California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 R cosponsors

AB 1870 — Private Attorneys General Act: penalties: reduction.

Last action — Re-referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 12, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Not enough signal yet

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

Not enough signal yet to read this bill's trajectory — we surface a likelihood only once there's real movement (stage, sponsorship, committee, or votes) to point to.

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

The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 authorizes an aggrieved employee, as defined, to bring a civil action on behalf of that employee, and other current or former employees against whom a violation of the same provision of the Labor Code was committed, to enforce a violation of any provision of the Labor Code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, as specified, pursuant to certain notice and cure provisions, as prescribed. In a civil action under the act, existing law caps the civil penalty that may be recovered at 15%, if, prior to receiving the notice of violation, or prior to receiving a certain request for records from the aggrieved employee or the employee's counsel, the employer has taken all reasonable steps to be in compliance with all provisions identified in the notice, as specified. Similarly, existing law caps the civil penalty at 30% if within 60 days of receiving the notice of violation, the employer has taken all reasonable steps to prospectively be in compliance with all provisions identified in the notice. The act requires an evaluation of whether the employer's conduct was reasonable to be based on a totality of the circumstances. This bill would specify certain practices that may support a finding that the employer took all reasonable steps. Notwithstanding the above-described totality of the circumstances evaluation requirement, the bill would create a rebuttable presumption that the employer took all reasonable steps if they comply with specified compliance activities within the 24 months preceding the alleged violation period, provide documentation to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and certify under penalty of perjury that the violation has been cured, as specified. By expanding the scope of the existing crime of perjury, this bill would impose 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Re-referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

  2. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  3. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  4. Referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  5. From printer. May be heard in committee March 15.

  6. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

Subjects

public-safety labor transportation
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 1870 do?
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 authorizes an aggrieved employee, as defined, to bring a civil action on behalf of that employee, and other current or former employees against whom a violation of the same provision of the Labor Code was committed, to enforce a violation of any provision of the Labor Code that provides for a civil penalty to be assessed and collected by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, as specified, pursuant to certain notice and cure provisions, as prescribed. In a civil action under the act, existing law caps the civil penalty that may be recovered at 15%, if, prior to receiving the notice of violation, or prior to receiving a certain request for records from the aggrieved employee or the employee's counsel, the employer has taken all reasonable steps to be in compliance with all provisions identified in the notice, as specified. Similarly, existing law caps the civil penalty at 30% if within 60 days of receiving the notice of violation, the employer has taken all reasonable steps to prospectively be in compliance with all provisions identified in the notice. The act requires an evaluation of whether the employer's conduct was reasonable to be based on a totality of the circumstances. This bill would specify certain practices that may support a finding that the employer took all reasonable steps. Notwithstanding the above-described totality of the circumstances evaluation requirement, the bill would create a rebuttable presumption that the employer took all reasonable steps if they comply with specified compliance activities within the 24 months preceding the alleged violation period, provide documentation to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and certify under penalty of perjury that the violation has been cured, as specified. By expanding the scope of the existing crime of perjury, this bill would impose 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.
Who sponsors AB 1870?
AB 1870 is sponsored by Flora, Heath (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 1870?
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 12, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 1870?
Track AB 1870 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1870

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1870

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →