Victims of last year’s wildfires in Los Angeles County who were unable to get mortgage relief under a state law enacted last year would get another chance with a stronger bill introduced Wednesday.

The legislation, AB 1847, by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena), would triple to 36 months the 12 months of mortgage relief offered by last year’s AB 238, while allowing borrowers to repay the money through a deferral that extends the mortgage.

Also authored by Harabedian, AB 238 prohibited mortgage lenders and servicers from requiring borrowers to pay back any forbearance in a lump sum, but it otherwise did not specify repayment terms. It also banned late fees, foreclosures and negative reports to credit bureaus.

Borrowers told The Times that they had difficulty getting any relief and when they did, they were told if they didn’t want to pay it back in a lump sum, they would have to agree to a loan modification that could raise their interest rate.

Like AB 238, the relief can only be obtained if allowed by the underlying mortgage contract.

However, Harabedian said that most of the contracts and guidelines of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the government-sponsored organizations that hold or guarantee the majority of U.S. mortgages — do not bar loan deferrals.

“I think some people were being offered forbearance that, frankly, didn’t comply with 238 when it should have,” he said. “They weren’t given any sort of election or flexibility on how they would repay so we’re trying to perfect it now.”

Harabedian said most of the problems borrowers are facing appear to be due to companies that service mortgages on behalf of lenders, while large institutions such as Bank of America have been more generous.

The Charlotte, N.C., financial institution in December started offering 36 months of mortgage relief to its borrowers without a change to the interest rate.

Another key AB 238 amendment is the extension of relief from 12 to 36 months, which borrowers seek in 90-day increments. The deadline for applying for relief would be extended to Jan. 7, 2029.

Harabedian said 36-months of relief are necessary as it will take many homeowners years to fix and rebuild their homes after the fires in Altadena, Pacific Palisades and nearby communities, which killed at least 31 people and damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 homes.

“This extension tries to align with the full rebuild process that survivors are going to endure, and make sure that from the start of it till the end of it, they’re not under financial distress that would cause them to abandon their communities,” he said.

Len Kendall, who lost his home in Pacific Palisades, said that while he welcomed the legislation, he is still uncertain how it might affect him, including his terms of repayment.

“There’s going to have to be follow up to make sure these these servicers and lenders actually abide by the laws, because there’s no one really holding them accountable at the moment,” he said.

Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a press release that the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation has received 233 mortgage forbearance complaints, with 92% resolved in the consumer’s favor.

However, Kendall said that the agency closed his complaint even though his mortgage servicer had requested a lump sum and his repayment plan remains up in the air.

The agency told him in a letter reviewed by The Times that it “cannot intervene on behalf of individual consumers in any particular case” and that it “brings consumer protection actions when we find patterns of deception, misrepresentation or unfair business practices of statewide interest.”

A spokesperson for the agency said it worked with Kendall to ensure he received “appropriate” forbearance relief and considers the matter resolved.

He added the department is monitoring compliance with AB 238 but so far has not announced any enforcement actions against lenders or servicers.

Harabedian introduced a second bill Wednesday that would provide for mortgage forbearance statewide for homeowners whose residences are uninhabitable after a state of emergency declared by the governor or federal government.

The California Emergency Mortgage Relief Act, AB 1842, requires mortgage servicers to file a monthly report with the DFPI about the number of forbearance requests they receive during a declared emergency and how many were approved and denied, including the reason for denial.

The bill also allows a borrower to bring a civil action against a mortgage servicer for violations of the law.

The AB 238 amendments, if signed into law, would take effect immediately.

Harabedian’s office worked with the California Bankers Assn. and the California Mortgage Bankers Assn. in developing AB 238. The lawmaker said he not sure if they will support the extension of mortgage relief.

“We look forward to reviewing it with our members and working constructively with stakeholders as we have consistently done. The banking industry proactively provided relief to wildfire victims, and this effort pre-dated legislative action,” said Yvette Ernst, spokesperson for the California Bankers Assn.

The California Mortgage Bankers Assn. said it also was reviewing the legislation.

Legislation that allows victims of the Jan. 7 fire storms to receive up to a year of mortgage relief was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom as an urgency measure that takes effect immediately.

Assembly Bill 238 enables borrowers to put a stop to their mortgage payments for up to 12 months with no late fees or penalties, by attesting without documentation that the fires caused a financial hardship.

The relief is extended in 90-day increments that can be extended at the property owner’s request. The law prohibits mortgage servicers from initiating a foreclosure or executing a foreclosure judgment or sale.

“Homeowners rebuilding after a disaster need all the support they can get, including grace in light of this incredible hardship,” Newsom said in a statement after signing the legislation this week. “I look forward to additional conversations with lenders in the coming months about how we can continue to support survivors together.”

The bill, co-sponsored by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) and Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), whose districts include the Eaton and Palisades fire zones, respectively, provides more generous relief than a voluntary forbearance program Newsom and Harabedian put together in January.

That program provides for 90 days of relief from payments, without accruing late fees or damage to credit scores. It also offers protections from new foreclosure of eviction actions for at least 60 days. More than 400 financial institutions signed on to the program.

Any relief provided under that program, operated by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, would be credited toward the 12-month extension limit established by AB 238.

“For months since the fires, survivors have been forced to make two housing payments: one for their temporary rental accommodations and another mortgage payment for a house that either doesn’t exist anymore or is uninhabitable due to smoke and ash damage. AB 238 will ease the financial burden that too many families are facing,” Harabedian said in a statement.

The bill, introduced in January in the Assembly, was amended to make it more consumer friendly.

Among the changes in the final text of the bill is a prohibition on mortgage services from dinging the credit of borrowers who make use of the program. It also gives borrowers the flexibility to repay the relief by banning lump sum repayment after the forbearance period ends, as long as a borrower was current on payments when it started.

While it’s been more than eight months since the fires in Pacific Palisades, Altadena and nearby communities that damaged or destroyed more than 16,000 structures, reconstruction is just getting underway and many claims submitted by policyholders to their insurers remain open.

Claims for smoke damage have proved to be especially problematic, prompting multiple lawsuits against insurers and the California FAIR Plan Assn., the state’s home insurer of last resort.

The Department of Angels, a group formed after the fires to aid in recovery, conducted a survey of Altadena, Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Pasadena and Sierra Madre fire victims in June that found only 1 in 4 had insurance claims fully approved.

Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network community group, said the legislation will help thousands of homeowners who are struggling to fix or rebuild their homes.

“One year of mortgage relief now will help people get stabilized, especially because many are having trouble getting access to their temporary housing payments due from their insurance,” she said. “There are so many difficulties. It’s like a full-time job to be a survivor. People are really feeling despair.”

AB 238 fared better in the Democratic-controlled Legislature than similar mortgage-relief legislation did in Congress that was proposed by legislators Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park).

However, Chu has had more success with her bipartisan Filing Relief For Natural Disasters Act, which was signed into law by President Trump in July.

The act authorizes the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service to extend federal tax filing deadlines for individuals living in state-declared disaster zones, even before a federal disaster declaration is issued. It also ensures that survivors benefit from at least 120 days of filing relief, double the previous minimum extension of 60 days.

AB 238 was one of just several wildfire-related bills sitting on the governor’s desk awaiting his signature.

One bill, Senate Bill 495, would require insurance companies to pay 60% of fire victims’ personal property coverage after a declared disaster up to $350,000 — without forcing them to provide an itemized list of losses. Currently, insurers must advance an amount equivalent to 30% of the policy’s dwelling limit, up to $250,000.

Others bills assist homeowners who take steps to reduce the fire risks on their property, and there is a package that seeks to reform and strengthen the FAIR Plan, including by requiring two legislators serve on its governing board.

X, the social media app owned by Elon Musk, has sued California in an attempt to block a new law requiring large online platforms to remove or label deceptive election content.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court this week, targets a law that aims to combat harmful videos, images and audio that have been altered or created with artificial intelligence. Known as deepfakes, this type of content can make it appear as if a person said or did something they didn’t. The law is scheduled to take effect Jan.1.

Assembly Bill 2655 was one of three bills California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law this year to address growing concerns about deepfakes ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election. California lawmakers have been trying to mitigate technology’s potential risks but also face backlash from powerful tech executives wary of efforts they see as possibly restricting users’ online speech.

The focus on election deepfakes came after Newsom sparred online with Musk, who shared a viral video of Vice President Kamala Harris that used AI to alter what the Democrat said in one of her campaign ads. Republican Donald Trump, who had Musk’s strong backing in his successful run to reclaim the presidency, also posted deepfake images of Taylor Swift that falsely suggested the megastar had endorsed him.

X alleges the new law would prompt social media sites to lean toward labeling or removing legitimate election content out of caution.

“This system will inevitably result in the censorship of wide swaths of valuable political speech and commentary,” the lawsuit states.

According to the lawsuit, the law runs afoul of free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution and a federal law known as Section 230, which shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content. X, which moved its headquarters from San Francisco to Texas this year, is suing California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber to block the law.

“The California Department of Justice has been and will continue to vigorously defend AB 2655 in court,” a spokesperson for Bonta said in a statement.

X didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment, and the secretary of state’s office said the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), who introduced AB 2655, said in a statement that he had reached out to X representatives to gather feedback about the legislation before lawmakers voted on it.

“I had hoped they would engage constructively with me during the legislative process. I was not surprised when they did not. I defer to the DOJ on any lawsuits,” Berman said in a statement.

Newsom’s office noted that AB 2655, known as the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024, exempts parody and satire content. The governor’s office said it’s confident the state will prevail in court.

“Deepfakes threaten the integrity of our elections, and these new laws protect our democracy while preserving free speech — in a manner no more stringent than those in other states, including deep-red Alabama and Mississippi,” Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, said in a statement.

X, though, alleges it would be difficult for social media companies to determine whether a user’s post was meant in jest, noting that opinions on the AI-altered video of Harris differed.

X along with social media giants such as Facebook’s parent company Meta, TikTok and Google-owned YouTube have policies about manipulated media. X’s rules bar users from sharing deceptive manipulated media that could lead to harm and says that in some cases this content may be labeled.

Although Musk has declared himself a “free speech absolutist,” the company’s approach to enforcing the platform’s rules is to restrict the reach of potentially offensive posts rather than pull them down. However, regulators, civil rights groups and users have criticized social media platforms, including X, for not doing enough to enforce their own rules.

With an increase in AI-generated election misinformation appearing on social media, the laws passed in the run-up to this month’s election were meant to bolster one California already had on the books, which bars people from distributing deceptive audio or visual media intended to harm a candidate’s reputation or deceive a voter within several weeks of an election.

In October, a federal judge blocked another of those laws, Assembly Bill 2839, while a legal challenge to it plays out. That law would prohibit the distribution of deceptive campaign ads or “election communication” within 120 days of an election.

And X has tried to block new California laws that target social media platforms before. Last year, Musk sued over another state law that requires platforms to disclose how they moderate content. X failed to block AB 587 but then won an appeal in September.

The 30-second video ad struck an ominous tone, urging Californians to tell their lawmakers to vote against legislation that would force Google, Facebook and other large platforms to pay news publishers.

“It’s a dangerous precedent that will drive up costs for small businesses and make it easier for politicians to raise taxes in the future,” the narrator says in the ad, which ran in June. “With inflation running high, we can’t afford another Sacramento tax increase.”

The ad stated that it was “paid for” by the California Taxpayers Assn., a nonprofit advocacy group, but it really was bankrolled by Google.

Between April and June, the search giant paid the association $1.2 million for advertising, filings to the California secretary of State show. The association confirmed that Google funded the ad campaign against the bill.

Tech companies strongly opposed Assembly Bill 886, known as the California Journalism Preservation Act.

The money appears to have been well spent. Lawmakers put the legislation on hold until 2024.

Google’s payment to the taxpayers group made up most of the record $1.5 million the company spent lobbying California lawmakers and regulators from January to September. During the same period last year, Google spent $187,434. The company spends an average of about $257,000 per year lobbying in California, according to a review of such expenditures from 2005 to 2022.

The massive surge reflects the growing efforts by tech companies to influence California lawmakers as they debate how to protect young people and journalists and other workers from the threats posed by social media sites, artificial intelligence and other emerging technology.

Bob Shrum, a longtime Democratic consultant and director of the Center for the Political Future at the University of Southern California, said political ads are one way companies try to sway lawmakers, but the strategy is not always effective.

Shrum, who listened to the California Taxpayers Assn. ad, said viewers might walk away with the impression that the price of their internet service will go up.

“They skirt the line of being factual,” he said. “At the same time, the ad is anything but a rounded, accurate portrait of what the controversy is all about.”

Google’s spending on lobbying in California outpaced that of Facebook parent company Meta, Amazon, Apple, and other multibillion-dollar companies, data from the California secretary of State show. The search giant’s lobbying spending lagged behind AT&T, Waymo (Google’s self-driving car unit) and McDonald’s, as well as major energy companies like Chevron.

Google’s lobbying efforts went beyond advertising. On June 28, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and two of his top staff members met with Google leaders at the company’s San Francisco office, according to filings to the secretary of State’s office.

A Google representative said the meeting was about the overall legislative landscape; Newsom’s office said it was related to an executive order about artificial intelligence that he went on to sign in September.

State Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) also met with Google, the filings showed. Allen’s office said the senator and a legislative director who works on environmental policy toured the tech giant’s Mountain View campus in April to learn about sustainability and waste reduction.

“We regularly engage with lawmakers and regulators on a range of issues, including economic growth, small business support, cybersecurity and protecting online information, among other issues,” Bailey Tomson, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement.

The company lobbied on a variety of bills during the last legislative session, including measures barring law enforcement demands for Google location data, protecting child safety on social media and regulating artificial intelligence.

One of the company’s biggest priorities: fighting a bill that would require tech giants to negotiate payment to news organizations for stories displayed on their platforms. The online platforms would pay a “journalism usage fee” to certain publishers.

Organizations that support the bill said it would help preserve democracy by funding local news outlets, which are grappling with drastic cuts and layoffs as they compete with tech companies for advertising dollars. Tech companies should pay publishers because they profit from their news content, helping to keep people engaged on their platforms, news advocacy groups such as the California News Publishers Assn. and News/Media Alliance say. (The Los Angeles Times is a member of both organizations and supports the proposed legislation.)

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in May that the bill would mostly benefit large publishers. The legislation “fails to recognize that publishers and broadcasters put their content on our platform themselves and that substantial consolidation in California’s local news industry came over 15 years ago, well before Facebook was widely used,” Stone tweeted.

Meta threatened to remove news from its platforms Facebook and Instagram if the California bill becomes law, a move the social media giant used in other countries that passed similar legislation. In 2021, Meta temporarily blocked news in Australia but reversed the decision after reaching a deal with the Australian government. In August, Meta blocked news in Canada.

Debate about AB 886 has continued since the legislative session wrapped in September. On Dec. 5, the California Senate Judiciary Committee held a four-hour hearing about the importance of journalism in the digital age. Chris Argentieri, president and chief operating officer of the L.A. Times, and Matt Pearce, a Times reporter and chair of Media Guild of the West, testified in support of the legislation.

At the hearing, Google Vice President of News Richard Gingras said the search engine helps drive traffic to digital publications and noted that the company also supports journalism in other ways, such as the Google News Initiative, which provides funding, resources and training.

“A link tax as proven elsewhere would be counterproductive, making it more difficult for users to find diverse sources of news, reducing the opportunity for news publishers to build new audiences and making it harder for Google to direct users to helpful content,” Gingras told lawmakers.

The insinuation that payments to news organizations in California would be a new tax has been a pivotal part of video ads against the Journalism Preservation Act. Political ads against AB 886, including the one aired by the California Taxpayers Assn., ran in June and July, when the bill faced a critical deadline in the Senate Judiciary Committee, data from Meta’s ad library show.

Advocacy group News/Media Alliance, which supports AB 886, pushed back against the ads’ claim that lawmakers are trying to impose a tax on tech companies.

“They distort reality, and they do a good job of it, because Google is a massive company with endless resources to be able to spend on creating messaging that’s false,” said Danielle Coffey, president and chief executive of the organization.

The California News Publishers Assn. and News/Media Alliance spent $161,519 on lobbying in California from January to September — far less than tech companies spent.

David Kline, a spokesperson for the California Taxpayers Assn., said ads are just one tool lobbyists use if legislation is moving quickly and they need to get the word out to a lot of people. The association’s ad against AB 886 has racked up 2.1 million views on Google-owned YouTube.

“It’s a giant state, where advertising is your only realistic option for doing that, and just by the nature of it, advertising is expensive,” he said. The taxpayers group wasn’t representing only Google but also other members that had concerns about the bill, he added.

Google and Meta are members of the Computer & Communications Industry Assn., which also ran ads against AB 886. From January to September, the trade group spent $1.3 million on lobbying, filings to the secretary of State’s office show.

Matt Schruers, president of the association, said the majority of the spending was related to political advertising.

Lawmakers’ decision to put the bill on hold until next year “is an acknowledgment of the fact that there are serious issues with the proposal and concerns that have yet to be resolved,” Schruers said.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who sponsored the bill, said political ads are a common strategy in Sacramento, especially by billion-dollar companies. Lawmakers put the bill on hold because it’s important that they get it done “right” rather than quickly, she said.

The extra time also allows lawmakers to see how similar legislation plays out in Canada, she said. Google, after threatening to block news in Canada, struck a deal with the Canadian government in November to pay news businesses $73.5 million annually to comply with a new law that requires tech platforms to pay publishers.

Wicks refuted the idea that the bill would impose a new tax, noting that there’s a different legislative process for tax increases, and it would require more votes.

“When you put out disingenuous ads like that, I assume some members got calls, but I think most members are savvy enough to know it’s just simply not a tax,” she said.

News advocacy groups also used advertising to increase support for the bill, but compared to tech industry spending, it’s “ a drop in the bucket,” Coffey said.

Ads from such groups that ran in October and November on Facebook included the face of Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Sen. Tom Umberg has the opportunity to be the hero our democracy needs,” one ad by the California News Publishers Assn. says.

Umberg said he doesn’t spend a lot of time on social media and doesn’t recall seeing the ads. He said the legislation is complex, and he has concerns about how the bill would be enforced, along with its impact on minority groups and local publications, which is why lawmakers put it on hold.

He remains optimistic, though, that the bill will reach the finish line next year, and tech platforms will have “some of their skin in the game.”

“It is my view that there’s going to be a piece of legislation that’s going to get to the governor’s desk that is going to address the issue of the symbiotic relationship between social media and credible journalism,” Umberg said.