California Legislature Considers Changes to Public Records Act Under AB 1821

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

Assembly Bill 1821, authored by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey), would amend portions of the California Public Records Act governing response times, fees, and the handling of high-volume requests. The bill's current version is co-written with the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties.

What the Bill Would Do

According to bill text and legislative summaries, AB 1821 would:

• Extend the timeline for agencies to respond to records requests, allowing an extension of up to 14 business days beyond current requirements.
• Allow agencies to charge requesters an hourly fee—reported to range from $22 to $66—for staff time spent searching for and reviewing records, if a single request exceeds two hours of search time or a requester's combined requests exceed 10 hours in a month, particularly for requests deemed "commercial" in nature.
• Permit government agencies to pursue legal action against requesters they believe are submitting requests with "malicious intent," with courts able to order requesters to pay agency fees if such intent is found.
• Give agencies broader authority to designate specific methods and times for submitting records requests.

Background

The California Public Records Act currently requires agencies to make records promptly available to any requester upon payment of direct duplication costs, with limited exceptions for records exempted by law. Supporters of AB 1821 say the changes are intended to address a rise in high-volume requests, including artificial intelligence firms and data-aggregation businesses—that they say can burden agency staff and resources. Pacheco's office has said the bill is not intended to restrict the public's right to request records.

The bill passed the Assembly in a version that primarily addressed response timelines. Additional provisions—including the fee structure and litigation authority—were added after the bill moved to the Senate. Following concerns raised by transparency advocates, Pacheco's office has indicated an intention to seek removal of some added provisions.

Perspectives on the Bill

Supporters, including some local governments and municipal associations, argue the bill would help agencies manage resource-intensive requests and reduce the burden of what they describe as bad-faith or excessive records requests.

Opponents, including the First Amendment Coalition and California Common Cause, have raised concerns that the bill's fee and litigation provisions could discourage individuals from filing records requests, create financial barriers to accessing information, and give agencies broader discretion to deny or delay disclosure. Some advocacy groups have said existing law already provides agencies with tools to address burdensome requests.

Amendment Update (June 25, 2026)

On June 25, 2026, the bill's author introduced further amendments in the Senate, and AB 1821 was re-referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The amended version retains the core fee and litigation provisions described above and adds further detail, including:

• ‍Designated submission methods: Agencies would be required to designate a physical office location and an email address for submitting records requests, and could designate other methods, such as a mailing address. A request would count as "properly submitted” and subject to the law's response deadline only if sent through a method the agency has designated. Requests sent by other means would not trigger those timelines. Agencies would have to post any changes to their designated submission methods on their websites.
• ‍Exemptions from commercial-use fees: The amended bill would exempt certain requesters from the search-and-review fees that apply to "commercial use" requests, including educational institutions, non-commercial scientific institutions, other government agencies, and representatives of the news media, as defined in the bill.
• ‍Court process for "malicious intent" claims: The bill would allow an agency to petition a superior court for a determination that a request was submitted with malicious intent. If a court agrees, the agency could charge the requester for search and review time, which the bill specifies would include both an administrative fee and a professional fee. Notably, the amended language would suspend an agency's duty to respond to the underlying records request for as long as such a court proceeding is pending.

These additions expand on the fee and litigation framework introduced in earlier versions of the bill. Government agencies have said the designated methods provision would help them manage and track incoming requests. Transparency advocates have raised concerns that requests submitted outside an agency's designated channels could lose their legal protections, and that suspending an agency's response duty during litigation could further delay access to records while a malicious-intent claim is resolved.

Next Steps

The bill is scheduled for further consideration in a Senate committee, where potential amendments—including possible removal of provisions added since the Assembly vote—are expected to be discussed.

This release summarizes publicly reported information on AB 1821, including the amended Senate version dated June 25, 2026. Readers are encouraged to consult the official bill text and legislative record for the most current version of the legislation.