An act to amend Sections 865, 865.1, and 865.2 of the Business and Professions Code, and to add Section 340.12 340.51 to the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions. sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts.
SB 934 creates a new civil remedy framework for claims arising from sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, commonly known as conversion therapy, when those efforts are carried out by licensed mental health providers in California. The bill defines covered conduct broadly to include practices intended to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, while excluding nondirective therapy and age-appropriate interventions addressing unlawful or unsafe conduct. It also states legislative findings that such efforts are harmful and ineffective and that injuries may not be recognized until years later.
The bill establishes extended statutes of limitations for damages actions: generally 22 years after a plaintiff reaches adulthood if the conduct occurred before age 18, 10 years after the last treatment session if the plaintiff was an adult, or 5 years from discovery of the psychological injury caused by the conduct. It applies to actions filed on or after January 1, 2027, and revives certain otherwise time-barred claims that have not reached final judgment, allowing them to be filed within a limited revival window. The bill also authorizes recovery of economic and noneconomic damages, punitive damages in appropriate cases, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
SB 934 further expands who may be sued by reaching not only the licensed mental health provider, but also employers, supervisors, and other entities that knew or should have known of the conduct, as well as those potentially liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. It makes expert testimony and scientific literature admissible to prove general causation and the kinds of psychological harm associated with these practices, and it allows a factfinder to infer specific causation once general causation is shown, subject to rebuttal by the defendant. The bill expressly says it does not create a new cause of action, but instead extends and clarifies the timing and evidentiary rules for existing civil claims.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and voting history is supportive of the measure’s remedial purpose. The bill passed committee with a majority vote and was advanced to Appropriations, though it was also placed on the suspense file, indicating fiscal or policy scrutiny typical of measures with potential litigation impacts. The legislative findings frame the bill as a response to delayed discovery of harm and a need to give survivors a realistic opportunity to seek redress.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the breadth of the definition of prohibited change efforts, the revival of expired claims, and the bill’s expansion of liability to employers and supervising entities. Opponents may also question the evidentiary presumptions and the use of scientific consensus to support causation, while supporters are likely to emphasize survivor access to justice, delayed injury recognition, and alignment with mainstream medical and psychological organizations.
SB 934 would add Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.12, creating a special limitations and evidentiary rule for civil actions based on sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts by licensed mental health providers. It would extend filing deadlines, revive certain expired claims, and authorize damages, attorneys’ fees, and expert-based proof of causation. The bill would affect licensed mental health professionals, their employers and supervisors, and entities potentially liable for negligent hiring or retention, while leaving existing causes of action in place and stating that no new cause of action is created.
The bill appears to have generally favorable momentum among legislative supporters, as reflected by committee passage on a majority vote and advancement to Appropriations. The bill’s findings and structure show a strong remedial and survivor-centered intent, and the absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials limits evidence of organized opposition in the record here. The suspense-file placement suggests that, while policy support exists, fiscal or implementation concerns may still be under review.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill’s definition of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts is too broad, especially in distinguishing prohibited direction from permissible nondirective therapy. Another likely dispute is the revival of time-barred claims, which can raise fairness and due-process concerns for defendants. The bill’s causation provisions, including admissibility of expert testimony and the inference of specific causation after general causation is shown, may also be contested by providers, insurers, and professional associations concerned about litigation exposure and evidentiary standards.