--- title: Senate Judiciary Committee, February 5, 2026 collection: meetings id: 2026-02-05/senate-judiciary cite_as: Senate Judiciary Committee, February 5, 2026, video https://vimeo.com/1161918371 (machine transcript by Georgia Commons) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-05/senate-judiciary md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-05/senate-judiciary.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-05/senate-judiciary/text source_url: https://vimeo.com/1161918371 date: 2026-02-05 status: machine transcript corpus_version: meetings-2026-10-23-8c15ead0f18d license: Machine transcript and summaries by Georgia Commons from the General Assembly's public video; the video stays on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel; see about.md publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-05.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-05/house-judiciary.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-05/house-transportation.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/index.md chamber: Senate body: Senate Judiciary Committee body_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/senate-judiciary.md meeting_kind: committee session: 2025-2026 Regular Session start_time: 2026-02-05T14:00:00-05:00 location: 307 CLOB duration_seconds: 3316.0 video_id: 1161918371 video_title: 02/05/2026 Senate Committee on Judiciary agenda_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/senate/JudyAgenda2.5.26.pdf bills_discussed: - SB 405 - SB 398 summaries_model: gpt-6.1-sol transcript_turns: 150 --- # Senate Judiciary Committee, February 5, 2026 Senate Judiciary Committee; February 5, 2026; 2025-2026 Regular Session. Video, on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel: https://vimeo.com/1161918371. Agenda: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/senate/JudyAgenda2.5.26.pdf. > This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. ## Summary written by Georgia Commons Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the transcript below. It is not part of the record. Quote the transcript or the video, not the summary. The committee unanimously approved both bills and sent them to Rules. Members approved [SB 405](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb405) without further discussion of its substance, following testimony at an earlier subcommittee meeting. For [SB 398](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb398), members reviewed a narrower substitute addressing AI-generated obscene images and adopted two amendments. One concerned sexually explicit chatbot responses to children; the other limited certain probation restrictions to felony violations. The committee then unanimously approved the amended substitute. The chair also outlined a process of generally taking public testimony on Mondays and considering full committee votes on Thursdays. ## Bills discussed (2) Each account was written by gpt-6.1-sol from the stretch of the transcript it names. The bill's number is said in that stretch, unless it was the only bill on a committee's agenda. ### SB 405. Magistrate Court; the maximum amount of civil claims that can be tried in magistrate court; increase [SB 405](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb405) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:28:28](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1708s), turns 10 to 20. The chair said [SB 405](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb405) was unchanged from the earlier subcommittee meeting, where members had heard testimony. The sponsor offered to review the bill but gave no further presentation. The chair noted that the State Court Judges Council had submitted a letter and testified previously, without describing its position. No members asked questions or offered amendments. The committee unanimously voted to pass the bill and send it to Rules. ### SB 398. Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, Surveillance, and Related Offenses; criminal offenses of virtual peeping; establish [SB 398](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb398) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:30:04](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1804s), turns 21 to 149. The sponsor said the substitute for [SB 398](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb398) removed a broader restriction on AI-generated images, instead criminalizing intentional creation of obscene images of real people without consent. The sponsor described a gap in existing law concerning creation, said distribution was already covered, and explained an investigative exception for law enforcement and prosecutors. The sponsor said platforms would not be liable merely for hosting content, but could face charges for knowingly generating nonconsensual images. One member questioned whether the provision concerning minors clearly required a real person. Legislative counsel pointed to the definition of a minor as an individual under 18. A Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers witness requested limiting certain probation restrictions to felony violations, saying the misdemeanor provision covered less serious conduct involving young people close in age. The sponsor agreed, and members unanimously adopted that amendment. Another senator proposed a felony offense concerning publicly accessible, child-focused AI chatbots producing sexually explicit responses, citing a parent's account of two children encountering such content. A member questioned responsibility when large companies acquire chatbot businesses. The chair pointed to the requirement that an owner or operator knew or reasonably should have known. Legislative counsel corrected the amendment's references, and members adopted it unanimously. The committee unanimously approved the substitute with both amendments and sent it to Rules. ## Transcript (150 turns) [0:26:07](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1567s) I'm awake. I'm not sure if y'all are. Welcome to the Senate Judiciary Committee, our first full committee hearing after our first subcommittee meeting on Monday. And, um, I'm gonna ask our newest member, he usually just joins for the 1:00 a.m. hearings when everybody's trying to add people to the committee to get their numbers. But tonight, or today- ... he's here officially. [0:26:32](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1592s) Ooh. [0:26:32](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1592s) All the way from West Georgia, the billboard guy, Senator Bearden, would you like to o- open us up in a word of prayer? [0:26:39](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1599s) Sure. [0:26:40](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1600s) Floor is yours. [0:26:41](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1601s) Will you join me in prayer? Lord, thank you for bringing us here together today. Ask to keep us safe w- on our way back to our homes on that journey. Also allow us to do what's right for the city, or for the citizens of the, of the state as we l- hear... I'm so sorry. As we listen to these bills today. And let's never forget that the Lord was sent to this world not to condemn it, but to save it. In Jesus Christ's name we pray. Amen. You got me tongue-tied on my first- [0:27:05](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1625s) Thank you [0:27:05](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1625s) ... meeting, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry about that. [0:27:06](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1626s) Well, God knows what you mean, so you're good. All right, so we are trying a new process. I tried way back my first year as chair having a subcommittee. It didn't really work out. The subcommittee wasn't really ever willing to meet. Um, but now we have an official subcommittee that Hatchett's gonna try to have on our Monday times. So our plan is to always use our two times they give us. It's the only times they give us. And Mondays at 4:00 will generally be a subcommittee of the whole, so every committee member is invited to attend, of course, and encouraged to be there, where we'll take public testimony. [0:27:40](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1660s) And the goal is to have all of our testimony and the thoughts on the bill in that subcommittee, and then to come back on Thursdays and consider full committee votes. And so we're gonna try to, um, limit the testimony on Thursdays, though when there's changes to a bill, which will likely happen, like today, um, if somebody wants to weigh in on a substitute, obviously we welcome comments on changes to a bill that someone may have just seen. Otherwise, we're gonna make this more of the presentation of a review of what the subcommittee heard, and talk through any changes that are made, and then the bills will be o- available for a full committee vote. [0:28:15](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1695s) So with that, Senator Hatchett, um, I'm gonna... Well, let's back up. The other one may be a little bit shorter. Senator Setzler, do you wanna come on up? Let's start with... 'Cause I don't think you had any changes to your bill yet. Um, Senate Bill 405. [0:28:35](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1715s) Um, give us the LC number, and it's the same from, from Monday. [0:28:38](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1718s) Sure. It's LC 492501. [0:28:52](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1732s) All right. Thank you. I couldn't find it, but I have it. All right, so you presented on Monday, um, with testimony on the bill. Do you have any, um, follow-up for the committee? [0:29:02](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1742s) No, sir, Mr. Chairman. I think many of the members were here just by, by way of introduction. I'm glad to walk back through the bill briefly, w- whatever pleases the chair. [0:29:11](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1751s) Well, we've, we've heard the bill. Is there any questions from the committee for the author first? All right. I know there are others that testified on the bill. We also have a letter from our, um... Let's see who actually gave us... State Court Judges Council also submitted a letter, uh, b- I believe it was in the folders on Monday as well, and they submitted testimony on Monday, so you have their letter. And so what's the pleasure of the committee on Senate Bill 405? [0:29:38](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1778s) Mr. Chairman, I- [0:29:40](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1780s) Motion to pass. Motion to pass by Senator Hatchett. Is there a second? [0:29:43](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1783s) Second. [0:29:44](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1784s) Second from Senator Parent. Any amendments? Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion to pass, raise your hand. It is unanimous, so you are moved on to Rules. [0:29:58](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1798s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. [0:30:00](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1800s) Thank you. All right, next bill, the other bill on the agenda, is Senate Bill 398. Do you wanna come back down, Senator Hatchett? You are bringing us a substitute, and so I'd like for you to focus on the changes that you made in the bill, and then I wanna call Senator Harrell up to talk about a proposed amendment. You're welcome to come on up. [0:30:23](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1823s) Do you have the new substitute, or...? [0:30:25](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1825s) No, I don't. [0:30:27](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1827s) Okay. Okay. [0:30:27](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1827s) So the floor is yours. [0:30:28](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1828s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, um, members of the committee. So this substitute is really, um... Nothing new was added, but a lot was taken out. And so as we discussed, um, in the previous version, just using AI to generate a photo of someone, whether it was explicit or not, was gonna be criminalized. I've taken that out. So now it's just dealing with obscene depictions of someone. [0:30:59](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1859s) Uh, and I think what's important, and what I didn't really get into last meeting, is that this bill aims to fill a gap that's currently in Georgia code. So right now, Georgia law already criminalizes voyeurism, obscenity, and the dis- distribution of miseen- obscene material. But those codes really were written at a time when the only concern was real images or real videos. [0:31:35](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1895s) AI has changed the ability to manufacture an image of a real person doing something obscene, even though no such photo was ever taken. And so what this bill aims to do is to close that gap. Just a refresher, there are apps and, uh, you know, programs out there where you can take a photograph of a real person, and AI can do with it whatever you pretty much tell it to do. So the crime that we are creating here is, Senate Bill 398 makes it a crime to intentionally cause- a generative AI system to generate an obscene image of a real person without that person's consent. [0:32:17](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1937s) So the focus of this bill is on the creation, because that's where existing law is unclear. As I said prev- previously, I think it was Senator Jones that asked me about distribution, and after going back and talking to Leg Council and looking at the code, distribution is already covered. [0:32:35](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1955s) Mm. [0:32:36](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1956s) But the creation is not. So I didn't wanna be duplicative in this bill and create a new section of the code for distribution since that's already a crime. I've gotten several questions, and I've worked with several people in the room, um, in crafting this substitute. There was a question about a section of the bill that exempts law enforcement. And so after talking with Leg Council, talking with the law enforcement officers, there is a narrow exception for law enforcement and prosecutors ac- acting in the investigation or prosecution of crimes. [0:33:16](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=1996s) This exception is necessary because law enforcement may legitimately use image reconstruction, AI-assisted age progression, demonstrative or investigative tools, or courtroom exhibits. And without an exemption, the statute could unintentionally criminalize legitimate public safety activity. But this exception does not authorize harassment, expl- exploitation, or misuse. It simply ensures that the law targets bad actors, not investigators doing their job under judicial and constitutional safeguards. [0:33:51](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2031s) I've also gotten questions about platforms and company liability. So would the app or the program be criminally liable? So this bill does not impose criminal liability on companies or platforms merely for hosting or transmitting the content, because there are obviously very sophisticated users, end users out there that can take an AI platform and generate images that maybe the platform wasn't necessarily created to generate. [0:34:27](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2067s) So the criminal liability only attaches to a person who intentionally causes the AI system to generate the image with the knowledge that it is non-consensual. So if someone uses an AI platform to do it, obviously the AI platform would not be criminalized, that person would. However, if there is an AI platform that is generating these images intentionally, knowing that it is non-consensual, then yes, criminal charges could be brought. [0:34:59](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2099s) And I think that distinction is important for this piece of legislation, but I also think it's necessary. Um, so Senate Bill 398 in its current version is narrowly tailored, it's victim-focused, and it closes a real and emerging loophole without expanding criminal liability beyond what is necessary. And I'm happy to answer any questions. [0:35:23](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2123s) And you're on LC492603S, is that right? [0:35:27](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2127s) That is correct. [0:35:29](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2129s) First, any questions for the author on a substitute or the underlying bill? Senator Parent? [0:35:36](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2136s) Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much, um, Leader Hatchett. This is actually more of a wordsmithing question. So in looking at, [0:35:47](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2147s) um, lines 38 through 42 and comparing them to the corollary, which are, uh, I got 62 through 68, um, you've got in the adult, uh, version or portion on 65 that the image was not authorized or consented to by an adult, which is not in 40, um, and 41, which I assume obviously means that the minor cannot give consent. [0:36:22](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2182s) Correct. [0:36:22](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2182s) Which is fine, 'cause we have the exception. So because of that, though, I feel like it might be a little unclear whether this... 'Cause it says an image of a minor. It doesn't clarify at all, like, who that minor is. So the way I read it, it could be li- literally any minor. And I, and I think the removal of that language, which makes sense to me, 'cause it was in some other version where it was cl- [0:36:50](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2210s) Yeah, where the missing- [0:36:51](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2211s) 'Cause we talked about, like, it's a real person. It's not, like, a fake image. So I, I might, I m- I mean, the Leg Council may disagree, but the way I read it, it's not clear that it has to be of, like, a real person or that real person. [0:37:09](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2229s) Okay. [0:37:15](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2235s) Let's see, that includes an image of a minor. [0:37:22](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2242s) Yeah, it's just any minor. [0:37:23](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2243s) Correct. [0:37:23](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2243s) I think. And it might not even be- [0:37:26](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2246s) And so you're, you're saying- [0:37:26](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2246s) ... like, a real person- [0:37:28](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2248s) Okay [0:37:28](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2248s) ... I believe. [0:37:30](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2250s) It, you're saying it's not clear whether or not it's a real person or not? [0:37:34](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2254s) A real person, right. Mm-hmm. [0:37:38](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2258s) And I think obviously the policy here is to protect victims from having their, you know, real individuals from having their images duplicated. I, [0:37:52](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2272s) obviously from a, a personal and policy perspective, I think having an AI platform generate child pornography should be a crime regardless. So I'm okay with the language as is. Um, but I may need Leg Council 'cause I don't know if there's separate... Yeah. [0:38:14](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2294s) This instance, I direct you to line 22, we define what minor is, which is an individual who's under the age of 18. And is my understanding in the Georgia Code, an individual refers to a real person, as it were, as opposed to a broad category of potential virtual people? [0:38:32](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2312s) Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. [0:38:38](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2318s) Do you have other questions? [0:38:39](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2319s) No, not right now. No. Thank you. [0:38:41](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2321s) Other questions from the committee for the author? [0:38:46](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2326s) I had some conversations with GACTL today, and they told me that you met with them and, and went through and I think worked out pretty much everything they asked to be changed in the bill as well. There was one other item I think that they were asking about. Do y'all want to come forward and address that? Which, Senator Harrell, do you mind letting him- [0:39:03](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2343s) Yes, yes [0:39:04](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2344s) ... sit next to you? Stay up there, Senator Hatchett. [0:39:05](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2345s) Stay up there. [0:39:07](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2347s) Stay up. Mr. Hines, I just want to let him weigh in on that. [0:39:11](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2351s) Sure. Thank you. [0:39:13](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2353s) Otherwise, let us know if you- your concerns with the bill were met. [0:39:16](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2356s) Sure. Hi, everyone. I'm Brian Hines with the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and thank you for your time. Um, again, just want to thank Senator Hatchett. He's been fantastic, and we really appreciate him considering what we were talking about. I think pretty much everything was in there. And I think this is actually was my mistake, and so I misspoke on Monday about the line numbers. That's probably why s- this, uh, maybe wasn't incorporated. So, on lines 71 to 74, essentially it's saying if the sentence imposed is probated in whole or in part, then some- what's essentially known as sex offender light, some of the restrictions can be made on there. [0:39:50](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2390s) All that we ask is that that be limited to only a felony viol- violation of it, and I had told you the wrong line numbers on Monday. And again, I think that's where some of the confusion was. But it'd be a fairly simple fix. And again, just the rationale for that is because the only misdemeanor offense under this is going to be, um, somebody who falls within the Romeo and Juliet provision, who essentially it's going to be, you know, obviously there's g- one person's going to be consenting to the image being generated. Uh, and so it's less nefarious. And so I- we, we asked, obviously, we don't think that would require a sex offender, you know, provisions or it to be ins- instituted as far as probation. [0:40:26](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2426s) So the simple fix with that one would just be adding the words, "For a felony violation of this code section," uh, and that would be on line 71, so that'd be at the beginning. So it'd be, "For a felony violation of this code section," comma, and then it, then it would say, "If the sentence imposed," and what we would suggest is just removing under this code section. So then it would actually read as, "For a felony violation of this code section, if the sentence imposed is probated in whole or in part..." Dot, dot, dot. [0:40:56](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2456s) That'd, that'd be the rest of it. So we think that's a simple fix, and I think that's very reasonable, otherwise we wouldn't ask. So if that'd be something the senator would be open to. [0:41:03](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2463s) Yeah, no, that makes, that makes sense. [0:41:04](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2464s) Okay. [0:41:05](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2465s) I'm okay with that. Legislative Council, do you agree with that change being a fix we need to make as well? [0:41:13](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2473s) I do believe it is. I may read it back at some point just to make sure I got the language right, but I do not see an issue with that as a fix. [0:41:21](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2481s) Okay. [0:41:22](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2482s) Okay. [0:41:23](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2483s) Thank you. [0:41:23](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2483s) Thank you. [0:41:24](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2484s) All right. Thank you. Any other questions for the author on the bill? [0:41:31](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2491s) All right. Let's take a motion on the bill first, and we'll address potential amendments. Um, what's the pleasure of the committee? [0:41:39](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2499s) Move- [0:41:40](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2500s) Motion to pass from Senator Bearden by committee substitute LC492603S. Is there a second? Second from Senator Watson. Any discussion on the motion? We'll now move into amendments. Um, Senator Harrell, do you want to come up? In your folders, she has provided to us a proposed amendment. My understanding, because this is something we did last session and passed out of the same committee. It just, we didn't get to it on the floor in another bill, I think it was, last year. [0:42:06](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2526s) Mm-hmm. [0:42:06](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2526s) Do you want to talk about this for a second? [0:42:08](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2528s) Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and, uh, thank you for letting me present this amendment today that the author has graciously, um, uh, accepted that I would present it as well. Um, this is an amendment, this is the same amendment that this committee passed on a different bill last year. Um, just to trigger your memory, I actually had a constituent who came to speak with you, Senator Bearden. You would have missed that 'cause I understand you're a new member of the committee. Senator Still, this same mom presented to our online kid safety study committee, uh, during the interim. [0:42:43](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2563s) Um, she is a mom who presented that her nine-year-old child, um, got on a chatbot during school hours, and he was attracted to this chatbot because it was in the personality, the, the chatbot was in the personality of a popular kids book character. And so he was drawn to this chatbot, and immediately upon interacting with this chatbot, the chatbot got into sexually explicit material. Um, the school handled it great fi- gr- great. The, unfortunately, the filtering at the school didn't catch it because the technology was, was new. [0:43:19](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2599s) Um, so the child did go home and, and tell his mom, and actually this happened to two, two children. And, um, the moms got on the chatbot, and it immediately did the same thing for them. So she came to me and, um, I went to legislative council and we came up with this language, uh, to be able to address it. Um, so basically, um, if you have a, um, computer program or application that is designed primarily or marketed to children and is accessible to the public that, that uses an artificial intelligence system to generate text responses, um, a- and it gets into sexually explicit material, then, um, there shall be a, um, that shall be the offense of distribution of computer-generated obs- um, obscene material to a child. [0:44:11](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2651s) If the, the person know- i- is reasonably, um, certain that this would indeed happen, um, uh, this person would then be committing the offense of, um, and, uh- Under, under what I just described and would be guilty of a, a felony. Um, this is the exact same language from, from last year. [0:44:35](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2675s) This amendment that was drawn up was for the previous LC number, so I think we're gonna have to have some line number changes. [0:44:41](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2681s) Right. The lines are messed up because I, I wrote it up, uh- [0:44:45](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2685s) Right, based on the old LC [0:44:46](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2686s) ... before the last meeting. That's right. [0:44:48](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2688s) Um, we have a question from Senator Still. [0:44:51](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2691s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, um, Senator. I appreciate it, and that, uh, testimony was some of the most gut-wrenching I've ever heard, and I appreciate you bringing this. Just understanding the, and this may be more of a question for Leg Counsel, um, line six, a person who owns or operates a computer program or application, um, if we think about the program that was being used by that minor, um, and then that company is purchased by another company and now that person ends up being Elon Musk, hypothetically, but actually a real example with this one that we're talking about. [0:45:30](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2730s) When it says a person who owns or operate a computer program or application, are we going to suggest that if something is in the portfolio of Elon Musk, we're gonna send, uh, Mr. Skandalakis to go pick him up? Or are we gonna... [0:45:46](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2746s) He'll likely involve himself with that. [0:45:48](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2748s) He likes Elon Musk. [0:45:48](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2748s) That crosses. [0:45:50](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2750s) Um, ju- just wondering if, uh, Leg Counsel or any members of the committee has a perspective on what that, that chain looks like because these software companies are getting acquired by multinational corporations, and I just wanna make sure we don't write it so narrow that we miss the ability to hold people accountable. [0:46:11](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2771s) Yeah. I- I'm interested in the committee's response to that, too, but the mom who testified last year did say that, um, there's this whole collection of people who pay a small amount of money to the big companies, uh, to use their data, and then they set up these chatbots kind of overnight, kind of fly by night. Like, they, they can just s- set them up in one night, and they, these are just kind of popping up all over the place, and they're actually individuals who are doing them. [0:46:42](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2802s) So that's the kind of thing that this child got caught in. But there are the chatbots that are put out there by the big companies, where this can happen as well. So I would be interested in what the committee thinks. You have both scenarios, big company and little guy. [0:46:58](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2818s) So you do have, look at the amendment lines 10 through 12, you do have to know or reasonably should have known, and so there is that protection in there. The question is- [0:47:08](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2828s) Right [0:47:08](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2828s) ... what would be reasonably should have known. I think that would be- [0:47:11](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2831s) Right. So for instance, if, um, if a complaint was filed and the company was in receipt of the complaint, and it happened again. [0:47:21](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2841s) Right. [0:47:25](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2845s) You have other questions or wanna weigh in more, Senator Still? [0:47:29](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2849s) Uh, no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:47:32](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2852s) Mm-hmm. [0:47:33](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2853s) Not to put the prosecuting attorney's counsel on the spot, um, the, do you wanna weigh in on that language? Does that give any... You don't wanna weigh in on that language? Okay. [0:47:43](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2863s) Mm-hmm. [0:47:44](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2864s) Anything from GACDL on that language or anything to add? Nobody else seems concerned except Senator Still. We'll send Elon Musk down to get a mugshot, I guess, in Fulton County. So- [0:47:54](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2874s) You can get him in [0:47:54](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2874s) ... yeah, that's right. Um- [0:47:56](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2876s) I will, I will say if it's a very narrow definition, that's okay. I mean, that's a place to start. Uh, from the, from the work that the study committee did during the interim, there are some larger solutions dealing with the bigger companies- [0:48:11](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2891s) Right [0:48:11](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2891s) ... that, that we have recommended that we may have future legislation on. [0:48:16](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2896s) There's also a part where we have to, I mean, use some common sense and realize that these things have to go through a prosecutor's office and a grand jury. And so the hope would be, you, they gotta prove to a jury that someone knew or reasonably should have known. So I know- [0:48:30](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2910s) Right [0:48:30](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2910s) ... we make light of that, but I, personally, I'm comfortable with that language, but if anybody has any, any other thoughts on it, welcome to hear from anybody in the room. Any are questions for Senator Harrell on the amendment? Mr. Hennessey, are you able to clean this one up for us on the fly with the language? [0:48:49](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2929s) On the lines. [0:48:50](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2930s) Uh, on the line numbers? Yes. [0:48:52](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2932s) Uh, yes. Uh, looking at it as it is instead of, it would update the LC number on line one of the amendment. Um, the line three language is fine. Uh- [0:49:04](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2944s) Okay [0:49:04](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2944s) ... just double-checked that. The language for line 18 is also fine. It's just really the only change is inserting after line, instead of 89, that is going to be line 77. [0:49:20](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2960s) Okay. Does somebody wanna offer on, from the committee offer this as an amendment? [0:49:25](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2965s) Um, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to offer, um, Amendment 1, um, the LC number as articulated by Legislative Counsel. [0:49:35](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2975s) All right. Is there a second? [0:49:37](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2977s) Second. [0:49:37](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2977s) Second. All right. Any discussion on the proposed amendment? All those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. All right. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this. [0:49:49](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2989s) Thank you very much. [0:49:50](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2990s) Thank you. [0:49:50](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=2990s) Um, there was also mention other proposed amendment, I think the author was okay with, um, from GACDL, I believe on line 71. Uh, Mr. Hennessey, do you have- [0:50:01](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3001s) I think so. Line- [0:50:02](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3002s) Do have that one. [0:50:03](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3003s) On line 71, um, inserting before the capital letter F, if, uh, for felony violation of, uh... Hold on. Actually, I have for felony violation of this code section, [0:50:25](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3025s) and then I have if as lowercase if, then we strike- The capital if the sentence imposed striking under this code section and then continuing is probated in whole or in part. [0:50:40](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3040s) Should be [0:50:43](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3043s) comma there too after this code section. [0:50:45](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3045s) Uh, yes, comma after this code section. So for reading it again for clarity, uh, before capital I if on line 71 for a felony violation of this code section, comma, lowercase if, then striking capital I if the sentence imposed striking under this code section, then continuing is probated, comma, et cetera. [0:51:10](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3070s) All right. You okay with that amendment author as well? Okay. Somebody wanna offer that amendment? So offered by Senator Watson. Do you know what it is? That's okay. We have a second? Second. We have a second from Senator Bearden. Thank you. All right. Any discussion on the amendment? All those in favor, please raise your hand. You vote for it. All right, it's unanimous. Back to the underlying motion do pass by committee substitute as amended now twice. Any other amendments? [0:51:41](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3101s) All those in favor of the motion, please raise... Wait, hold up. [0:51:49](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3109s) Was there another one? [0:52:12](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3132s) All right. All those in favor of the underlying motion do pass by committee substitute now as amended, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. Thank you. [0:52:21](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3141s) Thank you. [0:52:21](https://vimeo.com/1161918371#t=3141s) You're on to rules. And that is all we have today. And look, y'all call Senator or Judge Now Stone and tell him judiciary finished at 2:37 on a Thursday. First. Probably the first and only time this year we do that. Right. Thank you. We're adjourned.