Communications: lifeline telephone service program.

Valencia anchors a privacy-focused update to California’s lifeline program, foregrounding tight controls on who may access applicant and subscriber data and tying access to court-ordered process, while allowing the use of de-identified data for program management.

Central to the proposal is a new rule that bars the public utilities commission, its staff, the lifeline program’s administrator and providers, and their contractors from sharing lifeline data with local, state, or federal agencies, or immigration authorities, without a court-ordered subpoena or valid judicial warrant. The measure also clarifies that, while access is restricted, disclosures necessary to verify eligibility for lifeline service remain permissible. In addition, the bill permits the use of aggregated, de-identified data for analysis and program management, prohibits mandatory submission of Social Security numbers to apply or participate, and defines “immigration authority” and “immigration enforcement” for clarity.

Beyond privacy protections, the bill tightens rules on information that may be disclosed by telecommunications carriers. It requires written consent for release of specific categories of information, including personal calling patterns, financial information, services purchased, and demographic data, while enumerating exemptions (such as directory and emergency-service data, certain law-enforcement disclosures under lawful process, and information shared for lifeline outreach with a cost-recovery provision). Subscribers would receive notice of the disclosure when consent is requested and could rescind consent with a 30-day window. The bill also creates a civil remedy for violations and expands the enforcement framework to the Public Utilities Commission and related program actors, with an emphasis on consent, notification, and data-use limits.

From a policy and implementation perspective, the measure places violations within the existing criminal and civil enforcement structure of the Public Utilities Act and asserts no local reimbursement is required for costs tied to new crime-related provisions. It positions privacy protections as applicable to lifeline data and subprograms, while preserving narrowly defined, verifiable sharing for outreach purposes. The act aligns with broader privacy considerations for a subsidized telecommunications program and interacts with federal immigration-related privacy considerations by requiring court-ordered access for government authorities absent consent or other exemptions.