Unfair Competition Law: hotels.

Section 17211(a)(1) removed the phrase 'the time of arrival of an employee of that federal entity' as an alternative deadline. Previously, the notice had to be posted no later than the earlier of (a) the federal employee's arrival or (b) 48 hours before the reservation began. Now the sole primary deadline is 48 hours before the reservation begins (or within 1 hour of acquiring knowledge if that comes later). This tightens the requirement by eliminating the possibility of posting the notice only upon the employee's actual arrival.

Section 17211(f)(1) was revised to specify that a violation is committed 'by the operator' and that the penalty 'shall subject the hotel to a civil penalty.' Previously the language simply stated a violation 'shall be deemed engaging in unfair competition...and subject to a civil penalty.' The change clarifies who commits the violation (the operator) and who bears the penalty (the hotel).

The short title was corrected from 'add and repeal of Section 17211 to the Business and Professions Code' to 'add and repeal of Section 17211 to of the Business and Professions Code,' fixing a missing preposition. The digest also fixed a duplicated word ('hotel hotel') and cleaned up punctuation around the handbill distribution language.

The bill text was reformatted from the official legislative document style (with line numbers, page headers, and centered formatting) to a web page layout with navigation menus, search bars, and section links. No changes to the underlying legal language.

The notice posting deadline was changed from 'no later than the time of arrival of an employee of that federal entity' to '48 hours before the beginning of the reservation or, if actual knowledge is acquired after that time, within 1 hour of acquiring actual knowledge.' This gives hotels a much earlier and more specific obligation.

A new subdivision (b) requires hotel operators to disclose, upon request of a guest with a reservation and at the time of check-in, the potential presence of CBP or ICE on the premises during that guest's reservation.

The posted notice no longer needs to be visible to guests. It only needs to be in a place where it can be seen by all workers. Guest notification is now handled separately through the new check-in disclosure requirement.

Each work shift of non-compliance is now explicitly defined as a separate violation, and a civil penalty of $2,500 per violation was added.

A liability cap was introduced: the operator's total liability for violations shall not exceed $5,000 per reservation with CBP or ICE.

The definition of 'operator' was expanded to include the owner of the hotel, in addition to the previously defined manager-level employee who works 40+ hours per week.

A sunset provision (subdivision h) was added, repealing the entire section as of January 1, 2029. The bill title was updated to reflect that it both adds and repeals Section 17211.

The knowledge standard changed from 'knows or should know' (which includes constructive knowledge) to 'actual knowledge only,' meaning hotels are not liable if they would have discovered the reservation through reasonable diligence but did not.

The requirement that the notice clearly identify which specific federal agency has the reservation and the length of the reservation was removed. The notice now only discloses the 'potential presence' of CBP or ICE without specifying which one or for how long.

An explicit no-duty-to-investigate provision was added stating the section does not impose any duty on an operator to seek information about federal agency reservations.

The posting deadline was relaxed from at least one week before the start of the reservation (or as soon as practicable if created within one week) to no later than the time of arrival of a federal employee, giving hotels far less advance notice to guests and workers.

A good-faith protocol safe harbor was added: an operator who has established a protocol to comply in good faith shall be found in compliance, creating a significant defense against enforcement actions.

A liability protection provision was added stating the hotel and its operator shall not be liable for loss of life, injuries, violations, penalties, or damages that might occur pursuant to compliance with the section.

A UCL enforcement mechanism was added deeming a violation as engaging in unfair competition for purposes of the Unfair Competition Law chapter.

The disclosure requirement is narrowed from any federal agency to specifically United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Responsibility shifts from the hotel as an entity to the operator of the hotel, and a knowledge standard is added: the operator must disclose what it knows or should know the hotel has.

New timing rules require the notice to be posted at least one week before the start of a reservation, or as soon as practicable if the reservation was created within one week of its start date. The notice must remain displayed for the full duration of the reservation.

The notice must clearly and conspicuously identify which agency has the reservation and the length of that reservation.

The display standard is strengthened from conspicuous to prominently displayed.

The nonsubstantive amendment to Section 1 of the Business and Professions Code (a citation provision) is removed, so the bill now only adds Section 17211.

The fiscal committee vote changes from no to yes, meaning the bill now requires fiscal committee approval before it can advance.

New Section 17211 added to the Business and Professions Code requiring hotels to disclose any contracts or reservations with federal agencies by posting a notice in a conspicuous location visible to both workers and guests.

The new section defines 'hotel' by reference to the existing definition in Section 17210 of the Business and Professions Code.

The bill's purpose shifted from a purely nonsubstantive correction of a typo ('known known' to 'known') to a substantive new regulatory requirement for hotels, while retaining the original technical fix as a secondary section.

Fiscal committee review changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now has fiscal implications requiring committee analysis.

Principal coauthor (Assembly Member Gipson) and additional coauthors (Avila Farias, Mark Gonzalez, Haney, Lee, Solache) were added to the bill.