Existing law establishes the state flag and the state's emblems, including, among other things, the golden poppy as the official State Flower, the California redwood as the official state tree, and purple needlegrass as the official State Grass. This bill would establish the bigberry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca) as the official state shrub.
(1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and regulates the granting of licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state. The act requires the department to make and prescribe rules to carry out the purposes and intent of existing state constitutional provisions on the regulation of alcoholic beverages, and to enable the department to exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred upon it by the state constitution and the act, not inconsistent with any statute of this state. The act makes it unlawful for any person other than a licensee of the department to sell, manufacture, or import alcoholic beverages in this state, with exceptions. The department, pursuant to its powers and in furtherance of emergency declarations and orders of the Governor under the California Emergency Services Act regarding the spread of the COVID-19 virus, established prescribed temporary relief measures to suspend certain legal restrictions relating to, among other things, the expansion of a licensed footprint, sales of alcoholic beverages to-go, and delivery privileges. Existing law authorizes the department, for a period of 365 days following the end of the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to permit licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded license area authorized pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization approved in accordance with the Fourth Notice of Regulatory Relief issued by the department, as specified. Existing law makes these provisions effective only until July 1, 2026, and repeals them as of that date. This bill, instead, would make those provisions operative until January 1, 2029, repeal those provisions on that date, and make conforming changes. The bill would also prohibit the department from issuing any new COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorizations on or after January 1, 2027. (2) The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes the legislative body of any city or county to adopt ordinances that regulate zoning within its jurisdiction, as specified. Under that law, variances and conditional use permits may be granted if provided for by the zoning ordinance. Existing law, to the extent that an outdoor expansion of a business to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on indoor dining interferes with, reduces, eliminates, or impacts required parking for existing uses, requires a local jurisdiction that has not adopted an ordinance that provides relief from parking restrictions for expanded outdoor dining areas to reduce the number of required parking spaces for existing uses by the number of spaces that the local jurisdiction determines are needed to accommodate an expanded outdoor dining area. Existing law makes these provisions operative only until July 1, 2026, and repeals them on that date. This bill, instead, would make those provisions operative indefinitely. Because the bill would require local officials to perform additional duties for an extended period, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities. Existing law provides that these standards are primarily enforced by local enforcement agencies. Existing law restricts satellite food service to limited food preparation in a fully enclosed permanent food facility that meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a permanent food facility, before conducting satellite food service, to submit to the enforcement agency written operating standards. Existing law, until July 1, 2026, authorizes a permitted food facility within any local jurisdiction that is subject to retail food operation restrictions related to a COVID-19 public health response to prepare and serve food as a temporary satellite food service without obtaining a separate satellite food service permit or submitting written operating procedures. With regard to those provisions that authorize a permitted food facility to prepare and serve food as a temporary satellite food service, this bill, instead, would make those provisions operative indefinitely. (4) Existing law requires permanent food facilities to be fully enclosed in a building consisting of permanent floors, walls, and an overhead structure that meet prescribed minimum standards. This bill would, notwithstanding the requirements described above, authorize a restaurant to operate using open windows, folding doors, or nonfixed store fronts during hours of operation if the restaurant develops, and submits to the enforcement agency for approval, an integrated pest management and food safety risk mitigation plan and meets certain requirements, as specified. The bill would require the plan to be documented in writing, made available upon request to local environmental health enforcement officers, and updated annually or whenever there is a change to the facility or operation. The bill would require the restaurant to self-close upon observation of vermin activity inside the facility and remain closed until all vermin are eliminated. The bill would prohibit a local enforcement agency from unreasonably withholding approval of a proposed pest management and food safety risk mitigation plan and would require approval to be granted unless unique circumstances exist such that no reasonable conditions or measures can sufficiently mitigate a significant risk to public health or safety. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires dealers of dogs and cats to comply with its provisions, including maintaining certain health and safety standards for pets and providing purchasers and prospective purchasers of pets, upon request, with written notice of consumer rights concerning the sale of a pet, including information about available refunds and other remedies. Existing law prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering, brokering, making a referral for, or otherwise facilitating a loan or other financing option for, the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or a rabbit. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions subject to a civil penalty. This bill would prohibit, subject to specified exemptions, a broker from making available for adoption, selling, or offering for sale a dog under one year of age, a cat, or rabbit. The bill would define a broker as a person or business that sells, arranges, negotiates, or processes, either in person or online, the sale of dogs, cats, or rabbits bred by another for profit and would include facilitating the transfer of those animals for profit.
Existing law requires a person seeking to bring a dog into this state, or importing a dog into this state, for the purpose of resale or change of ownership to obtain a health certificate with respect to the dog that has been completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated within 10 days before the date on which the dog is brought into the state. Existing law requires the person to submit the health certificate to the applicable county health department, as specified. This bill would repeal the above-described requirements, and would instead require a person selling, transporting, or importing a dog into the state for the purpose of resale or change of ownership to obtain, and submit to the Department of Food and Agriculture and the buyer, a health certificate for the dog that has been completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated no more than 10 days before the date on which the dog is brought into the state, as specified. The bill would require that the health certificate contain specified information. The bill would designate the health certificate as a public record, and require the department to retain a health certificate for 5 years. Under existing law, a violation of the Food and Agricultural Code is a misdemeanor, except as specified. Because the requirements of this bill would be part of the Food and Agricultural Code, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, establishes the California Veterinary Medical Board to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine, and specifies acts the performance of which constitutes the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery, and dentistry, including performing a surgical operation upon an animal. Existing law provides that nothing in the act prohibits a person from practicing veterinary medicine as a bona fide owner of one's own animals. A violation of the act is a crime. This bill would include the performance of a tendonectomy, onychectomy, or any type of claw removal on a feline within the practice of veterinary medicine, surgery, and dentistry. The bill would require those procedures to be performed only for a therapeutic purpose, as defined, and would authorize the board to deny, revoke, or suspend a license or registration or assess a fine for performing those procedures for any reason other than a therapeutic purpose. This bill would exclude the performance of those procedures from the provisions authorizing a person to practice veterinary medicine as an owner of one's own animals. The bill would specify that the bill's provision shall not be interpreted to preempt a local ordinance adopted before January 1, 2026, limiting the performance of the feline declawing procedures identified in the bill. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime under the act, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 4827 and 4883 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 1502 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1502 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires pet dealers, as defined, to disclose at the time of sale of a dog or cat specified information, including, among others, the source of the dog or cat, a record of known diseases or illnesses afflicting the dog or cat, and a record of immunizations or inoculations, worming treatments, veterinarian treatment, or medications received by the dog or cat. Existing law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, requires dog breeders to disclose, among other things, the aforementioned medical information to purchasers. Existing law makes a person who violates these provisions liable for civil penalties, as specified. Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy. This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person, pet dealer, or business, while the purchaser is located in California, is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California to disclose the original source and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize suit against a person, pet dealer, as defined, or business that violates the above-described provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a purchaser affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against the person, pet dealer, or business in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction. The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the purchaser within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the purchaser return the contract subject. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by or to a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including property and fire insurance. Existing law creates the Department of Insurance, headed by the Insurance Commissioner, and prescribes the department's powers and duties. Existing department regulations prohibit an insurer from using a rating plan that does not take into account and reflect specified wildfire risk mitigation, including property-level building hardening measures. This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2030, and every 5 years thereafter, to consider whether or not to update its regulations to include additional building hardening measures for property-level mitigation efforts and communitywide wildfire mitigation programs. As part of this consideration, the bill would require the department to consult with specified agencies to identify additional building hardening measures to consider, as well as to develop and implement a public participation process during the evaluation.
Existing law establishes the California FAIR Plan Association, a joint reinsurance association in which all insurers licensed to write basic property insurance participate to administer a program for the equitable apportionment of basic property insurance for persons who are unable to obtain that coverage through normal channels. Existing law authorizes cancellation of an insurance policy for nonpayment of premium, and requires an insurer to notify a policyholder at least 10 calendar days before the policy will be canceled for nonpayment. This bill, on or before April 1, 2026, would require the California FAIR Plan Association to create an automatic payment system and accept automatic payments for premiums from policyholders. The bill would prohibit cancellation or nonrenewal of a FAIR Plan policy solely because the policyholder is not enrolled in automatic payments. The bill would provide a period for the policyholder to pay any outstanding installment premium, in accordance with the existing 10-calendar-day notice requirement.
Existing law imposes varying requirements upon employers to share the pay scale for a position with an applicant or in a job posting, as provided. Existing law defines "pay scale" as the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position. This bill would revise the definition of "pay scale" to mean an estimate of this expected wage range that an employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire and is made in good faith. Existing law prohibits an employer from paying its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex or another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, except under specified circumstances. Existing law requires a civil action to recover wages for a violation of those provisions to be commenced no later than 2 years after the cause of action occurs or, if the cause of action arises out of a willful violation, no later than 3 years after the cause of action occurs. This bill would prohibit an employer from paying employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another sex instead of the opposite sex, and would require a civil action to recover wages to be commenced no later than 3 years after the last date the cause of action occurs. The bill would provide that an employee is entitled to obtain relief for the entire period of time in which a violation of its provisions exists, but not to exceed 6 years. This bill would specify that a cause of action occurs when an alleged unlawful compensation decision or practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice, or when an individual is affected by the application of the decision or practice. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prohibit the application of prescribed legal doctrine. The bill would define "wages," "wage rates," and "sex" for purposes of those provisions, and would specify that its provisions shall not be construed to define these terms for other purposes.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information that is collected or sold by a business, including the right to request that a business disclose specified information that has been collected about the consumer, to request that a business delete personal information about the consumer that the business has collected from the consumer, and to direct a business not to sell or share the consumer's personal information, as specified. The CCPA defines various terms for these purposes. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) , approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA and establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency (agency) and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce the CCPA. Existing law requires a data broker to register with the agency, and defines "data broker" to mean a business that knowingly collects and sells to third parties the personal information of a consumer with whom the business does not have a direct relationship, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law requires a data broker, in registering with the agency, to pay a registration fee in an amount determined by the agency and provide specified information, including, among other things, the name of the data broker and its primary physical, email, and internet website addresses, and whether the data broker collects the personal information of minors, consumers' precise geolocation, or consumers' reproductive health care data. This bill would require a data broker to provide additional information to the agency, including whether the data broker collects consumers' names, dates of birth, ZIP Codes, email addresses, phone numbers, login or account information, various government identification numbers, mobile advertising, connected television, or vehicle identification numbers, citizenship data, union membership status, sexual orientation status, gender identity and gender expression data, biometric data, and up to 3, but no fewer than one, of the most common types of personal information that the data broker collects, as provided. The bill would also require a data broker to provide information regarding whether, in the past year, the data broker shared or sold consumers' data to a foreign actor, as defined, the federal government, other state governments, law enforcement, as provided, or a developer of a GenAI system, as defined. The bill would make changes to the administrative fines and costs that apply to data brokers who fail to register. Existing law requires, beginning January 1, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency to establish an accessible deletion mechanism that, among other things, allows a consumer, through a single verifiable consumer request, to request that every data broker that maintains any personal information delete any personal information related to that consumer held by the data broker or associated service provider or contractor. Existing law requires, beginning August 1, 2026, a data broker to access the accessible deletion mechanism at least once every 45 days and, among other things, process a denied request to delete personal information as an opt-out of the sale or sharing of the consumer's personal information under the CCPA, as specified. This bill would require a data broker to process the above-described denied request within 45 days of receiving the request. Existing law requires the agency to create a page on its internet website where registration information provided by data brokers and the accessible deletion mechanism is accessible to the public. This bill would prohibit the agency from making accessible to the public on its internet website information regarding whether the data broker collects consumers' names, dates of birth, zip codes, email addresses, phone numbers, mobile advertising, connected television, or vehicle identification numbers, and the most common types of personal information that it collects. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes and intent of the CPRA for specified reasons.
Existing law generally regulates social media platforms, including by requiring a social media company to post terms of service for each social media platform owned or operated by the company in a manner reasonably designed to inform all users of the social media platform of the existence and contents of the terms of service, as prescribed. Existing law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) , grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information that is collected or sold by a business, including the right to request that a business delete personal information about the consumer that the business has collected from the consumer, as specified. Existing law, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA. This bill would require a social media platform to provide a clear and conspicuous button that enables the user to delete their account and provide the user with the necessary steps to delete the user's account and personal information if the user clicks on that button, in accordance with specified procedures. The bill would prohibit a social media platform from obstructing or interfering with a user's ability to delete their account, as specified. The bill would provide that a user's request to delete an account constitutes a request to delete the consumer's personal information under the CCPA.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information that is collected or sold by a business, as defined, including the right to direct a business that sells or shares personal information about the consumer to third parties not to sell or share the consumer's personal information, as specified. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, amended, added to, and reenacted the CCPA and establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency and vests the agency with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to enforce the CCPA. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit a business from developing or maintaining a browser, as defined, that does not include functionality configurable by a consumer that enables the browser to send an opt-out preference signal, as defined, to businesses with which the consumer interacts through the browser, as prescribed. The bill would require a business that develops or maintains a browser to make clear to a consumer in its public disclosures how the opt-out preference signal works and the intended effect of the opt-out preference signal. The bill would grant a business that develops or maintains a browser that includes this functionality immunity from liability for a violation of those provisions by a business that receives the opt-out preference signal. The bill would authorize the agency to adopt regulations as necessary to implement and administer those provisions. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
