At a time of deep partisanship, at least there’s one thing California Republicans and Democrats can agree on: Ads on streaming platforms can be way too loud.

On Monday California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill with bipartisan support that requires ads on streaming platforms to be at the same volume as the programs they are attached to. In other words, no more blaring commercials leaving viewers fumbling for the remote — platforms like Paramount+ and Netflix are going to have to figure out how to keep the product-hawking at an equivalent volume to their films and series.

“We heard Californians loud and clear,” said Newsom in a statement that had the air of a dad joke. “And what’s clear is that they don’t want commercials at a volume any louder than the level at which they were previously enjoying a program.”

The legislation originated with Democratic state Sen. Tom Umberg, who represents a district in northern Orange County and a portion of Long Beach. He was inspired by the experience of a staffer’s baby, who has on occasion been awakened by a booming streaming ad. State Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican representing portions of Sacramento and Placer counties, joined as a co-author and the proposal worked its way through the state Senate without ever getting a “no” vote on the floor.

But the proposal did get some opposition, in part from the studios’ and streamers’ top lobbying group, the Motion Picture Association (the MPA moved its position to neutral after the bill was amended). On Tuesday The Hollywood Reporter called Umberg up to learn the story of the bill’s journey.

Tell me about the genesis of the bill. When did the volume of streaming ads first come to your attention?

I’ve noticed it for quite some time, but I don’t think I ever thought about legislating in this space. But Zach [Keller], who’s on the phone, and more importantly, his wife, Richael, said, “Hey, look, this seems to be a quality of life issue that babies are being awakened.” More specifically, [their baby] Samantha’s being awakened now and again by ads that basically get blasted well above the ambient volume of whatever program you’re watching. And we thought about it, and I thought, we do big quality of life issues. I do legislation concerning mental illness, a lot of public safety, that kind of thing, but this is a quality of life issue as well. So I thought, you know what? We’ll do it. And little Samantha was in agreement. And so we introduced the bill and we were off and running.

In the course of the bill’s movement through the legislature, we encountered several things. One, a tremendous amount of popular support because this is something that I think many, many, many Californians know and experience and are irritated by. And the other thing was, is that some of the folks in the entertainment industry opposed the bill saying that it was technologically infeasible. So that, those are sort of the two things that were unexpected from my perspective.

Was this the first time that a bill of yours has been inspired by a baby?

I think it’s the first time was inspired by a specific baby, yes.

Compared to other bills that you author and shepherd through the legislature, how did the journey of this one compare?

It’s hard to compare different bills. This is a straightforward bill that was easily explained and easily understood. I chair Judiciary [the state Seante committee], some of the bills are pretty technical and require more than a 10-second explanation. So to the extent that this was easily explained and easily understood, that was a plus. I was surprised by the opposition. So yes, there were amendments that were taken along the way, and it was fairly enthusiastically supported by most legislators as well.

You never got a “no” vote in the state Senate, so it seems like it wasn’t a particularly controversial idea among legislators?

Yes, I think that’s right. Although there were legislators who did come to me and voiced the concerns of some of the folks in the tech industry asking about whether it was technologically feasible or not. So sometimes the vote total doesn’t quite reflect what is going on behind the scenes in terms of opposition.

In terms of the opposition on grounds of technological infeasibility, where did you land on that? Did you think that the MPA and others could find a way?

The short answer is yes. I mean, I have great confidence in the entertainment industry. I have great confidence in California’s tech industry that if they can find a way to boost the volume, they can find a way to not boost the volume.

How did the governor’s office take the idea?

The governor’s office typically doesn’t comment or take a position on bills until they’re sitting on their desk. But after the bill was on the governor’s desk, I had conversations, Zach had conversations with folks in the governor’s office, and they seemed to understand. And it was my belief that once it was on the governor’s desk and in the form the governor signed it, that he would be supportive.

How is this law going to be enforced?

This is way in the weeds, but there’s a code section in Business and Professions that basically says that unfair business practices can be enforced by district attorneys, by the attorney general and by the major city attorneys in California. An individual in their home, if they wish to enforce it, they would have to contact — if they’re in one of the cities that has enforcement capability or authorization — their DA or the attorney general. But I do believe that if streaming services completely ignore the bill that it will attract the attention of those who are entrusted to enforce the law. Based on the popularity of the bill and how many people thought this was a good idea, I would think it would only require two or three babies to be awakened before the hue and cry is raised. I’m actually often sarcastic but I’m not being sarcastic about that. If after this law becomes effective, they violate the law, I do expect that there will be people who will be contacting enforcement authorities to enforce it.

Anything else you want to add?

Well, I’ve got to tell you, having met Samantha, she’s a very compelling both witness and advocate. So once I met her, I couldn’t say no.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.