An act to add Article 5.6 (commencing with Section 1299.30) to Chapter 1 of Title 10 of Part 2 of Section 538j to the Penal Code, relating to bail.
AB 1927, the Bail Consumer Protection Act, would create new Penal Code provisions aimed at restricting how bail agents and bail impersonators contact people connected to an arrested individual. The bill prohibits unauthorized solicitation of bail to a family member or known contact of an arrestee, including phone calls, texts, emails, and similar communications, when the recipient has not already requested bail services. It also defines key terms such as “family member,” “known contact,” “bail agent,” and “impersonator,” and preserves exceptions for responses to voluntary inquiries, bona fide requests, and non-targeted public advertising.
The bill establishes civil penalties for violations, with higher penalties for repeat offenses, and authorizes the Attorney General or any public prosecutor to investigate complaints, impose penalties, and seek injunctive relief. It further declares violations to be unfair and deceptive trade practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law, which opens the door to additional enforcement and remedies. Private individuals harmed by a violation could also sue for actual damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
AB 1927 would add a new article to the Penal Code governing bail solicitation practices and would expand enforcement beyond existing insurance and bail licensing rules. It would make targeted, unsolicited outreach to an arrestee’s relatives or known contacts unlawful even when the contact information comes from public records or booking data, while leaving general advertising and requested communications untouched. The bill would also create a new civil enforcement framework, including Attorney General and local prosecutor authority, UCL liability, and private rights of action, affecting bail agents, their agents, and impersonators.
The available vote history suggests the bill was received favorably at least in committee, passing 8-0 on a do-pass motion and being sent onward with a recommendation for the consent calendar. No committee transcript is provided, so there is no recorded debate to show opposition or support beyond the unanimous vote. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a consumer-protection measure with broad procedural support.
The main policy issue is whether bail agents should be allowed to use arrest-related information to contact family members and other personal contacts before those people have asked for help. Supporters appear to view the bill as preventing intrusive or deceptive solicitation and impersonation practices, while preserving legitimate, requested outreach. Potential concerns would center on the breadth of the prohibition, especially the use of public records and arrest data, and on the added exposure to civil penalties, UCL claims, and private lawsuits for bail businesses and related actors.