An act to amend Sections 12599.9 and 12599.10 of the Government Code, relating to charitable giving.
AB 576 updates California’s rules for online charitable fundraising platforms and “platform charities” under the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act. The bill expands the ways these entities may verify whether a recipient charity is in “good standing” by allowing them to rely not only on electronic lists from the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, and Attorney General, but also on an application programming interface (API) made available by those agencies. It also directs the Attorney General to adopt regulations specifying the technical requirements for that API.
The bill retains and restates the existing regulatory framework for online fundraising platforms: registration with the Attorney General, annual reporting, disclosure obligations, written-consent rules for using a charity’s name, separate accounting for donated funds, and restrictions on enabling solicitations for charities that are not in good standing. It also continues to define which internet-based fundraising services count as charitable fundraising platforms and which entities are excluded, such as a charity’s own website, certain service vendors, donor-advised fund sponsors, and some commercial coventurers or commercial fundraisers.
AB 576’s practical effect is to modernize compliance for online charitable giving by making real-time eligibility checks easier for platforms and platform charities. It would affect the Attorney General’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, online fundraising intermediaries, platform charities, recipient charitable organizations, and donors by reinforcing disclosure and oversight requirements while adding a more automated method for confirming tax-exempt status and legal eligibility to solicit in California.
The general sentiment reflected in the available legislative history appears favorable and noncontroversial. The bill received a unanimous 13-0 do-pass vote in committee, and there is no recorded committee transcript showing opposition or extended debate. That suggests broad support for the bill’s consumer-protection and administrative-modernization goals.
No major points of contention are evident in the available materials. The main policy issue is technical rather than ideological: whether the Attorney General should be required to establish API specifications and how platforms should use machine-readable data to verify good standing. The bill also preserves existing disclosure and consent rules, so any concern would likely center on implementation burden for platforms or administrative work for the Attorney General rather than on the underlying regulation of charitable fundraising.
AB 576 would amend Government Code Sections 12599.9 and 12599.10, which govern charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities under California’s charitable trust supervision laws. The bill would authorize these entities to use an API, in addition to existing electronic lists, to determine whether a charity is in good standing, and would require the Attorney General to set rules for that API. It would not create a new program or appropriation, but it would refine compliance standards for online fundraising intermediaries and reinforce existing registration, reporting, disclosure, and fund-handling requirements.
The available legislative record shows a positive and largely procedural reception. The bill passed committee unanimously, 13-0, indicating support across the committee for updating the law to reflect current technology and online fundraising practices. With no committee transcript available, there is no evidence of sustained opposition or public controversy in the materials provided.
The bill’s only apparent points of contention are operational. The key issue is how the Attorney General will define and maintain the API specifications and how platforms will integrate real-time good-standing checks into their systems. Related concerns could include compliance costs for platforms, data-format requirements, and whether agencies can reliably maintain machine-readable lists or APIs. No substantive disagreement over charitable oversight, donor protections, or the bill’s policy direction appears in the available record.