California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1856

Introduced
2/11/26  
Refer
3/19/26  
Report Pass
3/19/26  
Refer
3/23/26  
Report Pass
4/6/26  
Refer
4/7/26  
Report Pass
4/22/26  
Refer
4/27/26  
Refer
5/6/26  
Report Pass
5/14/26  
Engrossed
5/26/26  
Refer
5/27/26  

Caption

An act to amend Sections 1798.500, 1798.501, 1798.502, 1798.503, and 1798.504 of the Civil Code, relating to consumer protection.

Summary

AB 1856 revises California’s Digital Age Assurance Act, which is scheduled to take effect beginning January 1, 2027. The bill expands the law’s age-verification signal framework beyond covered application stores to also include application developers, browser providers, and internet website operators. It requires operating system providers, when their systems have account setup features, to provide an accessible interface at setup so an account holder can enter a user’s birth date or age and generate an age-bracket signal. The bill also requires covered application stores and browser providers to request and relay those signals, and it directs developers and website operators to request signals when an app is downloaded and launched or when a user accesses a website. The bill also clarifies how age signals are treated for legal compliance. It generally deems a developer or internet website operator to have actual knowledge of a user’s age range when a signal is received for that device, but it narrows that knowledge rule so it applies only when the user accesses the application or website from the specified device, rather than across all platforms and access points. At the same time, it preserves an exception where internal clear and convincing information shows the user’s age is different from the signal, in which case that information controls. The bill includes implementation provisions for devices set up before January 1, 2027, and for certain apps downloaded before that date, requiring compliance steps by July 1, 2027.

Impact

AB 1856 would amend Civil Code sections 1798.500 through 1798.504, expanding and refining the Digital Age Assurance Act’s requirements for age-bracket data sharing. It would impose new duties on operating system providers, covered application stores, browser providers, developers, and internet website operators, while also limiting the amount of information collected and restricting secondary use of the data. The bill preserves civil penalties enforced by the Attorney General, adds nondiscrimination and antitrust protections, and states that no additional personal information may be collected beyond what is necessary to comply with the title. Its practical effect is to broaden the reach of California’s age-verification infrastructure to more online services and to standardize how age signals are generated, transmitted, and relied upon.

Sentiment

The available vote history suggests the bill has received generally favorable committee support, passing 13-1 on a do-pass-as-amended motion before being re-referred to Appropriations. The absence of recorded committee transcript excerpts limits insight into detailed debate, but the amendments and the re-referral indicate the bill is moving forward with some fiscal and implementation scrutiny. Overall, the measure appears to have majority support, with the legislative process focusing more on technical refinement and cost review than on outright opposition.

Contention

The main points of contention appear to be the scope of the age-signal mandate and the privacy, technical, and competitive implications for platform operators. Expanding the law from app stores to browsers and websites raises concerns for operating system providers, browser providers, developers, and website operators about implementation burden, accuracy of signals, and the risk of over-collection or misuse of age data. The bill tries to address some of those concerns by limiting data sharing to the minimum necessary, barring third-party use unrelated to compliance, and protecting good-faith providers from liability for erroneous signals. Another likely area of tension is the bill’s actual-knowledge rule, which can affect how companies determine legal obligations for age-based restrictions; AB 1856 narrows that rule compared with existing law, suggesting an effort to balance enforcement with concerns about broad liability.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA SB0759

Consumer protection: privacy; Michigan consumer protection act; amend to include violation of kids code act as violation. Amends sec. 3 of 1976 PA 331 (MCL 445.903).

CA HB2254

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 37; Title 39 and Title 47, relative to consumer protection.

CA SB2263

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 37; Title 39 and Title 47, relative to consumer protection.

CA SB888

Relating To Consumer Protection.

CA HB2522

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 9 and Title 47, Chapter 18, relative to consumer protection.

CA SB2398

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 9 and Title 47, Chapter 18, relative to consumer protection.

CA HB393

An Act To Amend Title 26 Of The Delaware Code Relating To Protections For Public Utility Consumers.

CA HB1560

Relating To Consumer Protection.

CA HB1642

Relating To Consumer Protection.

CA HB1647

Relating To Consumer Protection.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.