill protects harassment and discrimination survivors from facing enormous financial penalties for speaking out about their experiences, even to relatives, by prohibiting liquidated damages provisions in settlement NDAs.
Sponsor explained the bill addresses growing eating disorders among teenagers by restricting access to diet pills marketed for weight loss or muscle building. The revised approach focuses on marketing and labeling rather than ingredients, addressing the Governor's prior veto concerns.
Debate focused on enforcement mechanisms, liability for retailers and employees, and the scope of products covered. Assemblymember Durso raised concerns about enforcement relying on AG office reports and questioned whether stores would receive state guidance on which products fall under the bill. Assemblymember Gandolfo sought clarification on whether energy drinks marketed for fat loss or weight loss would be age-restricted, and the sponsor confirmed they would be subject to the law if they contain FDA-approved weight loss ingredients or are marketed for body modification.
The bill prevents customers from reaching termination or collection while maintaining independence for elders and vulnerable populations. It expands existing third-party notification authority beyond traditional utilities to phone, cable, and internet providers, and covers notices of amounts due, payments, termination, and collection.
Explained the bill increases required languages from 10 to 12 (adding Urdu and one other) and aligns Workers' Compensation Law with Executive Law provisions to ensure consistency and future alignment if the Executive Law changes.