What are the mandatory notification timelines for recipients of information requests under AB 1930?
Short answer
Under Assembly Bill 1930, any person or entity in California that receives a subpoena or investigation request from another state or the federal government regarding abortion or gender-affirming care must follow strict deadlines. They must notify the California Attorney General within seven days of receiving the request. Additionally, they must make reasonable attempts to notify the individuals whose records are sought at least 30 days before providing any information.
What the bill or law says
AB 1930 adds specific procedural safeguards to the California Civil Code to protect health information that is legal in California but may be targeted by outside jurisdictions. The text explicitly mandates two key notification periods. First, the recipient of the request must inform the Attorney General within seven days of receipt. Second, the recipient must wait at least 30 days after attempting to notify the affected individuals before complying with the request. This waiting period is designed to give the Attorney General time to intervene if necessary. These requirements are detailed in the legislative counsel’s digest and the amended bill text https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1930#95AMD.
How it works in practice
In a practical scenario, a hospital or technology company in California receives a subpoena from another state. Upon receipt, the clock starts for the seven-day notification window. The entity must alert the Attorney General’s office immediately. Simultaneously, they must begin the process of contacting the patients whose data is requested. The bill requires "reasonable attempts" to notify these individuals. Once the patients are notified, the entity must hold the data for at least 30 days. This pause allows the state to assess whether the request violates California’s shield laws and potentially file a legal challenge to block the release of records. If the entity fails to meet these timelines, they may face civil penalties https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1930/id/3452164.
What the source does not answer
The provided sources do not specify what constitutes a "reasonable attempt" to notify patients. For example, it is unclear if an email suffices or if certified mail is required. The text also does not detail how the Attorney General’s office will prioritize these notifications given the potential volume. Furthermore, the sources do not explain the exact process for patients to opt out of notification if they prefer not to be contacted. The bill’s current status in the Senate Appropriations Committee means these operational details may still be subject to change or future regulatory guidance https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1930.