California's bill, [A.B. 2047](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB2047), will not only mandate censorware – software designed to block user expression – on all 3D printers, but it will also criminalize the use of open-source alternatives. This echoes the mistakes of **Digital Rights Management (DRM)** technologies and poses significant risks to innovation and consumer rights. 3D printing is used in a variety of applications, from film props and rapid prototyping to medical research and affordable repair parts. However, legislators are increasingly focusing on the perceived threat of “ghost guns” as a justification for restricting 3D printers. Despite the rarity and existing illegality of 3D-printed guns, California may criminalize users' control over their own devices. This bill benefits major 3D printer manufacturers, allowing them to emulate **HP**'s 2D printing model: criminalizing code alteration, locking users into proprietary ecosystems, and facilitating enshittification. Algorithmic print blocking is ineffective and threatens consumer choice, free expression, and privacy. A misstep here could have serious repercussions for the 3D printing industry, setting a precedent for problematic legislation and creating an expensive, ineffective bureaucratic system. ## What’s in the California Proposal? Compared to proposed laws in Washington and New York, California’s bill is the most concerning. It criminalizes open source, reduces consumer choice, and creates a bureaucratic burden. ### Criminalizing Open Source and User Control A.B. 2047 goes further than any other legislation on algorithmic print-blocking by making it a misdemeanor to disable or circumvent these mandated algorithms. This effectively criminalizes the use of third-party, open-source 3D printer firmware and enables print-blocking algorithms to parallel anti-consumer behaviors seen with **DRM**. Manufacturers can lock users into first-party tools, parts, and consumables, mandating purchases through first-party stores and imposing platform taxes. They could also force regular upgrade cycles through planned obsolescence, making devices illegal to resell. This enables a range of anti-consumer practices, potentially resulting in criminal charges. **DRM** has demonstrated that criminalizing code leads to barriers to repair, consumer waste, and increased cybersecurity risks by hindering research. ### Less Consumer Choice The bill favors established manufacturers over newer competitors and consumer interests. Less-established manufacturers will need to dedicate significant resources to implementing ineffective solutions, navigating state approval, and potentially paying licensing fees for print-blocking software. This raises the barrier to entry on a technology that can be built from scratch with common equipment, resulting in fewer options for consumers and more leverage for major producers. Retailers and the second-hand market will also be affected, as resale risks misdemeanor penalties. The bill locks users into a walled garden, demanding that manufacturers ensure 3D printers cannot be used with third-party software tools. This limits the utility and accessibility of these devices across lawful uses. ### Bureaucratic Burden A.B. 2047's title 21.1 §3723.633-637 creates a print-blocking bureaucracy, relying heavily on the California Department of Justice (**DOJ**). The **DOJ** must outline technical standards for detecting and blocking firearm parts, certify print-blocking algorithms, and maintain lists of compliant 3D printers. Printers or software that do not meet these standards will be illegal to sell in the state. The bill also requires the department to establish a database of banned blueprints to be blocked by these algorithms. This database and printer list must be continually maintained, requiring effort from both the **DOJ** and printer manufacturers. Despite the cost and burden, these efforts will be outpaced by rapid iterations and workarounds by individuals breaking existing firearms laws. ### Not just California Once implemented, this infrastructure will be difficult to control and can lead to unintended consequences. The database meant for firearm parts can easily expand to copyright or political speech. Scans meant to be ephemeral can be collected and surveilled. These controls will extend beyond California's borders. While California is at the forefront of print blocking, the impacts will be felt globally. Printer companies will likely roll out anti-competitive and privacy-invasive tools globally, as maintaining separate software versions and inventories is not cost-effective. Once California creates the infrastructure to censor prints, what else will it be used for? As we covered in [“Print Blocking Won’t Work”](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/print-blocking-wont-work-permission-print-part-2), these efforts will make 3D printer users vulnerable to surveillance by forcing them into cloud scanning solutions or chaining them to first-party software that connects to the cloud to update its print-blocking system. This law demands an unfeasible technological solution for something that is already illegal. It risks the worst outcomes for grassroots innovation and creativity within the state and across the global 3D printing community. California should reject this legislation, and advocates should monitor similar legislation in their states. What happens in California won't just stay in California.