Asm. Linda Rosenthal

The bill requires producers and creators of commercial advertisements to provide a conspicuous disclaimer when ads contain synthetic performers or deepfakes. Debate focused on the definition of 'synthetic performer' and concerns about the breadth of the requirement. The sponsor clarified that the definition is narrow and excludes standard post-production techniques like CGI animation, digital compositing, voice modulation, audio-only advertisements, and synthetic performers in ads for expressive works like film and TV. Members questioned whether the definition adequately distinguishes between AI-created fictional characters and common digital editing techniques, and expressed concern that broad application could result in disclosures on nearly all modern advertisements, potentially diminishing their effectiveness.

Sponsor argued the bill protects consumers by requiring disclosure that advertisements use synthetic humans rather than real people, similar to pharmaceutical ads disclaiming fake doctors. Emphasized the intent is clear even without prescriptive wording, and that the AG has jurisdiction over General Business Law enforcement.

Sponsor argued the bill protects tenants by preventing landlords who refused ERAP payments from later suing for covered rent. She contextualized ERAP as emergency federal relief during mass COVID unemployment and noted many landlords accepted the program.

The bill creates a pathway for survivors to escape economic abuse by allowing them to dispute coerced debts while creditors pursue the abusers who incurred the debt, addressing a widespread problem that traps survivors in abusive relationships.

Argued that pit bull breed designations are myths unsupported by veterinary science. Cited the American Veterinary Medical Association's position that dangerousness depends on individual dog characteristics, training, and owner behavior, not breed. Clarified the bill allows insurers to deny coverage for dogs individually deemed dangerous by courts.

Extensive debate centered on whether insurance companies should be permitted to deny coverage or increase premiums for renter's insurance based on dog breed. Opponents argued that certain breeds, particularly pit bulls, are statistically more likely to cause severe damage if they bite, and that insurance companies should be able to price in this risk. Proponents countered that breed-based determinations are unreliable, citing American Veterinary Medical Association studies showing controlled research has not identified pit bull-type dogs as disproportionately dangerous, and argued that individual dog temperament, training, and behavior—not breed—should determine insurability and rates.

The bill extends existing collusion prohibitions under the Donnelly Act to algorithmic pricing, which artificially sets prices high and reduces competition among landlords. Evidence exists in other jurisdictions, including a D.C. case involving RealPage software.

The bill extends existing antitrust law to algorithmic price fixing, which is already illegal when done by humans. Companies like RealPage have orchestrated collusion in other states; New York needs tools to prosecute similar conduct. The bill requires three specific functions and includes a 'knowingly or reckless disregard' standard.

Argued breed-based insurance restrictions are myths contradicted by veterinary science. Emphasized that pit bull is not a single breed, visual identification is unreliable, and individual dog behavior—not breed—should determine coverage. Noted the AVMA confirms breed does not determine dangerousness and that insurers can still deny coverage for dogs deemed dangerous by courts.

Extensive debate centered on whether insurance companies should be permitted to deny coverage or increase premiums for renter's insurance based on dog breed. Opponents argued that certain breeds, particularly pit bulls, are statistically more likely to cause severe damage if they bite, and that insurance companies should be able to price in this risk. Proponents countered that breed-based determinations are unreliable, citing American Veterinary Medical Association studies showing controlled research has not identified pit bull type dogs as disproportionately dangerous, and argued that individual dog temperament, training, and behavior—not breed—should determine insurability and rates.

Ms. Rosenthal explained the bill would make use of algorithms to artificially set rental prices unlawful collusion under the Donnelly Act. Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned whether evidence of actual collusion exists in New York State, noting the bill is based on a ProPublica investigation and a DOJ lawsuit against RealPage in other jurisdictions. Ms. Rosenthal cited a D.C. case where William Smith paid over $1 million to resolve allegations of using RealPage software to inflate rents across 50,000 units, and stated the bill provides the AG with tools to enforce existing antitrust law.

The bill extends existing antitrust protections to algorithmic price fixing, which is a new technology gap. Companies like RealPage have orchestrated rent inflation in other states; New York needs tools to prosecute such collusion when it occurs here. The bill requires three specific coordinating functions and a knowledge/recklessness standard.

The bill would eliminate prior authorization requirements for anti-retroviral medications, PrEP, and PEP for Medicaid beneficiaries with HIV or AIDS. Sponsor Rosenthal cited American Medical Association data showing prior authorizations cause 94 percent of patients to experience care delays and 78 percent to abandon treatment. Asm. Jensen expressed support but raised concerns about eliminating plans' role in prior authorization for medications like PrEP and PEP, which require health metrics monitoring for effectiveness. He also noted the state's Medicaid spending has expanded significantly and questioned whether the bill duplicated existing protections.

Sponsor argued tenants should be able to upgrade appliances when landlords refuse without good reason, noting the bill is narrow, requires landlord permission, and places all costs on tenants. She cited real constituent experiences with broken or inefficient appliances.

Argued that no one should judge how others want to end their lives and questioned who has the right to forbid doctors from helping the terminally ill. Thanked the sponsor for her tenacity.

Ms. Walsh explained her vote in support, noting that current law already allows courts to consider relevant factors in TERPO determinations. She expressed support for explicitly referencing animal cruelty as a factor but cautioned against creating additional burdens on judges who often make TERPO decisions at 2-3 a.m., noting that only probable cause is necessary to issue a TERPO.