Some things to note, unless the bill was modified from the version I read before being signed into law:<p>This doesnt apply to any information which is public record as a matter-of-fact.<p>So if you voted, your address and name is public record and can be used and displayed by these sites. If you got a DUI, your mugshot and arrest record may be public record and can be displayed. If you got into a custody battle and your court case was public, that can be displayed. And I guess that all makes sense in the end. If you got into a DUI, how does the government get to tell random website X that they are not allowed to say that you got into a DUI, especially when the information was public record.<p>So to be clear, if the peoplefinder style websites want to keep whitepages.com/user/john-smith online with an address, phone number and mugshot- They can tell you to pound sand and do so. This bill cant stop that.<p>Honestly, Theres alot of hype about this bill in general which is going to be... interesting... when people fail to understand what it can and cant be used for.<p>Additionally, this bill comes with a caveat that the sites can request proof you are living in california currently, via a license scan or some other method you get to now hand over to the data broker.<p>That said, in our research for <a href="https://redact.dev" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://redact.dev</a> supporting these features from a pure API only interaction, is that most of the sites just delete you if you use their form. They dont want the headache of insane users threatening them and doing crazy shit because they dont delete their profile. And honestly the people who go through these removal processes are less than 1% of the stored data, so its mostly just a cost of doing business.