This is normal. 

NFPs not flush with cash or strongly involved in the legal landscape (say versus an organization intended to change a bad law or shift public policy, some of which funded by speculative industry wanting to open new markets or expand into currently unviable or illegal products) aren’t monitoring 51+ legislatures in the US and many more across the globe.

I’m involved with one that is heavily legally involved on another issue and it is difficult and expensive to monitor them all, lobby in as many as necessary (sometimes a few, sometimes over half of states in a given session), and engage consumers to contact the relevant legislators which changes depending on where it is in committee or in the process, which can be a 40-50 biannual session (like TX) or a two year drawn out affair (like CA).

Language changes in bills and can be missed depending what terms you look for, even if working very diligently to catch them all on a given issue.

I’m in California and didn’t know this bill was going through. It isn’t my “top” issue of concern but I’d have submitted a letter of opposition if I’d known because of the open source issues. 

I wouldn’t take it to mean support or opposition by the organizations or take it that they aren’t capable, or weren’t acting in interest of consumers during the process.

I do think what CA is doing is trying to “short circuit” those advocating for worse age verification laws that force consumers on a site-by-site/app-by-app basis to submit personally identifiable information to some of the least trustworthy entities (data brokers) to verify age like some states are putting forward, some of which wouldn’t be in compliance with CA privacy laws that broadly intend to force brokers to delete information about CA residents starting very soon. 

Personally I don’t like or approve either approach, but other than the OSS issues it is “less bad” than other US state (and UK) schemes.