use

Javier Ramirez was handcuffed in the back of an unmarked car, bruised and confused, when immigration agents used a word he had never heard before.

It was June 2025, and they were bragging about the raids in the Los Angeles area that swept up hundreds of immigrants — and a few U.S. citizens, like Ramirez. The unfamiliar word caught Ramirez’s ear.

Tonk.

“I wondered what that meant — I thought it was some code,” the 33-year-old tow truck driver told me over a Zoom call this week. “But I didn’t make a big fuss about it then.”

Masked men had thrown him to the ground outside a tow yard in Montebello, for reasons they wouldn’t divulge. He ended up in the car with a man detained in another roundup, headed for the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles.

The color disappeared from Ramirez’s face when I explained what “tonk” means.

For at least half a century, Border Patrol workers have used the onomatopoeic word, referring to the sound of someone getting hit, as slang for undocumented immigrants. Body camera footage and text chains from last summer’s immigration raids, released this week in a court filing, captures agents throwing around anti-immigrant insults like “wet” and “tonk” with the same ease that the rest of us say “and” or “the.”

The most egregious example, I told Ramirez, was directed at him and his friend, fellow U.S. citizen Brian Gavidia.

A video shows an agent shouting, “One tonk f— got away, dude!” as colleagues manhandle the pair. The same agent, who spoke with a Chicano accent, later sped off in a vehicle while asking in Spanglish, “¿Alguien arresto un tonk, güey?” — Did someone arrest a tonk, man?

“Oh, wow, OK, that’s really bad,” Ramirez finally said, laughing bitterly while gathering his thoughts. “It’s kind of hurtful. They’re just assuming who I am.”

Ramirez asked his attorney, Luis Castillo, if the agents who accosted him “had violence on their mind when they used that word.”

“You’re getting a double whammy,” the longtime civil rights lawyer replied. “They’re hitting you twice, physically and psychologically.”

No, Luis: they’re hitting us all.

Brian Gavidia stands in a parking lot next to East Los Angeles College in Monterey Park in 2025 a day after he and his friend were roughed up by immigration agents outside a tow yard in Montebello. The two are suing the federal government for violating their civil rights.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

If you’re still doubting that racist violence fuels President Trump’s deportation deluge, just consider what Gavidia and Ramirez have been through.

La migra roughed them up even as they screamed that they had documents to prove their U.S. citizenship. They took Gavidia’s Real ID and never returned it. Ramirez was detained for five days and charged with trying to assault a federal officer and interfere with their work — a case that went nowhere because he did no such things.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Public Counsel, along with other groups and private attorneys, included the body cam footage in a court filing asking a federal judge to bar immigration agents from making stops based on racial profiling.

Gavidia is part of that lawsuit, while Ramirez has sued separately. Now, the two men are more certain than ever that the Trump administration’s deportation strategy isn’t about getting the worst of the worst.

To la migra, all Latinos are tonks.

“I never even heard the word, but once [lawyers] told me the explanation of what it meant, I was disgusted instantly,” said Gavidia, 30, who fixes up and sells cars. “They already knew what they were coming to do. We told them we were Americans. It didn’t matter. We were brown, and that was enough.”

“I saw [the tonk video] 300 times,” Gavidia added, “and it’s giving me more trauma.”

“Tonk” has been a dirty little secret of the Border Patrol for decades — workplace lingo showing that the banality of evil that’s la migra on its best days has transformed into something far uglier under Trump.

The slur is so vile — predicated on violence by law enforcement, unlike ethnic jabs that insult food or culture — that it has never crossed over into mainstream English. “Tonk” in its anti-immigrant meaning doesn’t appear in the Merriam-Webster dictionary or even the Dictionary of American Regional English, the premier academic collection of American slang.

And that’s exactly how the Border Patrol likes it.

The earliest use of “tonk” to demean immigrants that I’ve been able to find is in a 1976 book by Paul Schuster Taylor, an early pioneer of Mexican American studies best known for documenting the plight of Dust Bowl refugees along with his wife, photographer Dorothea Lange.

Taylor quoted a Border Patrol inspector referring to Mexicans as “tonks” but offered no definition. In a 1978 hearing, Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner Leonel Castillo said the slur was “sort of like the new term” for “wets.”

Castillo — no relation to Luis — nevertheless defended his agents’ use of anti-immigrant words.

“I think it’s the way — the tone in which you use it, and then how you treat people,” he said, maintaining that the verbiage was ingrained in the “very fine gentlemen” who worked under him.

“It’s very hard to change them,” he said. “But they’re not necessarily bad people.”

A year later, an anonymous Border Patrol agent writing for the white supremacist publication Instauration debunked Castillo’s apologia. He claimed that “tonk” derived from the thudding noise when agents smashed a flashlight on an immigrant’s head.

“The Anglos of the Border Patrol are not as intimidated by federal guidelines as people might think,” the agent wrote. “We have our own methods of interrogation in the desert.”

San Diego State English professor William Nericcio has spent his career studying anti-Mexican hate. He grew up around Laredo, Texas, in the 1970s and 1980s with “guys and their dads who worked in Border Patrol because it was a good job.”

Yet he hadn’t heard of “tonk,” either.

Immigration agents detain two men at a car wash in Montebello, Calif., in 2025.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

“A drum roll of anti-Mexican violence turns into a soundtrack — wetback, beaner, spic and now, tonk,” Nericcio responded when I asked why the slur has stuck for so long among immigration agents. “Of all these anti-Mexican terms, this is the only one that directly connects to an act of violence. It’s a thing of pride when you say it — ‘Hey boss, I got a tonk today! Where’s my bonus?’ It’s glory days for them.”

The casual use of “tonk” by la migra eventually became a PR embarrassment even for the Trump administration. In 2019, during Trump’s first term, a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson told an Arizona public radio station that the slur “is now considered a derogatory term and CBP does not condone its use.”

This time around, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told my Times colleagues that “agents are focused on protecting the American people — not entertaining performative outrage.”

CBP didn’t respond to my multiple requests for comment about whether its internal guidelines continue to discourage “tonk” and whether agents face any discipline for using it.

If you’re not disgusted by this devolution in protocol, I’m not sure what can possibly disgust you.

ACLU lawyer Mayra Joachin said the body cam footage is “clear evidence that these stops were always about individuals’ appearance of being Latino working class” and is proof of the “culture of racism underlying” the Trump administration’s deportation strategy.

How are Gavidia and Ramirez feeling now, after being called a racist slur they hadn’t even known existed and that doesn’t even technically apply to them?

“If you’re a U.S. citizen, you can’t be free in the U.S.,” Ramirez said. What happened to him “can happen to anyone, it can happen to their kids and family, and when it happens to their family, that’s when they’re going to see the truth of what’s happening.”

Gavidia, who voted for Trump in 2024, said that immigration agents think they “are above the Constitution and law.”

“That’s sad and disgusting,” he said. “If we don’t stop this and fight this now, it’s going to get worse and worse.”

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers rejected legislation that would have banned pesticides with so-called “forever” chemicals from use on California’s farms, a restriction strongly opposed by the state’s billion-dollar agriculture community.

Assembly Bill 1603 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) would have phased out the use of pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, a family of compounds that can be lasting and harmful to humans.

Representatives for agricultural groups argued at committee hearings last month that banning the chemicals was an overreach that would result in higher numbers of imports of food from other states and stifle innovation in developing new pesticides.

The latest version of the bill, which will be considered when the state legislature resumes its session next month, requires the state to list pesticides with PFAS in its public database.

“I’m disappointed,” Schultz said in an interview with the Times, adding that he intends to still push to phase out PFAS chemicals.

The bill marks the latest back-and-forth over PFAS, chemicals that are found in many different consumer, commercial and industrial products and are known as forever chemicals because some of their components don’t easily break down.

State regulators and environmental groups disagree on the definition of the chemicals, making it difficult to find a consensus on regulations or health risks.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill that would have prohibited the sale and distribution of popular consumer products, including cookware, dental floss and cleaning products, that contain PFAS chemicals.

The governor, in his veto message, cited affordability concerns. At the same time, the state has passed various laws intended to protect people from PFAS, including banning them in food packaging and firefighting foam.

Studies show that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility and developmental delays in children and increase the risk of cancers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and the vast majority of PFAS chemicals have not been tested for human health effects.

The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., released a study in March that found that nearly 40% of California’s conventionally grown fruits and vegetables tested contained PFAS residues, including 90% of peaches and nectarines.

The EWG, one of the bill’s supporters, uses a broader criteria to define PFAS than the state and federal authorities.

A spokesperson for California’s Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, which oversees pesticide use, said the EWG report looked at detections of the PFAS, but the state “looks at how the detections compare to federal tolerance levels.”

At a June Senate committee hearing on Schultz’s bill, EWG’s chief science officer, David Andrews, said that PFAS pesticides “fall into a regulatory blind spot.” He also said regulators, including the state, have “been inadequate with respect to evaluating immune system harm or the cumulative impacts of these very small PFAS.”

A spokesperson for the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation declined to comment on Schultz’s bill.

Taylor Triffo, a representative for a coalition of California agricultural associations, said at a different Senate hearing in June that the bill’s original language to ban new PFAS chemicals “would deny California farmers access to [the] next generation of crop protection tools that are safer, more targeted, require lower use rates and help address emerging pests and diseases.”

Representatives for agriculture groups said at hearings last month that they don’t object to the state flagging PFAS chemicals in the state database.

Nearly half of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts come from California, according to the state.

Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, called pesticide use a “balance” at the June hearing before voting for the amended version.

“Part of the challenge agriculture is facing right now is pest invasion from other countries where the critters have moved on plants and in soil and have come into the state,” she said. “We’ve got to do everything, I think, we can to maintain our agricultural production, because we produce products that are produced almost nowhere else in the country.”

Isabella Quinonez, assistant director of Public Affairs at the California Farm Bureau, said her group objected to the original bill because it would have restricted products based on their chemical class rather than on a pesticide’s scientific evaluation of risk.

“We’re confident in the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s rigorous, science-based regulatory process, which includes residue studies, groundwater monitoring, and ongoing reevaluations,” Quinonez said.

Schultz told The Times he hopes to work with the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation on oversight in the coming years. He rejected any premise that there is “absolutely nothing to worry about, nothing off [with PFAS], because that’s just inconsistent with the science.”

Times staff writer Susanne Rust contributed to this report.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court ruling that temporarily blocked President Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said the ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Trump appointed the two judges in the majority in Tuesday’s decision. The third was appointed by President Obama, a Democrat.

The plaintiffs had not “shown that the expedited-removal process denies its members notice and an opportunity to be heard,” Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the Trump appointees, wrote.

Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.

In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the U.S. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled in August that plaintiffs challenging the expansion had made a “strong showing” that it was trampling on people’s due-process rights, and she issued a stay order putting the policy on hold. Cobb was appointed to the federal bench by President Biden, a Democrat.

Many migrants living deep in the U.S. have been in the country for more than two years, making them ineligible for expedited removal under federal law. Cobb said the administration had not developed procedures to ensure they and other groups of migrants were not wrongly deported under the expedited process.

The plaintiffs had put forward “substantial evidence” that the expedited removal process, on the contrary, carried a high risk of error when applied more broadly, Cobb said. The ruling cited examples of people who had lived in the U.S. for far longer than two years but were still ordered to be removed in expedited proceedings.

The Trump administration appealed, arguing in a court filing that its expansion was legal, and protections were in place to prevent arbitrary removal.

Cobb’s ruling was an “egregious error” that was depriving the administration of an “essential tool to combat the unprecedented surge of illegal immigration over the past few years” and efficiently deport potentially millions of people, Justice Department attorneys argued in the October filing.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

Ariana Grande was crystal clear in the White House’s comments section on TikTok.

The “We Can’t Be Friends” hitmaker didn’t mince words on Thursday when she commented on a White House TikTok: “Please do not ever use my music in relation to this barbaric, inhumane, heinous nonsense. F— ice,” she wrote in her comment.

The TikTok in question, posted by the White House on Tuesday, promoted the administration’s crackdown on immigration and featured Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers handcuffing various people to the tune of the Grammy-winner’s song “Bye.”

“Bye-bye 👋 President Trump has delivered the most secure border in history,” the caption on the video read. Grande’s comment has since been deleted or hidden from the video’s replies, and the sound on the TikTok has been disabled.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson responded to Grande’s comment in an emailed statement to The Times, writing, “We’ll say this one last time: what’s actually barbaric, inhumane, and heinous are the criminal illegal aliens who have injured and murdered innocent American citizens.”

Grande joins a slew of prominent musicians and artists who have told the Trump administration to cease using their tunes to promote his agenda.

On the 2024 presidential campaign trail, Beyoncé endorsed former Vice President Kamala Harris, who used Queen Bey’s song “Freedom” as a rally anthem. When a spokesman for Trump used the same song in a social media post, the mega star’s team responded swiftly with a cease-and-desist.

During a 2024 Montana rally, Trump’s team played a video clip using “My Heart Will Go On,” the theme song from the 1997 film “Titanic.” Celine Dion’s management team and record label responded with a statement shooting down the song’s use: “In no way is this use authorized, and Celine Dion does not endorse this or any similar use. … And really, THAT song?”

And then, of course, when Trump used Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” on the 2016 campaign trail without the artist’s permission, the American rocker responded by endorsing Hillary Clinton and calling Trump a “moron.”

Add to the list Nancy Sinatra, who posted that Trump’s nod to Frank Sinatra’s song “My Way” was “sacrilege”; the Smiths’ former guitarist Johnny Marr, who said, “Consider this s— shut right down right now,” when the band’s song was used at a 2023 Trump rally; Sabrina Carpenter, who slammed the use of her song in a video, calling it “evil”; and many, many, many more.

SAG-AFTRA members overwhelmingly approved a four-year TV and film deal with major studios including Netflix, Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery on Thursday night, increasing minimum wages and addressing concerns about the use of AI performers.

The deal, which was expected to be approved, received the support of 91% of SAG-AFTRA members who voted on the agreement, which starts July 1 and ends June 30, 2030. The union represents 160,000 performers, including actors, stunt performers and influencers.

“This agreement builds on the foundation members fought to establish and carries that work into the next chapter of our industry,” said SAG-AFTRA President Sean Astin in a statement. “It delivers meaningful gains in compensation, strengthens protections around artificial intelligence and digital identity, reinforces the long-term security of members’ benefit plans and recognizes the realities of how performers work today.”

Under the new deal, the length of the agreement between SAG-AFTRA and major studios represented by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers expands from three years to four years.

It also boosts minimum wage by 3% annually, increases contributions to the health plan by 1% and expands the bonus to the union’s Success Bonus Distribution Fund based on residuals that performers get for popular streaming programs.

The contract also addresses concerns about the growing use of artificial intelligence in TV and film and its impact on actor jobs. Last year, many actors spoke out about Tilly Norwood, a computer-generated “actor” and whether synthetic characters like her could threaten their livelihoods. Some performers have also advocated for getting paid if their likenesses are used to create such characters made through AI systems.

Not all members were in favor of the contract, saying it did not go far enough in protecting performers against AI.

“It normalizes the use of AI replicas and synthetic performers rather than drawing a firm line protecting human performers and their jobs,” said Chuck Slavin, a background actor and performer.

Slavin, a former New England local board member, ran against Astin for SAG-AFTRA president last year.

Producers agreed to “a principle strongly favoring human performances” and that producers would only use a synthetic if it “brings significant additional value to the motion picture.” If a producer decided to use a synthetic in a role that could be done by a human, they would need to notify the union and bargain in good faith.

Additionally, the contract merges the pension plans of the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, which were previously separate but combined in 2012 to form SAG-AFTRA.

Their health plans were consolidated in 2017, but the pensions have remained separate . That was a major sticking point with members, some of whom couldn’t qualify for benefits as their contributions were split between two plans. Studios agreed to boost their overall contributions to the combined plan by 1%.

SAG-AFTRA’s deal comes after the Writers Guild of America members also approved an agreement with the AMPTP in April.

The groups were able to agree on contracts this year, without striking as they did in 2023.

“SAG-AFTRA’s leadership brought a genuine commitment to partnership, and together with the WGA agreement, these deals demonstrate what is possible when the industry works toward practical solutions that support its long-term stability,” AMPTP said in a statement.

The Directors Guild of America began negotiations with AMPTP last month, with its contract expiring on June 30.

Staff writer Cerys Davies contributed to this report.

Animator Jorge R. Gutierrez is facing online backlash following news that his latest series, “Punky Duck,” will use artificial intelligence for its production.

Amazon MGM Studios and Amazon Web Services announced on Wednesday the launch of the GenAI Creators’ Fund, a joint initiative that gives creators access to professional-grade AI tools and funding to produce cinematic entertainment.

Three animation projects have already been greenlighted, including Gutierrez’s “Punky Duck,” which follows a punk duck and his best friend, Smiley Cat, through a wildly exaggerated Los Angeles filled with alien invasions, giant monsters, robot criminal conspiracies, telenovela-style family drama and supernatural mayhem.

BuzzFeed Studios’ “Cupcake & Friends” and Albie Hecht’s “Love, Diana Music Hunters” are also part of the initiative.

Speaking at the AI on the Lot event at Culver Studios, Gutierrez spoke positively of using the controversial new technology, comparing it to “having sex and then they hand you the baby.”

Fans took to social media to critique the “Book of Life” creator, sharing their disappointment. Many pointed out how the tool is actively reshaping traditional Hollywood jobs, from storyboarding to production design, raising concerns over creative control.

As a response to the backlash, Gutierrez uploaded a screenshot to Instagram that same day featuring news articles by Variety and the Hollywood Reporter with a caption addressing the collaboration: “I understand a lot of you are happy for me and a lot of you are really angry at me for experimenting with AI at Amazon. I’m going to leave the comments open so you can get it all out and hopefully feel better.”

Gutierrez also warned that any death threats will be reported, as well as threats to his family. The post has since been deleted.

In a subsequent Instagram post, he shared a screenshot of a post on X, which showed edits to Gutierrez’s Wikipedia page, where he is described as a “sellout.” Gutierrez captioned his Instagram: “Whoever did this I thought it was really funny!”

The Mexican creator is behind Nickelodeon’s “El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera” and Netflix’s “Maya and the Three.” He is also currently developing the long-awaited Speedy Gonzales film with Warner Bros. Pictures Animation.

It took over a decade for Gutierrez to get approval for his 2014 film “The Book of Life,” a beloved storybook animation about the Day of the Dead. After multiple rejections from top animation studios, it was eventually produced by Mexican director Guillermo del Toro — a staunch critic of AI, who described its use as “sharting” at a party to The Times late last year.

By comparison, “Punky Duck,” was greenlighted in two months, according to Cartoon Brew.

In a statement to The Times, Gutierrez said he is “cautiously optimistic” about his collaboration with Amazon MGM Studios: “Artists driving tech, and not the other way around, is my goal.”

“It’s a big experiment for me, and like all experiments it might not work, and I will be as cautious and ethical as possible with AI,” he said.

Gutierrez has been critical of AI in the past, expressing distaste for the tool through a series of cheeky memes shared in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Last year, he referred to the nascent technology as a “mutant AI cockroach.”

WASHINGTON — Alabama on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use a congressional map favoring Republicans in this year’s elections, despite a lower court’s ruling that the redistricting plan intentionally discriminates against Black people.

The state’s Republican leadership filed an emergency appeal with the justices a day after a three-judge court refused to let the state use a map it adopted three years ago that has a majority Black population in just one of its seven congressional districts.

The judges instead required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map that was put in place for the 2024 elections that includes two districts where Black residents comprise a majority or close to it.

Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall told the court that the state did not intentionally discriminate against Black residents and should be allowed to hold elections this year under a map chosen by lawmakers, not judges.

The appeal is the latest development in the fallout from last month’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. That ruling has led Republicans in several Southern states, including Alabama, to take steps to reshape voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats.

The redistricting frenzy is part of a broader push by President Trump to try to hold on to Republicans’ slim House majority in the November elections.

The Alabama cases stretches back several years. The three-judge panel in 2023 ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court said the state, which is about 27% Black, should have two districts where Black voters are the majority or close to it. The court-selected map was used in 2024.

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana case, Alabama officials moved to implement the 2023 state-drawn map. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to lift the injunction that had blocked the map’s use and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana ruling.

In the meantime, voters cast ballots in Alabama’s May 19 primaries, and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey set new special primaries for Aug. 11 in four congressional districts affected by the map switch.

Upon further review, the judicial panel said it was standing behind its initial finding that there was “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination, a holding that was independent of and unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

It said the special congressional primaries should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts.

The use of the court-ordered map led to the 2024 election of U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. State Republicans are seeking to use a map that would give the GOP an opportunity to reclaim the south Alabama seat.

The state is asking for Supreme Court action by Monday as it makes preparations for the special vote in August.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

A visitor has filed a $5-million lawsuit against Disneyland for allegedly failing to properly disclose the use of facial-recognition technology at park and collecting sensitive data on guests.

Summer Christine Duffield of Riverside County filed the lawsuit after a May 10 visit to Disneyland and sister park California Adventure, alleging that the resort violates privacy and consumer protection laws collecting biometric data of visitors, without adequate consent.

“Disney does not adequately disclose the use of their biometric collection, so consumers — which almost always include children — have no idea that Disney is collecting this highly sensitive data,” the plaintiff noted in the lawsuit. “Guests should be able to expressly opt in to this type of sensitive facial recognition technology with written consent — the onus of privacy rights should not be on the victim.”

The suit was filed on May 15 in U.S. District Court in New York. The lawsuit cites an article from The Times on consumer reaction to Disney’s use of facial recognition.

The Walt Disney Company didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“People are getting fed up with being force-fed new tech, new AI, new tracking tools,” said Ari Waldman, Professor of Law at the UC Irvine.

Walt Disney Co. rolled out its facial recognition technology in late April across Disneyland Resort to verify tickets. The way it works is guests’ faces are scanned, converted into a numerical identifier and matched with ticket data.

Disney’s privacy policy notes that the identifiers created for identification are deleted within 30 days unless they need to be kept for legal or fraud prevention purposes.

Guests who don’t want to use the technology can enter through a separate entrance marked with a silhouette of a head and shoulders with a slash through it. However, of the dozens of lines to enter Disneyland and California Adventure, there were only four that didn’t use facial recognition, during an April visit.

The sign saying “Use of this technology is optional,” adorn the security checkpoint entrances.

“This technology facilitates ease of reentry into our parks and helps prevent fraud,” the company noted in its website.

Use of facial recognition technology for crowd management and ticketing has become increasingly commonplace.

Dodger Stadium deploys facial recognition for guests using the “Go Ahead Entry” at certain gates without producing a physical or digital ticket to enter the stadium. At Intuit Dome in Inglewood, visitors can use “GameFaceID” to quickly move through a separate lane with their face as their ID.

The lawsuit comes at a time when there is increasing concern of surveillance in public places, and privacy advocates have rallied against the normalization of surveillance. More recently, concerns of the potentially abusive use of artificial intelligence by government to analyze large quantities of data — from texts to facial scans — to surveil U.S citizens resulted in a high-profile showdown between the Pentagon and Anthropic.

WASHINGTON — In the latest escalation of a fight over the use of paid social media creators, Tom Steyer’s campaign for governor filed a complaint Tuesday accusing influencers who posted content supportive of Xavier Becerra’s campaign of failing to disclose that they had been paid, which is required by California law.

The complaint, filed with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, accuses Jay Gonzalez of producing at least 14 pro-Becerra posts on Instagram and Facebook in late April and early May, after he was hired by the campaign, and only belatedly editing the posts to acknowledge they had been sponsored by the campaign.

The complaint also said that a social media creator named Maggie Reed, who posts under the username mermaidmamamaggie, created four pro-Becerra posts on Instagram and had previously offered to create paid posts for another gubernatorial campaign, though the complaint doesn’t specify how the campaign knows Reed was paid.

Reed and a talent agency that represents her did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Becerra campaign maintained that it has not paid influencers who have created posts in support of the campaign.

“All of the content you see online is entirely and purely organic,” said Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland.

Becerra and Steyer have been the top two Democratic candidates in recent polling for the governor’s race, with Becerra consistently maintaining a slight edge in those polls.

The complaint by Steyer’s campaign comes after two influencers who support Becerra filed a complaint last week accusing social media creators hired by the Steyer campaign of failing to disclose that they had been paid to produce their posts.

The campaign of the billionaire candidate for governor had previously disclosed payments to some influencers with large audiences, including one creator with the user name zayydante, who has 1.8 million followers on TikTok, and another with the user name littleyeg, who has nearly 350,000 followers on TikTok. The complaint filed last week said that both of these influencers failed to disclose that they had been paid by the campaign to produce content.

The complaint also highlighted several accounts created by user who don’t appear to live in California who created posts promoting Steyer and, in at least one case, posted elsewhere that they had been paid by the campaign.

The influencers who filed the original complaint said they saw the newly filed complaint as an attempt by Steyer’s campaign to deflect criticism.

“All he’s done is attack his opponent instead of taking accountability for violating the law,” said Kaitlyn Hennessy, one of the two influencers who filed the complaint against Steyer’s campaign. Hennessy and the other influencer who filed the complaint both said they have not been paid by the Becerra campaign.

In a post on Substack, Steyer defended his campaign’s use of paid social media influencers and said that it had been transparent about their use.

“Every creator we compensate has been and will be publicly disclosed as required by law,” he wrote.

Under a California law passed in 2023, social media creators who create paid content on behalf of a political campaign are required to disclose in their post that the material was sponsored and who paid for it.

The onus is on creators to provide the disclosure, but campaigns are required to notify influencers they hire of the requirement.

Violation of the rules doesn’t trigger criminal, civil or administrative penalties but the FPPC can take alleged offenders to court and ask a judge to force compliance with the law.