Contractor disclosure requirements.
Summary
Existing law governs certain obligations arising from particular transactions, including credit card disclosures, consumer contracts, and consumer warranties. This bill would prohibit a contractor, as defined, that provides services that require entering the residence or place of lodging of a member of the public from utilizing a uniform that bears the name or logo of the contracting entity, as defined, unless each uniform meets certain disclosure requirements. Among these requirements, the bill would require each of the uniforms to clearly, conspicuously, and legibly state the contractor's name and logo, as specified. In addition to these requirements, the bill would further prohibit a contractor that provides the services described above relating to public health or safety services from using a vehicle that bears the name or logo of the contracting entity unless each vehicle also clearly, conspicuously, and legibly states the contractor's name and logo. The bill would specify that these provisions shall not apply if a contracting entity and a contractor are jointly and severally liable for any claims arising out of work performed pursuant to a contractual agreement. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature to increase consumer awareness of the state's growing and sizeable contract workforce through the disclosures required by these provisions. The bill would make a specified statement of legislative intent regarding the disclosures required by these provisions.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Assembly Passage
May 2012
Senate Passage
Aug 2012
Vetoed
Sep 2012
Introduced Feb 24, 2012
Vetoed Sep 30, 2012
Floor votes · Assembly May 21, 2012
How they voted
44–21
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 70
May 21, 2012
D
Democratic44
95% Yea
R
Republican26
80% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
28
Key actions
5
Committee
10
Amendments
1
Sep 30, 2012
Vetoed
Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
lower
Sep 30, 2012
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
lower
Aug 28, 2012
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 51. Noes 28. Page 6417.).
lower
Aug 24, 2012
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 28 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 6, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Jul 3, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (July 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
May 31, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.
upper
May 21, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (44-21-5)
assembly
May 16, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 16).
lower
Apr 25, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 18, 2012
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.) (April 17). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 9, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
lower
Mar 29, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on B., P. & C.P.
lower
Feb 26, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
lower
Feb 24, 2012
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
BL
Bonnie Lowenthal
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2389
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2389. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline