At a time of deep supporter, there is at least one thing on which Californian republicans and democrats can get along: advertisements on streaming platforms can be far too noisy.
On Monday, the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, signed a bill with the support of the two parties which requires that advertisements on streaming platforms be at the same volume as the programs with which they are associated. In other words, no more thunderous advertisements letting viewers seek the remote control – platforms like Paramount+ and Netflix will have to find how to keep the hawking products at a volume equivalent to that of their films and series.
“We heard the Californians loud and clear,” Newsom said in a statement that looked like a father’s joke. “And what is clear is that they do not want advertisements to a stronger volume than that to which they previously listened to a program.”
The legislation was created by the Democratic senator Tom Umberg, which represents a district in the north of the County of Orange and a part of long Beach. He was inspired by the experience of an employee’s baby, who was sometimes awakened by a booming streaming advertising. The state senator Roger Niello, a republican representing certain parts of the counties of Sacramento and to place, joined as a co-author and the proposal made his way to the State Senate without ever obtaining a “no” in the room.
But the proposal aroused a certain opposition, partly from the main pressure group of studios and streamers, the motion Picture Association (the MPA changed its neutral position after the amendment of the bill). Tuesday Hollywood journalist called Umberg to know the history of Bill’s trip.
Tell me about the genesis of the bill. When did the volume of streaming advertisements draw your attention for the first time?
I have noticed it for some time, but I don’t think I have never thought of legislating in this area. But Zach (Keller), who is on the phone, and more importantly, his wife, Richael, said: “Hey, listen, it seems to be a quality of life that babies are awakened. More specifically, (their baby) Samantha is awake from time to time by advertisements which are broadcast well above the ambient volume of the program you are looking at. And we thought about it, and I thought we are dealing with great questions of quality of life. I make laws about mental illness, a lot of public security, this kind of thing, but it is also a question of quality of life. So I thought, what do you know? We will do so. And little Samantha agreed. We therefore presented the bill and we left.
During the journey of the bill to the Legislative Assembly, we were faced with several things. First, enormous popular support because it is something that, I think, many Californians know, experience and are irritated. And the other thing is that some members of the entertainment industry opposed the bill by saying that it was technologically impracticable. So these are the two things that were unexpected from my point of view.
Was it the first time that one of your proposals was inspired by a baby?
I think this is the first time that we have been inspired by a particular baby, yes.
Compared to the other bills that you write and have adopted in the Legislative Assembly, how did it compared it?
It is difficult to compare different invoices. It is a simple bill, easy to explain and understand. I chair the judiciary (the Sentea State Committee), certain bills are quite technical and require more than 10 seconds of explanation. So, since it was easy to explain and understand, it was a plus. I was surprised by the opposition. So yes, amendments were adopted along the way, and they were also supported with enough enthusiasm by most of the legislators.
You have never obtained a “no” vote in the state Senate, so it seems that it is not a particularly controversial idea among legislators.?
Yes, I think it’s true. Although some legislators came to see me and told me about the concerns of certain actors in the technological industry, wondering whether this was technologically achievable or not. Thus, sometimes, the total votes does not really reflect what is happening behind the scenes in terms of opposition.
Regarding the opposition based on technological inferable, where did you get there? Did you think that the MPA and others could find a solution?
The short answer is yes. I mean, I have great confidence in the entertainment industry. I have great confidence in the Californian technological industry: if it finds a way to increase the volume, it will find a way not to increase it.
How did the governor’s office have taken this idea?
The governor’s office generally does not comment or does not take a stand on bills as long as they are not seated on their desk. But once the governor’s office bill, I had conversations, Zach had conversations with people from the governor’s office, and they seemed to understand. And I was convinced that once this text is on the governor’s office and in the form that the governor would have signed it, he would support it.
How will this law be applied?
It is in full grass, but there is a section of the code in Business and Professions which essentially says that unfair commercial practices can be applied by district prosecutors, by the Attorney General and by prosecutors of the major cities of California. If a person wishes to enforce the law at his home, he must contact – if he is in one of the cities which have a capacity for application or an authorization – his prosecutor or the attorney general. But I believe that if the streaming services completely ignore the bill, this will attract the attention of those responsible for enforcing the law. Given the popularity of the bill and the number of people who thought it was a good idea, I think it would be enough to awaken two or three babies before the cries arise. In fact, I am often sarcastic, but I am not on this subject. If, after the entry into force of this law, they violate it, I expect some people to contact the authorities responsible for applying the law to enforce it.
Do you have anything else to add?
Well, I must tell you that, after meeting Samantha, she is both a very convincing witness and defender. So once I met her, I couldn’t say no.
This interview was published for reasons of length and clarity.
