Bill Commons

CA SB 50

enacted

Connected devices: device protection requests.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper

Quick answers

Did CA SB 50 pass?

Yes. CA SB 50 has been enacted into law as of 2025-10-13. Latest recorded action (2025-10-13): Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 676, Statutes of 2025.

What is CA SB 50 about?

Existing law authorizes a court to issue a restraining order to a person to prevent abuse, as specified, based on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Existing law authorizes the order to be issued solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting the restraining order. Existing law requires a manufacturer of a connected device to equip the device with a reasonable security feature or features that are appropriate to the nature and function of the device, appropriate to the information it may collect, contain, or transmit, and designed to protect the device and information contained in the device from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would authorize a survivor, as defined, or a designated representative of a survivor, to submit a device protection request to an account manager, as defined, seeking to terminate a perpetrator's access to a connected device or associated user account. The bill would define "survivor" for these purposes to mean an individual who has had specified criminal acts committed or allegedly committed against them or who cares for another individual against whom those criminal acts have been committed or allegedly committed, as provided. The bill would require an account manager, within 2 business days of receiving a complete device protection request, to terminate or disable the perpetrator's access to the connected device or user account, or to inform the survivor, in a clear and conspicuous manner, of any methods to reset the device to factory settings or a similar state that removes all account holders, as provided. The bill would specify the requirements for a device protection request and would impose certain requirements on an account manager in processing a request. By providing that a device protection request may include a copy of a signed affidavit, the bill would expand the crime of perjury, and thus impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the account manager to clearly describe the process to submit a device protection request on their internet website or mobile application and would prohibit the account manager from providing specified information to the perpetrator. The bill would require an account manager and any officer, director, employee, vendor, or agent thereof to treat any information submitted by a survivor or a designated representative of a survivor as confidential and securely dispose of the information, as provided. This bill would authorize enforcement of these provisions by injunction or civil penalty in any court action by any person injured by a violation of those provisions, the Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor, against an account manager or perpetrator, as provided. The bill would prohibit a waiver of these prohibitions and would declare that these provisions are severable. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte order for, among other things, disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party may be committed directly or indirectly, including through the use of a third party, and by any method or through any means including, but not limited to, telephone, online accounts, text messages, internet-connected devices, or other electronic technologies. This bill would provide that, for purposes of those provisions, an internet-connected device includes a connected device as described in the bill. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Who sponsors CA SB 50?

Ashby is the primary sponsor of CA SB 50.

Description

Existing law authorizes a court to issue a restraining order to a person to prevent abuse, as specified, based on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Existing law authorizes the order to be issued solely on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting the restraining order. Existing law requires a manufacturer of a connected device to equip the device with a reasonable security feature or features that are appropriate to the nature and function of the device, appropriate to the information it may collect, contain, or transmit, and designed to protect the device and information contained in the device from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. This bill would authorize a survivor, as defined, or a designated representative of a survivor, to submit a device protection request to an account manager, as defined, seeking to terminate a perpetrator's access to a connected device or associated user account. The bill would define "survivor" for these purposes to mean an individual who has had specified criminal acts committed or allegedly committed against them or who cares for another individual against whom those criminal acts have been committed or allegedly committed, as provided. The bill would require an account manager, within 2 business days of receiving a complete device protection request, to terminate or disable the perpetrator's access to the connected device or user account, or to inform the survivor, in a clear and conspicuous manner, of any methods to reset the device to factory settings or a similar state that removes all account holders, as provided. The bill would specify the requirements for a device protection request and would impose certain requirements on an account manager in processing a request. By providing that a device protection request may include a copy of a signed affidavit, the bill would expand the crime of perjury, and thus impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require the account manager to clearly describe the process to submit a device protection request on their internet website or mobile application and would prohibit the account manager from providing specified information to the perpetrator. The bill would require an account manager and any officer, director, employee, vendor, or agent thereof to treat any information submitted by a survivor or a designated representative of a survivor as confidential and securely dispose of the information, as provided. This bill would authorize enforcement of these provisions by injunction or civil penalty in any court action by any person injured by a violation of those provisions, the Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor, against an account manager or perpetrator, as provided. The bill would prohibit a waiver of these prohibitions and would declare that these provisions are severable. Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte order for, among other things, disturbing the peace of the other party. Existing law provides that disturbing the peace of the other party may be committed directly or indirectly, including through the use of a third party, and by any method or through any means including, but not limited to, telephone, online accounts, text messages, internet-connected devices, or other electronic technologies. This bill would provide that, for purposes of those provisions, an internet-connected device includes a connected device as described in the bill. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Introduced
2024-12-16
Latest action
2025-10-13 — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 676, Statutes of 2025.
Bill type
bill
Last updated
—

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Ashbyauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

  1. 2024-12-16

    Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

    introduction,referral-committee

  2. 2024-12-17

    From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 16.

  3. 2025-01-06

    Read first time.

    reading-1

  4. 2025-01-29

    Referred to Com. on JUD.

    referral-committee

  5. 2025-03-13

    Set for hearing April 1.

  6. 2025-04-02

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 610.) (April 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  7. 2025-04-04

    Set for hearing April 21.

  8. 2025-04-21

    April 21 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  9. 2025-05-16

    Set for hearing May 23.

  10. 2025-05-23

    From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1189.) (May 23).

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  11. 2025-05-23

    Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2

  12. 2025-05-27

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  13. 2025-06-04

    Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1512.) Ordered to the Assembly.

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  14. 2025-06-05

    In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

    reading-1

  15. 2025-06-16

    Referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and JUD.

    referral-committee

  16. 2025-06-26

    From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 24).

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  17. 2025-06-27

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  18. 2025-07-09

    From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  19. 2025-07-16

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (July 15). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  20. 2025-08-20

    August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  21. 2025-08-29

    From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (August 29).

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  22. 2025-09-02

    Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2

  23. 2025-09-03

    Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-3

  24. 2025-09-03

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  25. 2025-09-03

    Read third time and amended.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3

  26. 2025-09-08

    Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3002.) Ordered to the Senate.

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  27. 2025-09-08

    In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  28. 2025-09-09

    Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2708.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  29. 2025-09-16

    Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

    executive-receipt

  30. 2025-10-13

    Approved by the Governor.

    executive-signature

  31. 2025-10-13

    Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 676, Statutes of 2025.

    became-law

Versions

  • 12/16/24 - Introduced — 2024-12-16Compare
  • 05/23/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-05-23Compare
  • 06/27/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-06-27Compare
  • 07/09/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-07-09Compare
  • 09/02/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-09-02Compare
  • 09/03/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-09-03Compare
  • 09/12/25 - Enrolled — 2025-09-12Compare
  • 10/13/25 - Chaptered — 2025-10-13Compare
  • SB50Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar

    2025-04-01 · pass · 13-0

    Member-level votes (13)
    • Ashby: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Niello: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Umberg: yes

  • Placed on suspense file

    2025-04-21 · pass · 6-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Grayson: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Dahle: other

  • Do pass as amended

    2025-05-23 · pass · 6-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Caballero: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Dahle: other

  • 3rd Reading

    2025-06-04 · pass · 38-0

    Member-level votes (40)
    • Durazo: yes
    • Menjivar: yes
    • Limón: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Pérez: yes
    • Padilla: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Hurtado: yes
    • Grove: yes
    • Niello: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Cortese: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Jones: yes
    • McGuire: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Blakespear: yes
    • Alvarado-Gil: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Archuleta: yes
    • McNerney: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Becker: yes
    • Ochoa Bogh: yes
    • Choi: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Reyes: other
    • Strickland: other

  • Do pass as amended, and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

    2025-06-24 · pass · 15-0

    Member-level votes (15)
    • Ward: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Ortega: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • McKinnor: yes
    • DeMaio: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Bennett: yes
    • Patterson: yes
    • Hoover: yes

  • Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

    2025-07-15 · pass · 12-0

    Member-level votes (12)
    • Stefani: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Macedo: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Sanchez: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Zbur: yes

  • Do pass as amended.

    2025-08-29 · pass · 11-0

    Member-level votes (15)
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Calderon: yes
    • Arambula: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Sanchez: other
    • Ta: other
    • Tangipa: other
    • Dixon: other

  • SB 50 Ashby Senate Third Reading By Bonta

    2025-09-08 · pass · 79-0

    Member-level votes (80)
    • Addis: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Berman: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Alvarez: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Hoover: yes
    • Ortega: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Gabriel: yes
    • Zbur: yes
    • DeMaio: yes
    • Hadwick: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Tangipa: yes
    • Patel: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Sanchez: yes
    • Johnson: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Gipson: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Calderon: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Soria: yes
    • Valencia: yes
    • Celeste Rodriguez: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Bonta: yes
    • Jeff Gonzalez: yes
    • Alanis: yes
    • Patterson: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Davies: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Muratsuchi: yes
    • Krell: yes
    • Chen: yes
    • Quirk-Silva: yes
    • Bains: yes
    • Michelle Rodriguez: yes
    • Arambula: yes
    • Bennett: yes
    • Ávila Farías: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Lee: yes
    • Castillo: yes
    • Wallis: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Ta: yes
    • Blanca Rubio: yes
    • Gallagher: yes
    • Ellis: yes
    • Macedo: yes
    • McKinnor: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Rivas: yes
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Boerner: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Lackey: yes
    • Flora: yes
    • Garcia: yes
    • Nguyen: other

  • Unfinished Business SB50 Ashby Concurrence

    2025-09-09 · pass · 40-0

    Member-level votes (40)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Menjivar: yes
    • Cortese: yes
    • Jones: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • McNerney: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
    • Becker: yes
    • Alvarado-Gil: yes
    • McGuire: yes
    • Valladares: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Grove: yes
    • Hurtado: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Padilla: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Limón: yes
    • Strickland: yes
    • Pérez: yes
    • Reyes: yes
    • Archuleta: yes
    • Niello: yes
    • Ochoa Bogh: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Choi: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Blakespear: yes

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB50

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Source and document changesStatus and relationship changes

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=SB 50. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.