New California Laws Going Into Effect in 2025

(AB 1960) Smash & Grab Robberies
Creates stiffer penalties for those involved in smash-and-grab robberies. If the crime caused more than $50,000 in damage to a property, the court can impose an additional sentence of one year. Additional years can be added to a sentence if the property loss is higher.

Cracking Down on Retail Theft

Organized retail theft is permanently codified into California law through AB 1802 and SB 982.

It is now considered a felony to possess over $950 of items obtained through retail theft with the intention to resell (AB 2943). Similarly, breaking into vehicles to steal property valued at $950 or more with the intention to resell is now also considered a felony (SB 905).

Juvenile Dependency and Child Welfare

Effective immediately, child custody proceedings involving Indian children must follow the California Indian Child Welfare Act. This means conducting inquiry on the child’s possible Native American heritage and tribal membership eligibility at the first court appearance. Parties and persons present at the proceedings must also inform the court if they receive information about the child’s possible Native American heritage. (AB 81)

Collaborative Courts

A few changes will affect collaborative justice courts, which combine judicial supervision with rehabilitative services.

If a defendant is charged with a drug offense, courts are required to order an available drug treatment or education program. (AB 2106)

A probation officer can refer offenses to youth court (with consent from the youth and family) as opposed to filing a petition to declare the youth as a dependent or ward of the court under SB 1005.

Under SB 1323, courts are now allowed to make competency determinations based on written evaluations by licensed psychologists or psychiatrists. Additionally, courts may refer incompetent defendants charged with felonies to mental health diversion programs. Furthermore, under SB 1400, if a defendant is incompetent to stand trial in a misdemeanor case, the court must consider referral to diversion or other options and subsequent dismissal at certain timeframes.

Under SB 910, treatment courts in California will need to operate in accordance with state and national guidelines, and the Judicial Council will be required to revise drug court standards of administration by Jan. 1, 2026.

Felony offenses will be added to pretrial diversion programs in veterans court under SB 1025.

Artificial Intelligence – Protections against sexually explicit deepfakes

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been a hot topic across all industries and especially in California. The state will implement the CA Transparency Act, which requires AI businesses to identify AI-generated content (SB 942). This law will be set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

(SB 926) Deepfakes
Makes it a crime to create and distribute sexually explicit images of a real person that are artificially generated but made to appear authentic with the purpose of causing that person emotional distress.

(SB 981) Sexually Explicit Images
Requires that social media platforms establish a mechanism for users who are California residents to report sexually explicit images that were created or altered digitally but made to appear authentic. Social media companies must take down the content while they investigate the complaint.

(AB 1836 & 2602) Digital Likeness
Protects deceased actors and performers from having their image, likeness or voice reproduced without authorization by artificial intelligence. The law requires consent from the actor’s estate before their likeness can be digitally replicated. A similar law (AB 2602) allows performers to back out of existing contracts if the language is vague enough to allow studios to digitally clone their image or voice in the future without expressed consent.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several A.I.-related protections. One bill makes it illegal to create and distribute lifelike depictions of real people in images that cause serious emotional distress, targeting A.I.-generated deepfakes that are sexually explicit. Another bill requires social media platforms to provide users with a way to report sexually explicit deepfakes of themselves.

Mr. Newsom did however veto a sweeping A.I. safety bill that was aimed at limiting the growth of the technology, directing legislators to revise it in the next session.

Courts and Access to Justice

The CARE Act has been implemented in all California counties as of Dec. 1 of this year. Starting July 1, 2025, California courts will be required to provide ongoing notice of CARE Act proceedings to original petitioners (SB 42).

In continuing the council’s commitment to access to justice, AB 170 will extend remote proceedings in juvenile and civil cases. Courtrooms utilizing remote technology will need to meet minimum standards set by the Judicial Council, as well as provide regular reporting to the courts and the council.

A ban on ‘forced outing’ of L.G.B.T.Q. youths by schools

School districts can no longer require teachers or staff members to disclose a student’s gender identity or sexual orientation to their parents.

The legislation, the first of its kind in the country, responds to policies in some school districts that required employees to notify parents if a student began using different pronouns or identified as a gender not reflected in school records.

“Teachers can still talk to parents,” Mr. Newsom said at a news conference in December. “What they can’t do under the law is fire a teacher for not being a snitch. I just don’t think teachers should be gender police.”

Several school districts have sued the state over the legislation, and the case is pending in federal court.

Reparations measures for Black residents

Multiple laws modeled after recommendations from the state’s Reparations Task Force are taking effect, including a measure that broadens protections against discrimination based on hair texture and hairstyles such as braids, locs and twists that protect hair from damage and are often worn by Black people.

Another such law requires companies to give advance notice to employees and county officials before closing a grocery store or a pharmacy. That measure is aimed at preventing neighborhoods from losing their main source of food or prescriptions, which disproportionately affects areas that are predominantly Black.

ONLINE

(SB 764) Child Vloggers
Parents or guardians who earn money by posting online videos that feature their children must set aside a percentage of their earnings in a trust account that benefits the minor. Parents will have to keep detailed logs of how much money they earned from each post and how many minutes their children appeared in the video. Children can sue parents who fail to follow the law.

(AB 1979) Doxxing
Allows victims of doxxing to sue their aggressors for up to $30,000 in damages. Doxxing is when someone shares personal information like phone numbers, addresses or sensitive materials about someone else with the intent to harm or embarrass them. A survey by SafeHome.org found that 11 million Americans have been victims of doxxing.

California gun safety regulations going into effect Jan. 1

In September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a series of laws aimed at strengthening gun safety regulations. Those include requiring schools to implement safety programs and plans, and establishing an Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which have deadlines in the coming years.

Some of those laws go into effect on Jan. 1 including:

• AB 1483 strengthens a rule against applying for more than one handgun in a 30-day period. The bill removes an exemption for a private party transactions. However, the policy has been caught in court battles and the California Department of Justice does will not enforce it while a court injunction is in place, the California DOJ told USA TODAY on Dec. 27.
• AB 1598 requires firearm dealers to provide consumers with a pamphlet covering the reasons for and risks of firearm ownership, “including the increased risk of death to someone in the household by suicide, homicide, or unintentional injury.”
• AB 2917 guides courts to expand considerations for a gun violence restraining order to include threats of violence, specifically hate-based threats.

• SB-1019

  Firearms: destruction.

California Laws That Go Into Effect on Jan. 1

Lawmakers passed hundreds of bills in 2024, addressing issues including shoplifting, marijuana and artificial intelligence. Here are some of the key measures that begin New Year’s Day.

CONSUMERS

(AB 2426) Digital Goods
Requires sellers of online products like digital movies, music, books or video games to disclose whether the consumer is purchasing unrestricted ownership or a revocable license. Sellers are not allowed to use the terms “buy” or “purchase” if the consumer is only receiving a license to access the digital good. It is not clear if the law applies to non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

(SB 1217) Pet Insurance
Requires pet insurance providers to be more transparent about whether their policy premiums are based on the age of the pet or where the pet lives, and if their policies exclude pre-existing conditions, hereditary disorders, congenital anomalies or chronic conditions.

(AB 2863) Automatic Renewals
Requires subscription services to get clear consent from a customer for automatic renewals and send annual reminders about the automatic renewal or continuous service. The law, which takes effect on July 1st also makes it easier to cancel a subscription either online or by telephone.

(AB 2017 & SB 1075) Overdraft Fees
Limits the overdraft fees that banks and credit unions can charge. The law prohibits financial institutions from charging a customer a fee for non-sufficient funds if the transaction was declined instantaneously. Starting in 2026, credit unions would be prohibited from charging an overdraft fee in excess of $14.

(SB2202) Cleaning Fees
Requires short-term rental like Airbnb to disclose if there will be any additional fees or charges that will be added if the customer fails to perform certain cleaning tasks at the end of their stay. The law takes effect on July 1, 2025.

HEALTH

(AB 1817 & AB2771) Chemicals in Cosmetics
Bans the use of PFAS in clothing, textiles and cosmetics. PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) can lead to liver damage, thyroid disease, reproductive problems and cancer. California would be the first state to impose a ban on PFAS, which are already prohibited in the European Union.

Another law taking effect in 2025 bans the manufacture or sale of cosmetic products with 11 other chemicals, including formaldehyde, mercury and methylene glycol.

ENTERTAINMENT

(SB969) Entertainment Zones
Allows local governments to create entertainment zones where bars and restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages that customers can drink on public streets and sidewalks. It replaces a law that only allowed outside vendors to sell alcohol at festivals and parades. A similar law that took effect in January of 2024 allowed San Francisco to set up entertainment zones to improve business at brick and mortar bars and restaurants.

Ah, the Cannabis Cafe beckons

The intoxicating allure of the urban promenade! In a bold bid to revive city centers still languishing from the malaise of the COVID-19 era, California unveils its latest temptations: cannabis cafés and boozy boulevards. One can almost hear the clinking of glasses and the murmur of delighted vices in the making.

Senate Bill 969, the brainchild of state Sen. Scott Weiner, invites local governments to create ‘entertainment zones,’ where revelers may roam the streets with drinks in hand, as though life were an eternal carnival. The California Alcohol Policy Alliance, ever the Cassandra at the feast, warns that this bacchanalia might lead to more drunk drivers and sorrowful statistics. But who among us has ever listened to the voice of caution when champagne is calling?

Then there’s AB 1775, which legalizes cannabis cafés reminiscent of Amsterdam’s smoky charm. At long last, one can pair a well-rolled joint with an artisanal sandwich or a frothy cappuccino, perhaps while a jazz trio croons in the background. Of course, the American Heart and Lung Association clutched its collective pearls, necessitating protections against secondhand smoke for workers. A small price to pay for the ambiance of curated decadence.

Assemblymember Matt Haney, waxing poetic, declared: ‘Lots of people want to enjoy legal cannabis in the company of others.’ Indeed, Mr. Haney, and if those others happen to be a slice of avocado toast and an indie folk band, so much the better. California, as ever, remains the harbinger of tomorrow’s indulgences today.

(AB 1775) Cannabis Cafes
Cannabis dispensaries are about to get livelier. The law will allow licensed cannabis retailers to prepare and sell food and beverages at newly created cafes or lounges. That means customers can buy and consume cannabis at the business while they eat a meal or watch a live performance.

A pathway for Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

Marijuana dispensaries in California are now allowed to sell food and nonalcoholic beverages and host live events, paving the way for Amsterdam-like cannabis cafes.

Marijuana businesses in the state, home to the nation’s largest number of cannabis consumers, rallied for the law.

A separate law lets local governments create “entertainment zones,” where restaurants and bars can sell alcoholic drinks to go, and outdoor drinking will be permitted.

(SB 540) Cannabis Health Warnings
Requires the state health department to create brochures or flyers that explain the risks associated with cannabis use. The documents must be displayed at cannabis retailers by March 1.

(SB 729) Infertility Treatments
Starting on July 1, 2025, health insurance plans are required to cover the diagnosis and treatment of infertility, including in vitro fertilization (IVF). Religious employers are excluded from the requirement.

SB-1059Cannabis: local taxation: gross receipts.

SB-1064Cannabis: operator and separate premises license types: excessive concentration of licenses.

CRIME AND SAFETY

(AB 1394) Sexual Exploitation
Holds social media companies like Meta and Tik Tok liable for images of a person that appear on sexual exploitation videos or photos posted on their platforms. Victims of child sex trafficking can sue these companies for up to $4 million if they knowingly facilitated the distribution of these images. The new law also requires social media platforms to establish a process for sex abuse victims to report videos or photos that include them. Companies have 36 hours to take the images down from their platforms.

(SB 1414) Sex Solicitation
Makes it a felony to solicit a minor under the age of 16 for sex. If the minor is 16 or 17, the crime can be upgraded to a felony if the teen is a victim of trafficking. The law penalizes anyone paying for sex with a minor even if the sexual act never occurred.

(SB 428) Restraining Orders
Allows employers to obtain a temporary restraining on behalf of an employee who has suffered harassment. The employee can choose not to be named in the restraining order petition. A court can deny the order if it would prohibit speech or activities protected by the constitution or labor law.

(SB 2342) Funding victim services
Creates the California Crime Victims Fund, helping to guarantee more consistent resources for survivors. It also directs fines from corporate white-collar crimes into this fund – giving victims extra support when they need it most.

(AB 1978) Sideshows & Street Racing
Governor Newsom signed several laws that impose stricter penalties for people participating in sideshows and street racing. The laws would make it easier for law enforcement to arrest sideshow participants and impound vehicles for illegal activities happening on streets, highways or parking lots.

EMPLOYMENT

Minimum Wage
California’s minimum wage will increase to $16.50 per hour for all employers. The increase is tied to inflation. Fast food workers and healthcare facility workers have a higher minimum wage.

(AB 2123) Paid Family Leave
Allows an employee to take paid family leave without using accrued vacation time. Previously employers could require workers to take up to 2 weeks of vacation time before they could access California’s Paid Family Leave Program. The law applies to employees that need to take leave from work to care for a sick family member, bond with a new minor child or because a military family member is on active duty.

(SB 988) Freelance Workers
Requires employers that hire freelance workers for professional services worth more than $250 to provide a contract in writing that includes information on the work that will be performed and payment information. Employers must pay the freelance workers within the date specified in the contract or no later than 30 days after the work is completed.

(AB 1815) Hairstyles Discrimination
Expands protections against racial discrimination by widening the definition of race to include traits such as hairstyles and hair textures that are associated with certain races.

(SB 399) Mandatory Meetings
Bans employers from requiring that workers attend mandatory meetings concerning union organizing, otherwise known as ‘captive audience’ meetings. Also prohibits employers from requiring its workers attend meetings or participate in communications whose primary objective is to express the employer’s stance on political matters or religious leanings. Employers who ignore the law can face a $500 penalty per employee for each violation.

(SB 1100) Driver’s License
Employers would no longer be allowed to require a driver’s license in job postings unless the employer reasonably expects the job function to include driving and taking alternate transportation would be a detriment in travel time and cost to the employer.

EDUCATION

(AB 1780) Legacy Admissions
Bans legacy admissions for students applying to a private non-profit university in California. Universities like Stanford and USC would no longer be allowed to take into account whether a student applicant has ties to a donor or an alumnus. The law takes effect in September, so it does not apply to current applicants for the fall 2025 school year.

(AB 1821) Native Americans
Requires K-12 public schools in the state to teach about the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization of California and the Gold Rush periods.

STATE SYMBOLS

Several laws have established official state symbols, including the Dungeness crab as the official state crustacean (AB 1797), the banana slug as the official state slug (AB 1859) and the shell of the black abalone as the official state seashell (AB 2504).

MISCELLANEOUS

(SB 1174) Voter ID Requirements

Prohibits local governments in California from requiring voters to present identification in order to vote. The law is in response to an ordinance passed in Huntington Beach that allowed the city to verify voter eligibility through IDs.

(AB 1810) Menstrual Products

Requires state prisons or jails in California to provide incarcerated people with free menstrual products without the inmate having to ask for them. Before this law, inmates had to ask for sanitary pads or tampons, which criminal justice advocates say allowed prison security to withhold menstrual products as a form of punishment and oppression.

California, ever the avant-garde of legislative theatrics! Starting January 1, 2025, prepare for a smorgasbord of new rules, ranging from the progressive to the peculiar. Cannabis cafés and expanded outdoor drinking?

A toast to your libations, but do mind the irony of laws encouraging indulgence while protecting your credit score from the ravages of medical debt. Even financial institutions aren’t safe from the guillotine of ‘no-fee’ indignation.

In the hallowed halls of education, lawmakers have decided that LGBTQ+ students deserve privacy (as well they should), Native American history deserves accuracy (a novel concept for history books), and people of color deserve the liberty of unbothered hairstyles. Progress wrapped in policy, with a dash of overdue decency.

Nearly 5,000 bills were birthed in the latest legislative session, though half perished in obscurity without so much as a debate. Of the 1,200 that survived, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a tidy 200, like a chef trimming fat from an already overwhelming feast. And so, what remains: a mélange of laws that range from the vital to the vexing, with just enough intrigue to keep Californians on their toes. Bureaucracy, darling, is nothing if not dramatic.

Meet the new boss, not like the old boss

California, ever the patron saint of the worker’s plight, has declared war on the tyranny of boardroom sermons and managerial homilies. With Senate Bill 399, the state has effectively banned employers from dragging their beleaguered staff into mandatory meetings extolling the virtues of a political agenda or the evils of unions—or worse, pontificating on the intersection of religion and profit margins. Truly, there is nothing more odious than a boss attempting to sermonize between PowerPoints.

Proponents of this law, with the California Labor Federation at the helm, argue that such forced gatherings are nothing short of thinly veiled intimidation, designed to quash the spirit of unionization before it even takes root. Business groups, predictably clutching their pearls and brandishing the First Amendment like a shield, warn of dire consequences for free speech and economic dialogue. Fear not, however, for political operatives and proselytizers remain free to spout their truths to their similarly employed acolytes.

But the drama does not end there, for California’s workplace reforms continue to roll out like acts in a morality play. Witness the modest rise in the minimum wage, from $16 to $16.50—an increase too slight to invite revolution but sufficient to provoke muttering in executive suites. Voters recently quashed a more ambitious leap to $18, opting instead for the slow creep of inflation-linked adjustments. One can almost hear Dickens’ ghost remarking, ‘A half dollar more, sir? For a loaf of bread, perhaps?’

And let us not overlook the newfound flexibility in the use of time off. Under AB 2123, workers can no longer be coerced into exhausting vacation days before accessing paid family leave—a small triumph for those who might like a few holiday hours left to spend on something other than convalescence. Meanwhile, AB 2499 elevates sick days to a nobler purpose: jury duty. Because nothing says ‘recovery’ like a day deliberating over petty theft or tax fraud.

California’s labor laws, like its sunsets, remain a spectacle: vivid, dramatic, and occasionally bewildering. One can only imagine what new workplace epiphanies await in 2026.

Getting schooled in 2025

California, ever the harbinger of cultural skirmishes disguised as legislative decrees, has unfurled the SAFETY Act, a proclamation that schools are no longer the battleground for parental notifications about gender identity. Assembly Bill 1955, signed with a flourish by Gov. Gavin Newsom, bars school boards from mandating that teachers act as informants to parents about a child’s gender preferences. In essence, the legislation tells meddling school boards: ‘Not on our watch, darling.’

The SAFETY Act goes further, shielding educators from retribution should they decline to participate in such clandestine tattling. It also extends a supportive hand—likely manicured with inclusivity—to LGBTQ+ students in junior high and high schools, recognizing that adolescence is already a theater of existential chaos without adding identity politics to the script.

Assemblymember Chris Ward, the bill’s San Diego-based champion, condemned the ‘politically motivated attacks’ targeting transgender and nonbinary youth, likening such policies to a forced outing party no one asked to attend. With this act, the state affirms that gender identity discussions are best reserved for private family dynamics—preferably without the school board’s unsolicited editorializing.

Naturally, there is opposition, with Assemblymember Bill Essayli and other critics forecasting a showdown in the courts, where gavel-wielding arbiters of justice will untangle this knot of privacy, parental rights, and public policy. One imagines the arguments unfolding with the gravity of a Shakespearean trial, though less eloquent and with more legal jargon.

California, never content to follow the crowd, remains a stage for the audacious and the contentious, ensuring that even its education policies are draped in drama and debate. The SAFETY Act may spark lawsuits, but for now, it is a banner of defiance unfurled against those who would turn classrooms into confessionals.

HOUSING

(SB 611) Rent Checks
Prohibits landlord from charging tenants a fee if they pay their rent or security deposit by check. Starting in April, landlords will also have to provide renters with a written statement if they charge a security deposit higher than the standard.

(AB 2347) Evictions
Doubles the current deadline that tenants have to respond to an eviction notice to ten days. Under California law, if a tenant does not respond to an eviction notice within the required time they lose the case automatically. Advocates say this will give renters more time to seek legal advice.

(SB 450) Housing Developments
Makes it easier to convert single-family homes into duplexes and fourplexes by removing loopholes used by some local governments to slow down conversions. The new law requires local governments to respond to housing conversion applications within 60 days and bars local governments from denying an application to split up a lot based on the visual impact to the community.

New Laws for California Landlords In 2025

Tenants have rights, too

A shadow of misfortune fell upon tenant advocates this autumn as California voters declined to broaden the power of cities to curtail rent increases. Yet, amid the gloom, a glimmer of hope emerges: a new law, poised to take effect on the first of January, promises a moment of reprieve for renters teetering on the precipice of eviction.

This modest yet meaningful decree grants tenants twice the grace—ten days, rather than five business days—to respond to an eviction notice. What might appear to the uninitiated as a trifling procedural adjustment could, in truth, be the thread by which countless lives are tethered to their homes. Legal advocates, whose battles often go unsung, herald this as a salve for those besieged by housing insecurity.

For tenants, the stakes of silence are ruinous. To neglect a timely response is to forfeit the game before the first move, leaving them ensnared in a labyrinth of penalties and tarnished records. Such marks of disgrace darken their prospects, rendering the quest for future shelter an odyssey of near-impossible odds. Even those with just claims—a landlord’s breach of duty to repair or a rent hike that flouts the law—can see their defenses dissolve in the cruel light of procedural default. Researchers whisper grimly that four in ten California tenants succumb to this ignoble fate.

“Five days,” lamented Lorraine López, a senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, “has never sufficed for tenants to summon aid, unravel the cryptic legalese of a complaint, identify their defenses, prepare their papers, and present themselves at court.” Her words, delivered to CalMatters this past autumn, resonate like the toll of a distant bell.

The law, penned by Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose, extends its hand not only to tenants but also to landlords—those oft-portrayed antagonists of such tales. To assuage their concerns, the legislation imposes limits on the time tenant attorneys may wield certain motions to contest landlords’ filings. This compromise quelled the ire of the formidable California Apartment Association, which chose neutrality over opposition as legislators debated the measure. Yet, not all property owners were placated; some local groups clung to their grievances like a miser to his coin.

Daniel Bornstein, an attorney for landlords, encapsulated their frustrations succinctly: “The longer these matters linger, the costlier they become, and the greater the loss of rent.” And so, the pendulum swings—between the tenant’s plea for sanctuary and the landlord’s lament for expediency—a delicate balance in the ceaseless theatre of housing in California.

2025 is here and with it come a slew of new laws that affect California landlords.

We’ve selected 11 of the most impactful laws to discuss for the typical client that we serve. Laws affecting affordable housing, large multi-family properties, or commercial properties are not discussed here.

1. AB 2747 – Mandatory Offer of Credit Reporting

This law requires landlords of buildings with 15 units or more or landlords that own more than 1 residential rental property or landlords that are a REIT or corporation to offer positive rental payment reporting to at least 1 credit bureau. Landlords can only charge the lesser of $10 or the actual cost to provide the service, unless of course the landlord does not incur a fee to provide the service.

Note that this is only positive rental history reporting. Landlords need to offer positive rental history reporting with all leases beginning on 4/1/25 and must provide notice to tenants of leases existing as of 1/1/25 of the same offer.

If a tenant defaults on the payment, landlords are not allowed to use rent income to cover it and cannot use any unpaid fee amount for this service as a reason for termination of tenancy or any other punitive action. The landlord is able to stop the reporting if the fee remains unpaid for 30 or more days.

2. AB 2493 – Application Fees

AB 2493 codifies the way we at Mesa already approach application processing, which is essentially a first come, first qualified, first granted approach. We believe it to be the most fair and unbiased way to process applications and now it appears, the California State Legislature agrees. Many landlords want to treat the application process like a job interview where the “best” applicant gets the property. We disagree with this approach because of its potential to violate Fair Housing laws, and while California has not outright banned this approach, they have made it much more difficult to choose this option.

This law only allows landlords to charge an application fee if they do one of two things:

1. The Job Interview Method – Refund all applicants not selected, regardless of reason, if their application is treated like the “job interview” approach above. This means if the landlord is not using a first come, first qualified, first granted approach, they must refund the application fee for all applicants, even if the applicant would have been denied for not meeting the landlord’s criteria. This refund must occur within the lesser of 7 days of a tenant being selected or 30 days of the application being received.
2. The Mesa Method – Process applications on the first come, first qualified, first granted approach. The landlord must present their requirements along with the application form. Once a tenant is selected, using this approach any remaining applicants that were in process must either be refunded within 7 days or have their application transferred to another property that the landlord has available for rent. Using this approach, landlords are able to retain the application fees for applications that were considered but denied for not meeting the landlord’s posted criteria.

3. SB 611 – Fees and Security

This law prevents landlords from charging a fee for the service of any notice on the tenant. Since California still requires the physical posting of certain notices such as the 3 day notice to pay rent or quit and the 60 day notice of termination of tenancy, landlords often incur significant costs in the service of these mandatory notices. In the past, it has been common practice for landlords to charge a notice service fee to compensate for those costs.

SB 611 bans that practice and also bans landlords from charging any fees for processing a physical check from tenants.

4. SB 1051 – Changing Locks Due to Domestic Violence

This law requires landlords to pay for the changing of locks when a tenant requests it due to being a victim of domestic violence. They must provide proof of the claim.

The landlord only has 24 hours to comply with the request. If they fail to change the locks within 24 hours of the tenant’s request, then the tenant can change them themselves and notify the landlord within 24 hours that the locks were changed as well as provide the landlord with the new key. The landlord will then have 21 days to reimburse the tenant for their cost of changing the locks.

This law also makes it illegal for landlords to deny or conditionally approve applicants for exercising their rights under this law, including changing locks and terminating a tenancy due to being the victim of domestic violence.

5. AB 2801 – Security Deposits

This law, similar to AB 2493, essentially codifies the “Mesa Way” meaning the way we already conduct our business.

Beginning on 4/1/25, landlords will need to take photos of the property immediately after receiving possession back from a tenant and before any repairs or cleaning take place and also immediately after repairs are made or cleaning is done. Additionally, landlords will need to send photos along with the standard itemized list of what the deposit was used for and a written explanation of the cost of the repairs or cleaning.

Finally, landlords are not able to charge for professional carpet cleaning or professional cleaning unless those services are necessary to return the unit to the same condition it was in prior to being rented out excluding ordinary wear and tear.

6. AB 2898 – Unbundled Parking

This law requires that landlords unbundle parking from the lease. If landlords want to charge for parking or have an agreement related to parking, they must do so in an agreement that is separate from the lease agreement.

The reason behind this change is so that a landlord cannot use the non-payment or other violation of the parking agreement as a reason to evict a tenant.

7. AB 2347 – Time Extension for Evictions

This law gives the defendant in an unlawful detainer case (eviction) 10 business days to respond by filing an answer to the eviction instead of the current 5 days.

This will extend the amount of time for landlords to regain possession of their property in an eviction by at least a week. Good news in this law is that it also reduces the time for responsive pleadings (demurrer, motion to strike) to between 5 and 7 days instead of the current 30 days.

8. AB 2579 – Balcony Inspections

You may recall our 2019 blog post on new laws which highlighted the balcony inspection law and its mandatory requirement for owners to have balconies inspected by 1/1/2025. Nothing has really changed here except that the 2025 deadline has been pushed out to 1/1/2026 and Civil Engineers are now able to conduct those inspections.

9. AB 653 – Housing Authority Reporting Requirements

This is a welcome law which will require Housing Authorities to provide annual reports with data on their monthly success rate, payment standards, inspection wait times, and total search time for voucher holders to obtain housing.

We work with housing authorities all the time and know first hand how delayed they can be and how bad the communication can be. The hope with this new law is that there will be more transparency and accountability for housing authorities to be efficient and productive with their use of funds and assistance to voucher holders and landlords alike. We would sure love to see increased efficiency here!

10. AB 2684 – Extreme Heat

If you don’t have central AC in your rental property, start budgeting to install it soon.

In January 2028, extreme heat will be added to local cities’ and counties’ safety of housing element or local hazard plans.

We are already seeing proposals to add a minimum indoor temperature requirement in order for a rental property to be considered habitable. The addition of extreme heat hazard plans will almost certainly bring this to fruition. It is highly likely that in the next few years, landlords will be required to provide central AC in rental homes and that central AC will be required to maintain the temperature below a certain temperature in all areas of the home.

While there is no immediate effect on landlords because of this law, we strongly recommend that all landlords prepare for this as it could drastically increase costs related to HVAC maintenance, replacement, or installation.

11. AB 2622 – Unlicensed Handyman Requirement

We saved the best for last! Until now, unlicensed handymen were unable to do work of more than $500 without a contractor’s license. That amount has finally been updated to take into account inflation and has been increased to $1,000! That means unlicensed handymen can do a lot more, which should save owners money on smaller jobs since they won’t have to hire a licensed contractor for as many jobs anymore!

What the Future Holds

It’s impossible to know what future laws will go into effect, but one thing is for sure: it gets more and more difficult to be a landlord every year.

The great news coming out of 2024 was the failure of Prop 33 which would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. If that had passed, cities and counties could have each enacted their own forms of rent control, which would have made it even more difficult and potentially unprofitable to be a landlord in California.

Other good news is that rental properties continue to hold their value and appreciate even in the difficult interest rate environment we experienced all through last year.

As long as you learn the new laws and abide by them, California is still a great place to own rental property!

Some help for ATM penalty fees

In the gilded realm of modern finance, where even the simplest transactions often come with hidden snares, a rare reprieve has emerged for Californians teetering on the edge of fiscal despair. Thanks to a new law, those who attempt to withdraw funds only to discover their coffers insufficient shall no longer be met with the insult of a penalty atop their injury.

This decree, a balm for the beleaguered, targets the pernicious fees levied when withdrawals are declined—be it at the unfeeling maw of an ATM or through other instantaneous denials wrought by insufficient funds.

Assembly Bill 2017, shepherded into existence by the tireless efforts of consumer advocates, is a testament to the virtues of human empathy within the cold calculus of commerce. Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom this past September, the measure stands as a shield for the financially vulnerable against the scourge of what these advocates rightly dub “junk fees.” The California Low-Income Consumer Coalition and the East Bay Community Law Center, its chief proponents, have proclaimed victory for the common citizen, protecting them from tumbling further into the abyss of poverty.

Yet this is but one chapter in the broader narrative of reform. In tandem with this triumph, another piece of legislation ascends the stage: Senate Bill 1075, which curtails credit union overdraft fees, capping them at $14 unless a more benevolent federal standard emerges. This provision, however, will not grace the public until 2026—an all-too-familiar delay in the theatre of legislative promise.

And let us not overlook Assembly Bill 2863, a law designed to liberate consumers from the labyrinth of subscription services. It demands that companies seek explicit consent before renewing subscriptions or extending free trials into paid obligations. Slated to take effect this July, it strikes at the heart of one of capitalism’s most insidious traps, restoring agency to the hapless consumer.

Thus, in this rare alignment of legislation and compassion, Californians may glimpse a flicker of justice—a fleeting reminder that, even in an age of relentless profiteering, the wheels of reform, though slow, do occasionally turn in their favor.

Medical debt need not affect credit scores

In the labyrinthine world of financial burdens, where every misstep seems destined to echo through one’s future, a rare beacon of mercy has arisen. A new California law now forbids health providers and debt collectors from reporting medical debts to credit agencies, ensuring that the scars of illness no longer mar the pristine visage of one’s credit report.

Though this law does not erase the specter of unpaid bills, it grants a measure of solace to the beleaguered patient. No longer need a hospital stay or an urgent-care visit haunt their financial standing, casting shadows on their ability to secure a home, a car, or even a livelihood. For in the realm of credit scores—those fickle arbiters of modern worth—every blemish exacts a toll, driving up interest rates and erecting barriers to opportunity.

While the triumvirate of credit bureaus—TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian—ceased reporting medical debts under $500 in 2023, the harsh truth remains that most medical debts far exceed this modest threshold. The national average, a sobering $3,100, tells the tale of a society where the price of health is measured in crushing balances. In California alone, nearly four in ten residents shoulder medical debt, a figure that rises to over half among the low-income, as revealed by the California Health Care Foundation.

But, as in all things, there is a caveat. The law’s shield extends only to debts owed directly to medical providers or collection agencies. Those who rely on the ill-fated convenience of medical or general credit cards find themselves beyond its protection, their debts still bound to the capricious judgment of the credit bureaus.

Thus, while this law may not banish the specter of medical debt entirely, it offers a reprieve, a moment of grace in a world all too eager to punish the vulnerable for the audacity of falling ill. It is a small victory, yet one that hints at the possibility of a more just society—one in which the ailments of the body do not leave permanent wounds upon the soul.

Going native historically

But supporters of a new law that goes into effect on Jan. 1 say that there are still grave concerns that the history of California Native Americans — including enslavement, starvation, illness and violence — is still misleading or completely absent from the curriculum.

AB 1821, authored by Assemblymember James Ramos, D-San Bernardino, aims to address this. When California next updates its history-social science curriculum — on or after Jan. 1 —  it asks that the Instruction Quality Commission consult with California tribes to develop a curriculum including the treatment and perspectives of Native Americans during the Spanish colonization and the Gold Rush eras.

“The mission era of Spanish occupation was one of the most devastating and sensitive periods in the history of California’s native peoples and the lasting impact of that period is lost in the current curriculum,” according to a statement from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, one of the supporters of the legislation.

Desegregate already

Ah, my dear friend, what a splendid spectacle of justice and progress is unfurling before our eyes! Picture, if you will, the gilded chambers of history opening their doors to let in the sunlight of truth—this is precisely what this new law aims to achieve. It beckons the state to revisit and refine the chronicles of its past, ensuring that the luminous tale of Mendez v. Westminster is given its rightful place upon the pedestal of remembrance.

It was in 1945, amidst the orchards and orange blossoms of California, that a grave injustice was challenged. Mexican-American parents, armed not with swords but with the unyielding conviction of love for their children, took up arms against the dark specter of segregation. Their triumph illuminated the path toward equality, inspiring California to become the vanguard in abolishing the blight of segregation from its public schools. Such a victory was not merely a legal decree but a proclamation of humanity’s better instincts—a prelude, if you will, to the symphonic crescendo of Brown v. Board of Education.

The story of Mendez is no mere anecdote; it is a parable of unity, a testament to the power of inter-ethnic solidarity. How fitting that it should now be etched more prominently into the annals of education, woven into the tapestry of history lessons for our youth. The Westminster School District, with commendable grace, lends its voice to ensure that this chapter is not merely remembered but celebrated—a beacon to guide future generations toward justice and fellowship.

And so, let us applaud this endeavor, for it is not merely a revision of curriculum but an act of restoration—a gesture of reverence for those who dared to dream of a brighter, fairer world. Let the past speak with eloquence to the present, and may its lessons resound through the ages, as only truth, when polished to its finest luster, can do.

Hair today, hair tomorrow

how the law seeks to untangle the knotted threads of prejudice, weaving instead a tapestry of dignity and equality! Assembly Bill 1815 strides boldly forward, casting its light upon an insidious form of discrimination—one that has long lurked in the shadows of cultural ignorance and petty bias. Here, at last, is legislation that endeavors to liberate not just the individual, but the expression of their very identity.

Though the CROWN Act already guards against such affronts in many realms, this new provision extends the shield of justice into the arenas of amateur and club sports, where the echoes of outdated prejudice have lingered too long. With elegant precision, the bill revises the language of the California Code, recognizing that the markers of identity are not merely “historical” but vibrantly cultural—a nuanced yet profound shift in understanding.

The American Civil Liberties Union, ever the champion of liberty’s cause, aptly describes this effort as a remedy for a pernicious slight often inflicted upon our youth. Bias against natural textures and protective hairstyles—those braids, locks, and twists that speak volumes of heritage and pride—is a quiet violence, a theft of self-expression. By addressing this injustice, the law casts off the remnants of archaic prejudice and asserts that the playing fields of sport, like the wider stage of life, must be arenas of equality and respect.

Let us commend this noble effort! For in protecting the strands of identity, we uphold the strands of humanity itself, recognizing that beauty lies not in conformity but in the dazzling diversity of the human spirit. Such legislation is no mere legalese; it is an ode to individuality and a testament to the unyielding march of progress.

Child content creation must be fair

Ah, how fitting that the gilded age of digital fame should now be tempered with the golden virtues of justice and foresight! In a world where even the youngest among us are drawn into the luminous whirl of online creation, Governor Newsom has wielded the pen with a deft and benevolent hand, signing into law measures that cradle the dreams of child creators in the arms of protection.

Senate Bill 764 and Assembly Bill 1880—twin sentinels of equity—rise to expand the mantle of safeguarding once reserved for the child performers of stage and screen. Now, they extend their reach into the boundless ether of the digital sphere, where vloggers, podcasters, influencers, and streamers weave their bright tapestries of creativity. These laws decree, with both wisdom and grace, that at least 15% of the earnings accrued by these youthful artisans shall be held in trust, a shimmering dowry for the adults they are yet to become.

It is a poetic justice, is it not, that the fruits of a child’s labor, so often plucked by others, should now be preserved for the very hands that sowed them? These laws stand as a testament to the recognition that even amidst the intoxicating allure of digital stardom, there lies a duty to nurture and protect. They remind us that innocence and ambition need not be at odds, and that the light of youth should be neither exploited nor extinguished.

Let us celebrate these measures, for they do not merely regulate—they ennoble. They enshrine in law a simple yet profound truth: that the joy of creation should be met with the security of preservation. Thus, the stage is set for a future where young creators may flourish, unencumbered by the shadows of exploitation, and bask in the light of their own hard-won legacies.

Expanded acohol education for the kiddos

California public school students will get additional coursework on the harms of alcohol in 2025, thanks to a new law from a former lawmaker whose drunken driving arrest inspired her legislation.

In September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2865 by former Los Angeles Democratic Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, whose DUI last year helped derail her political career.

California schools are already required to provide instruction about alcohol, narcotics and other dangerous drugs. This bill would require that schools also provide instruction about the short- and long-term harms of excessive drinking — including alcohol’s link to chronic diseases, mental health problems and deaths.

Under the new law, school boards can decide which grades receive the new instruction. They can ask the state for reimbursements for the costs of instruction, training and updates to instructional materials, said Nicholas Filipas, a spokesperson for the California Department of Education.

Best of the rest…

Voter ID Ban Sparks Clash Between Conservative Cities and the State

California, ever the stage for political theatrics, finds itself embroiled in yet another tempest. This time, it is voter identification laws—the perennial darling of conservative agendas—that have ignited the latest battle. Propelled into prominence by the fervent proclamations of election fraud from President-elect Donald Trump, voter ID requirements now serve as the banner under which local and state governments skirmish.

A new state law, which took effect on the first day of the year, forbids municipalities from demanding that voters present identification at the polls. Yet, the city of Huntington Beach, brimming with defiance, has chosen to rebel against this directive, becoming the unlikely protagonist in a tale of democracy’s complexities.

For Car Buyers, 2025 Brings Diminished Protections

For Californians with a penchant for secondhand vehicles—or, dare we say, clunkers—the year 2025 heralds a rather disheartening chapter. The state Supreme Court has clipped the wings of warranty protections for used cars, leaving consumers adrift amid the already murky waters of lemon law regulations. Lawmakers have pledged to revisit these rules, yet until they do, buyers must navigate this terrain with diminished safeguards, their faith placed precariously in the promises of sellers.

California Stiffens Penalties for Theft Amid Rising Concerns

The specter of retail theft has long loomed over California, and now, the state has unveiled new laws to confront this menace with renewed vigor. Beginning January 1, harsher measures have been introduced to streamline prosecutions for those accused of pilfering from shops. Not content with this alone, voters have also passed Proposition 36, tightening the reins on sentences for theft and drug offenses. Thus, the pendulum swings yet again in the eternal debate over justice and severity.

Protections for Emergency Workers Take Center Stage

In a world increasingly fraught with discord, even those tasked with saving lives have found themselves under siege. A new law imposes stricter penalties on those who assault emergency room workers, addressing a disturbing rise in such attacks. Yet, not all are content with this path; progressive voices and prison-reform advocates warn of the potential consequences, their protests mingling with the cries of justice. And so, California’s legal landscape shifts once more, a reflection of the times and tensions that define it.

Other Laws of Note

Starting January 1, 2025, tenants will have 10 days to respond to an unlawful detainer summons and complaint, doubling the previous 5-day deadline that has been in effect since 1971 (AB 2347).

Under AB 1186, minors can no longer be charged with restitution fines and any outstanding balances of these fines will be uncollectible and unenforceable 10 years after they were imposed.

New California Laws 2025 (part 21)

• source
• source
• source
• source
• source
• source
• source
• source