With a deadline looming next week to move legislation out of policy committees, the fate of a half-dozen bills aimed at curtailing the reach of the California Consumer Privacy Act remains very much in doubt.

Key bills targeting the landmark data protection law have been assigned to the state Senate Judiciary Committee. But as of Tuesday morning, only two had been placed on the agenda for the committee's July 9 hearing, the panel's last scheduled meeting before the July 10 procedural deadline. The remaining measures are the subject of ongoing, closed-door negotiations among lawmakers, business groups, privacy advocates and industry lobbyists.

One of those bills, AB 25, suffered a political blow last month when the powerful California Labor Federation announced its opposition.The legislation specifies that the Consumer Privacy Act does not apply to information obtained by employers about workers and job applicants.

Mitch Steiger, a California Labor Federation lobbyist, said the organization of 1,200 affiliated unions is concerned the bill's language would condone company monitoring of workers through apps, spyware and other devices without requiring employee access to the information collected.

“We see what we view as very intrusive employer surveillance happening,” Steiger said. “At the least we want to make sure workers have access to that information that's collected about them.”

The labor group registered its opposition late in the legislative process. Steiger said the federation had not been following the bill closely and was only alerted recently about potential problems in the language from other opponents.

“To receive new opposition this far into the process complicates things, especially when we have spent months working with stakeholders on AB 25,” the bill's author, Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, said in an email. “Yet, I remain committed to finding common ground with all stakeholders where we can.”

Chau continued: “At this time, I intend to move forward with AB 25 and welcome the opportunity to work with labor groups at looking into specific privacy protections that would best benefit employees.”

The bills that would amend the Privacy Act face another hurdle in the Judiciary Committee. Chairwoman Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, supported legislation—backed by Attorney General Xavier Becerra—earlier this year to expand the reach of the law by adding a private right of action for consumers. The bill stalled in a fiscal committee, but Jackson is still seen as a major obstacle for those advocates who would like to see the Privacy Act limited in scope.

Jackson declined to comment on the bills coming before her committee.

Amendment backers also face a new potential challenge in the recent reformulation of the Judiciary Committee. Due to the election last month of two new senators, Senate leader Toni Atkins removed two committee members, who likely would have supported Privacy Act limitations, and replaced them with officeholders who have shorter track records on privacy issues.

Watching all of these developments is Alastair Mactaggart, the San Francisco real estate developer who co-authored the Consumer Privacy Act.

Mactaggart said this week he only opposes two pending act-amending bills. One, AB 1416, would allow companies to share consumer information with government agencies. The other, AB 846, would exempt retailers who collect data from customer loyalty programs. Both bills have the backing of tech and business groups.

Mactaggart said he expects AB 846 to be amended in a way he can support. As for AB 1416, Mactaggart said he's ready to fight the bill in its current form until it's defeated. The rest of the legislation, including AB 25, he said, he has no problems with.

“Suddenly I'm the person in the middle because you have people who are more strident on both sides,” Mactaggart said.

Mactaggart told The Recorder he's still glad he withdrew his privacy ballot initiative last year in favor of the legislation that's spawned so many proposed amendments. He said he believes the Legislature is best suited to craft privacy laws and “we've held off some bad bills.”

Mactaggart's Californians for Consumer Privacy retains two lobbying firms in Sacramento, and he said he recently commissioned a poll that shows public support has grown for data privacy restrictions he champions.

Asked if he was considering another ballot initiative, Mactaggart said, “At this point, no.”