<h2>At a glance</h2> <p>Assembly Bill 1930 (AB 1930) proposes changes to California’s Civil Code regarding privacy and legal cooperation across state lines. The measure aims to protect individuals and providers involved in abortion and gender-affirming health care services that are legally protected under California law. Specifically, it restricts the ability of persons or entities located in California to comply with out-of-state or federal investigations, subpoenas, or summonses seeking information about these services.</p> <p>The bill passed the Assembly in May 2026 and was amended in the Senate in July 2026. As of early August 2026, the proposal is held in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, meaning it has not yet become law. The measure introduces strict notification requirements for the Attorney General and affected individuals, along with civil penalties for noncompliance or false statements. For more context on how citizen-driven proposals shape state policy, visit the <a href="/california/">California voter initiatives and community proposals</a> homepage.</p> <h2>What the bill would do</h2> <p>AB 1930 adds Section 1798.309 to the Civil Code and amends Section 1798.300. The core provision prohibits any person or entity located, headquartered, incorporated, or conducting business in California from complying with a civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation, subpoena, or summons from another state or the federal government if it seeks information about abortion or gender-affirming health care services that are legally protected in California. <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1930/id/3452164">Section 2 of the amended bill text</a> outlines these restrictions.</p> <p>Compliance is only permitted under specific conditions. First, a court of competent jurisdiction must order it. Alternatively, if no court order exists, the investigation or subpoena must include an affidavit under penalty of perjury. This affidavit must state either that the request is not related to imposing liability for lawful care, or that it identifies specific California laws under which the activity is unlawful or grounds for professional discipline. Notably, this affidavit requirement does not apply to investigations issued by federal agencies.</p> <p>The bill also imposes strict notification timelines. Recipients of such requests must notify the California Attorney General within seven days of receipt. They must also make reasonable attempts to notify the individuals whose information is sought at least 30 days before providing any responsive information. This waiting period allows the Attorney General to potentially intervene in legal actions aimed at blocking compliance. <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1930#95AMD">The legislative counsel’s digest</a> confirms these procedural safeguards.</p> <p>Enforcement mechanisms include civil penalties. Submitting a false affidavit carries a $15,000 penalty. Intentionally, knowingly, willingly, or recklessly complying with a prohibited request results in penalties of $10,000 for the first violation and $15,000 for subsequent violations. The Attorney General is authorized to sue for these penalties and recover attorney’s fees.</p> <h2>Why supporters may favor it</h2> <p>Supporters of AB 1930 view the measure as a defense of California’s public policy, which secures rights to reproductive and gender-affirming health care. By creating a legal shield against out-of-state inquiries, the bill aims to prevent "abusive litigation" defined in the bill as legal actions designed to deter or punish persons engaging in legally protected health care activities in other jurisdictions. <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1930/id/3452164">Section 1 of the bill text</a> defines abusive litigation broadly, including vicarious or joint liability claims based on conduct legal where it occurred.</p> <p>Proponents argue that without such protections, California residents and providers could be vulnerable to legal harassment from states with restrictive laws. The requirement for affidavits and notifications ensures transparency and gives the state tools to challenge improper requests. The involvement of the Attorney General provides a centralized resource for defending these rights, rather than leaving individuals to fight legal battles alone.</p> <h2>Why critics may object</h2> <p>Critics may raise concerns about the bill’s impact on interstate legal cooperation and comity. By restricting compliance with federal and out-of-state subpoenas, the measure could complicate investigations into activities that other jurisdictions deem illegal. Some may argue that the affidavit requirement places an undue burden on out-of-state litigants or law enforcement agencies, particularly since federal agencies are exempt from the affidavit rule but still subject to the compliance ban unless a court orders otherwise.</p> <p>Additionally, businesses and entities operating in California may object to the administrative burden and financial risk. The requirement to notify the Attorney General and affected individuals within tight deadlines creates operational challenges. The potential for significant civil penalties, even for unintentional errors, may lead to increased legal costs and insurance premiums for health care providers, insurers, and technology companies handling sensitive data.</p> <h2>Who may be affected</h2> <p>The bill explicitly affects any person or entity located, headquartered, incorporated, or conducting business in California. This broad definition includes health care providers, clinics, health insurers, health care service plans, and potentially technology companies or data brokers that hold relevant medical information. <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1930/id/3452164">Section 1(c)</a> defines "aggrieved person, provider, or other entity" to include residents, businesses, and those who assisted in providing or receiving care.</p> <p>Patients seeking or receiving abortion or gender-affirming care in California are directly affected, as their privacy is the primary subject of the protection. They would receive notifications if their records are requested, allowing them to seek legal support. The California Attorney General’s office would also see an increased workload due to notification requirements and potential intervention in civil actions.</p> <h2>What the vote record shows</h2> <p>AB 1930 has seen strong support in the Legislature so far. In the Assembly, the bill passed its third reading on May 27, 2026, with a vote of 60 ayes to 17 noes. <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1930/id/1702534">The Assembly roll call record</a> reflects this majority support. Prior to that, the Assembly Judiciary Committee recommended the bill with a 9-3 vote, and the Public Safety Committee passed it 7-0. <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1930/id/1698537">Committee vote records</a> indicate consistent backing from Democratic members, who constitute the majority in both houses.</p> <p>In the Senate, the bill was referred to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committees. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended the bill with an 11-2 vote on June 23, 2026. <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1930/id/1711799">The Senate committee roll call</a> shows bipartisan support in committee, though the final floor vote in the Senate has not yet occurred. The bill was amended in the Senate on July 2, 2026, and subsequently referred to the Appropriations Committee, where it remains in the suspense file as of August 3, 2026.</p> <h2>What happens next</h2> <p>Because AB 1930 is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, its immediate future depends on fiscal considerations and committee scheduling. Bills in the suspense file are typically reviewed for their cost implications before being released for a full Senate floor vote. If the committee releases the bill, it will proceed to third reading in the Senate. If it passes the Senate, it would return to the Assembly for concurrence on any Senate amendments before being sent to the Governor.</p> <p>If the Governor signs the bill, it would become law on January 1, 2027, unless it contains an urgency clause. Given the current status, stakeholders should monitor the Appropriations Committee’s actions in the coming weeks. For ongoing updates on this and other civic measures, readers can explore the <a href="/blog/california/">Power the People California civic reporting library</a>.</p> <h2>Sources</h2> <ul> <li><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1930">Official California Legislative Information page for AB 1930</a></li> <li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1930/2025">LegiScan record for AB 1930</a></li> <li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1930/id/3452164">Amended bill text (July 2, 2026)</a></li> <li><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1930#95AMD">Legislative Counsel’s Digest and bill history</a></li> <li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1930/id/1702534">Assembly Third Reading Roll Call (May 27, 2026)</a></li> <li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1930/id/1711799">Senate Judiciary Committee Roll Call (June 23, 2026)</a></li> </ul>

Keep exploring California civic power

Explore current California voter initiatives and community proposals. Browse the complete California civic reporting library.

Sources