An act to add, repeal, and add Section 2036 of add Section 2036 to the Insurance Code, and to amend Sections 626.8 and 4577 of, and to add Sections 402.5 and 402.6 to, the Penal Code, relating to unmanned aircraft.
SB 260 would regulate the use of remotely operated unmanned aircraft (drones) in several settings, with a major focus on residential property insurance inspections and public-safety-sensitive locations. In the insurance code, the bill would prohibit residential property insurers from using a drone to conduct an onsite inspection of a home, require advance notice before aerial images are taken for non-claim purposes, require insurers to provide those images to the policyholder on request, and impose notice-and-cure procedures before a policy can be canceled based on drone-collected evidence. It also requires insurers to destroy drone-collected evidence within 90 days, subject to exceptions, and includes a temporary version of these rules that would sunset on January 1, 2028, alongside a permanent prohibition that takes effect on that date.
The bill also creates or expands criminal penalties related to drone operation near critical infrastructure, the State Capitol, schools, and correctional facilities. It would make it an infraction to knowingly operate a drone within specified distances of critical infrastructure facilities or Capitol-area buildings, with exceptions for government, authorized, and compliant commercial operations. It would also make it a misdemeanor to use a drone over or above school grounds with intent to surveil, closely monitor, record, or threaten safety, and would increase the fine for operating a drone over prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities from $500 to $1,000. The bill expressly states that these new offenses create a state-mandated local program and that no reimbursement is required.
In terms of state law impact, SB 260 would add a new Insurance Code section and amend Penal Code sections governing trespass-like drone conduct, school disruption, and prison overflight. It would expand the legal framework around unmanned aircraft by defining “critical infrastructure facility,” setting distance-based restrictions, and creating specific exemptions for regulators, public safety work, authorized contractors, and FAA-compliant commercial use. It would also direct the Joint Rules Committee to adopt policies for drone activity around certain State Capitol properties in consultation with the California Highway Patrol.
The bill’s overall sentiment in committee and on the floor appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The recorded votes were unanimous at each stage shown, including committee votes of 6-0, 5-0, 7-0, and a Senate 3rd Reading vote of 38-0. There is no committee transcript in the provided materials, so there is no recorded debate to suggest organized opposition in the available record.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the drone restrictions and the insurance-related limits on insurer inspections and evidence retention. Insurers may view the notice, disclosure, cure-period, and destruction requirements as operationally burdensome, while privacy and consumer advocates may support them as protections against surprise surveillance and abrupt policy cancellation. Similarly, the new no-fly style restrictions around critical infrastructure, schools, and the Capitol could raise concerns about overbreadth or federal preemption, though the bill attempts to address those issues through exceptions and an express statement that it is not intended to regulate aviation safety or airspace efficiency.
SB 260 would add a new, temporary-and-then-permanent regulatory scheme in the Insurance Code governing drone use by residential property insurers, including notice, disclosure, cure, and data-destruction requirements. It would also amend the Penal Code to create new infractions and a misdemeanor involving drone operation near critical infrastructure, the State Capitol, schools, and correctional facilities, while increasing the penalty for prison overflights. These changes would affect residential property insurers, drone operators, school communities, correctional institutions, and public agencies, and would create state-mandated local program costs associated with the new offenses.
The available voting record shows unanimous support at every recorded step, indicating broad bipartisan or at least noncontroversial support in committee and on the floor. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments in opposition, or expressed concerns in the materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been received positively by legislators, with no recorded dissent in the available history.
The likely areas of contention are the scope and enforceability of the drone restrictions and the insurance provisions. Residential property insurers may object to limits on onsite inspections, mandatory advance notice, required disclosure of aerial images, and the 90-day evidence-destruction rule, especially where drone imagery is used to document property conditions. Drone users and commercial operators could also be concerned about the breadth of the critical-infrastructure and Capitol-area exclusion zones, while supporters are likely to emphasize privacy, safety, and protection of sensitive facilities and school grounds. The bill’s express attempt to avoid federal preemption suggests awareness that airspace-related restrictions could be challenged if viewed as too expansive.