The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee convened on July 16, 2025, to discuss significant legislative measures aimed at addressing California's rental housing affordability crisis. Central to the meeting was the consideration of Senate Bill 52 (SB 52), which seeks to prohibit the use of algorithms that facilitate collusion among landlords to artificially inflate rental prices.

The committee began by reviewing amendments to SB 52, which were designed to address concerns raised by stakeholders, including realtors and the California Apartment Association. Proponents of the bill highlighted the urgent need for action, noting that California renters must earn an hourly wage of $47.38 to afford a two-bedroom apartment, underscoring the severity of the affordability crisis.

Supporters of SB 52, including Megan Abel from Tech Equity, emphasized the detrimental impact of pricing algorithms, which they claim added approximately $3.8 billion in costs for renters in 2023 alone. Abel argued that these algorithms not only inflate rents but also increase the likelihood of eviction for tenants. The bill aims to ban the exchange of non-public competitor data, a key strategy to combat collusion and ensure a fair rental market.

Several organizations and individuals voiced their support for SB 52, including representatives from the Consumer Federation of California and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. They stressed the importance of regulating technology that undermines fair competition in the housing market.

Conversely, opposition to the bill was presented by Deborah Carlton of the California Apartment Association, who raised concerns about the liability imposed on landlords using algorithms. Carlton argued that the bill unfairly targets users of the technology, holding them accountable for potential misuse without sufficient proof of wrongdoing. She also expressed concerns about restrictions on the use of aggregated data, which she claimed could hinder landlords' ability to operate effectively.

Other speakers echoed Carlton's sentiments, emphasizing the potential negative consequences for landlords and the rental market if SB 52 were to pass in its current form. They argued that the bill could lead to frivolous lawsuits and discourage the use of beneficial technology.

The meeting concluded with a call for further discussion and consideration of the bill, as committee members weighed the implications of SB 52 on both renters and landlords. The committee's next steps will involve continued deliberation on the proposed legislation and its potential impact on California's housing landscape.