Can you even say no when your hospital asks you to sign a waiver?

If your doctor’s office has ever asked you to sign an electronic pad without showing you exactly what you’re signing, you aren’t alone.

CalMatters’ director of sociotechnical research, Alex Rosenblat, heard dozens of stories like this as she visited clinics across the country to see how hard it is for patients to do basic things like get a copy of their paperwork, or opt out of sharing their health data more broadly. 

At the end of Alex’s last pregnancy, she was at her OB-GYN’s office when she was given a form. It asked her to agree to let Phreesia, a tech company that helps doctors’ offices with the check-in process, use her private health data for targeted advertising. Legally, she didn’t have to sign it, but it was labeled “Required” in red.

• Alex: “That made me wonder: When patients are asked to make privacy choices during medical registration, can they actually choose anything other than ‘Yes’?”

She soon learned how hard it would be for many patients to say no. She found dark patterns that can manipulate patients into choices about how their data can be searched across health networks. The forms say you can opt out, but you can’t actually opt out right away. 

Alex’s reporting also found that the dark patterns that consumer protection agencies have tackled in other areas of society, like finance, haven’t been on the agenda for healthcare privacy regulators. But experts say that could change. 

Read more.

Help us report on how this works in California: Have you tried to opt out of health information sharing? Were you asked to sign a privacy notice you couldn’t read or decline? Have you had to negotiate the use of AI transcription or found errors in medical transcripts? Email Alex at arosenblat@calmatters.org.

This primary election is the most expensive primary campaign in state history, and a lot of the money is coming from outside groups, report CalMatters’ Jeanne Kuang and Jeremia Kimelman. 

Unlike candidates, these groups — known as independent expenditure committees — can receive unlimited donations and are often funded by corporations and other special interests. So far these committees reported pouring $79 million into this election, which is more than double the amount spent through the November 2018 general election when Gov. Gavin Newsom won his first term. 

Much of that money has largely targeted Tom Steyer: A committee funded by the state Realtors association, the California Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Gas & Electric and the state’s electrical workers’ union spent $32 million in ads opposing him. 

Steyer has embraced the spending against him, citing it as evidence he would stand up to utilities and big business if elected. The billionaire climate activist has poured an unprecedented $213 million of his own money into his campaign.

Read more.

From CalMatters politics reporter Yue Stella Yu:

Been doomscrolling much? 

Assembly lawmakers on Thursday unanimously advanced a proposal to ban most social media accounts for children under 16, in their latest attempt at regulating tech companies that keep kids hooked to their phones. 

The measure, modeled after a nationwide ban in Australia, would prevent teens from having an account on any social media platforms providing “addictive” personalized feeds and fine those companies for violations. It builds on a 2024 state ban on companies supplying children with addictive content without parental consent. 

Some tech groups, digital privacy advocates and LGBTQ activists opposed it, arguing it’d threaten children’s First Amendment rights to online information. 

The bill now heads to the Senate and already has Newsom’s blessing.