California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 2 D cosponsors

AB 381 — State contracts: certification process: forced labor and human trafficking.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 03, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.

Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Senate.

Prognosis

Advancing 56% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Moderate

How often bills like it became law.

  • Passed Assembly

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 5 sponsors

    1 primary, 4 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (2 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 7 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law requires a contract entered into by any state agency for the procurement or laundering of apparel, garments, or corresponding accessories, or the procurement of equipment, materials, or supplies, other than procurement related to a public works contract, to require that a contractor certify that nothing furnished to the state pursuant to the contract has been laundered or produced by certain types of labor, including forced labor, as defined. Existing law makes any person who falsely certifies pursuant to these provisions guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, revise the above contracting requirements to also require a contractor to certify that the contract complies with specified requirements relating to human trafficking, including certain prohibitions on contractors, contractor employees, subcontractors, subcontractor employees, and their agents. The bill would revise the definition of forced labor to mean knowingly providing or obtaining labor or services of a person by, among other things, threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person. This bill would require contractors and subcontractors to notify employees of specified prohibited activities and the actions that may be taken against them for violations. The bill would provide that a contractor is ineligible for, and shall not bid on, or submit a proposal for, a contract under these provisions if the contractor has failed to certify its compliance. The bill would also require a contractor to exercise due diligence in ensuring that its subcontractors comply with those requirements, including requiring each subcontractor to sign a certification. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require, before a contract or subcontract is awarded, a proposed contractor or proposed subcontractor to provide a certification to the contracting officer or contractor, as applicable, that states the contractor or subcontractor has implemented a compliance plan, as specified, and has conducted due diligence that either (1) to the best of the contractor's or subcontractor's knowledge and belief, certain parties have not engaged in any specified prohibited activities or (2) if the contractor or subcontractor is aware of abuses relating to the specified prohibited activities, then certain parties have taken the appropriate remedial and referral actions. This bill would require a contractor or subcontractor to take specified actions to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions, including requiring the contractor or subcontractor to disclose to the contracting officer and the state agency with oversight information sufficient to identify the nature and extent of a violation of a prohibited activity. The bill would specify certain actions a contractor would be required to take if a contractor, contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee, or agent violates these provisions or specified provisions, including, among others, notifying its employees of the actions that will be taken against the employee or agent for violations. Existing law authorizes certain sanctions to be imposed if a contractor knew or should have known that the apparel, garments, corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies furnished to the state were laundered or produced in violation of specified conditions, including, among others, voiding the contract under which the prohibited apparel, garments, or corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies were laundered or provided at the option of the state agency and removing the contractor from the bidder's list for a period not to exceed 360 days. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, authorize additional sanctions, including, among others, requiring a contractor to remove a contractor employee from the performance of the contract, requiring the contractor to terminate a subcontractor, and suspending contract payments until the contractor has taken appropriate remedial action. The bill would also specify that these requirements govern contracts and subcontracts entered into by a state agency, regardless of place of performance. Existing law authorizes a contractor to request a hearing before an administrative law judge when sanctions are imposed. Existing law requires the administrative law judge to consider any measures the contractor has taken to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions and authorizes the administrative law judge to waive any or all sanctions if it is determined that the contractor has acted in good faith. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, authorize the administrative law judge to additionally consider mitigating factors and aggravating factors, as specified. Existing law authorizes a state agency that investigates a complaint against a contractor for violation of the above-described provisions to limit its investigation to evaluating the information provided by the person or entity submitting the complaint and information provided by the contractor. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, authorize the state agency to limit its investigation to credible information. The bill would require the contracting officer, upon receipt of credible information regarding a violation of specified provisions, to promptly notify the state agency with oversight, the agency debarring and suspending official, and law enforcement officials with jurisdiction over the alleged offense, as specified. The bill would authorize the contracting officer to direct the contractor to take specific steps to abate the alleged violation or enforcement of the requirements of its compliance plan. 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (July 9). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L., P.E. & R. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 24). Re-referred to Com. on L., P.E. & R.

  5. Referred to Coms. on G.O. and L., P.E. & R.

  6. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 2004.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  10. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (May 23).

  11. Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Ayes 51. Noes 16. Page 1644.)

  12. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Coauthors revised.

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. & E. (Ayes 21. Noes 0.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.

  16. Referred to Coms. on G.O. and L. & E.

  17. From printer. May be heard in committee March 6.

  18. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 4 co-sponsors · 117 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (4)

Not signed on (117)

117 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 117 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 4000
Democratic 11000
Total 15000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Richardson, Laura Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 19000
Democratic 59000
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 79000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Castillo, Leticia Republican Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
DeMaio, Carl Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Ellis, Stan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11000
Republican 0004
Total 11004
% of votes cast 73%0%0%27%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Not Voting
Ta, Tri Republican Not Voting
Tangipa, David J. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Republican 2000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 21 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 6000
Democratic 15001
Total 21001
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (22)
Member Party Vote
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Not Voting
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
DeMaio, Carl Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 381 do?
Existing law requires a contract entered into by any state agency for the procurement or laundering of apparel, garments, or corresponding accessories, or the procurement of equipment, materials, or supplies, other than procurement related to a public works contract, to require that a contractor certify that nothing furnished to the state pursuant to the contract has been laundered or produced by certain types of labor, including forced labor, as defined. Existing law makes any person who falsely certifies pursuant to these provisions guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, revise the above contracting requirements to also require a contractor to certify that the contract complies with specified requirements relating to human trafficking, including certain prohibitions on contractors, contractor employees, subcontractors, subcontractor employees, and their agents. The bill would revise the definition of forced labor to mean knowingly providing or obtaining labor or services of a person by, among other things, threats of serious harm to, or physical restraint against, that person or another person. This bill would require contractors and subcontractors to notify employees of specified prohibited activities and the actions that may be taken against them for violations. The bill would provide that a contractor is ineligible for, and shall not bid on, or submit a proposal for, a contract under these provisions if the contractor has failed to certify its compliance. The bill would also require a contractor to exercise due diligence in ensuring that its subcontractors comply with those requirements, including requiring each subcontractor to sign a certification. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require, before a contract or subcontract is awarded, a proposed contractor or proposed subcontractor to provide a certification to the contracting officer or contractor, as applicable, that states the contractor or subcontractor has implemented a compliance plan, as specified, and has conducted due diligence that either (1) to the best of the contractor's or subcontractor's knowledge and belief, certain parties have not engaged in any specified prohibited activities or (2) if the contractor or subcontractor is aware of abuses relating to the specified prohibited activities, then certain parties have taken the appropriate remedial and referral actions. This bill would require a contractor or subcontractor to take specified actions to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions, including requiring the contractor or subcontractor to disclose to the contracting officer and the state agency with oversight information sufficient to identify the nature and extent of a violation of a prohibited activity. The bill would specify certain actions a contractor would be required to take if a contractor, contractor employee, subcontractor, subcontractor employee, or agent violates these provisions or specified provisions, including, among others, notifying its employees of the actions that will be taken against the employee or agent for violations. Existing law authorizes certain sanctions to be imposed if a contractor knew or should have known that the apparel, garments, corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies furnished to the state were laundered or produced in violation of specified conditions, including, among others, voiding the contract under which the prohibited apparel, garments, or corresponding accessories, equipment, materials, or supplies were laundered or provided at the option of the state agency and removing the contractor from the bidder's list for a period not to exceed 360 days. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, authorize additional sanctions, including, among others, requiring a contractor to remove a contractor employee from the performance of the contract, requiring the contractor to terminate a subcontractor, and suspending contract payments until the contractor has taken appropriate remedial action. The bill would also specify that these requirements govern contracts and subcontracts entered into by a state agency, regardless of place of performance. Existing law authorizes a contractor to request a hearing before an administrative law judge when sanctions are imposed. Existing law requires the administrative law judge to consider any measures the contractor has taken to ensure compliance with the above-described provisions and authorizes the administrative law judge to waive any or all sanctions if it is determined that the contractor has acted in good faith. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, authorize the administrative law judge to additionally consider mitigating factors and aggravating factors, as specified. Existing law authorizes a state agency that investigates a complaint against a contractor for violation of the above-described provisions to limit its investigation to evaluating the information provided by the person or entity submitting the complaint and information provided by the contractor. This bill would, for a contract entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, authorize the state agency to limit its investigation to credible information. The bill would require the contracting officer, upon receipt of credible information regarding a violation of specified provisions, to promptly notify the state agency with oversight, the agency debarring and suspending official, and law enforcement officials with jurisdiction over the alleged offense, as specified. The bill would authorize the contracting officer to direct the contractor to take specific steps to abate the alleged violation or enforcement of the requirements of its compliance plan. 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.
Who sponsors AB 381?
AB 381 is sponsored by Cortese, Hurtado, Wahab, Ortega, Liz (Democratic), and Stefani, Catherine (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 381?
This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 03, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track AB 381?
Track AB 381 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 381

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of AB 381

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →