Connected devices: device protection requests.
Summary
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.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2024
Committee Review
Jul 2025
Senate Passage
Jun 2025
Assembly Passage
Sep 2025
Signed into Law
Oct 2025
Introduced Dec 16, 2024
Signed Oct 13, 2025
Maddy AI version diff · 8 comparisons
What changed between versions
10/13/25 - Chaptered
→
SB50
·
1 edit
MINOR
No substantive policy changes were made between these two versions. The diff reflects a reformatting of the same enacted bill text (SB 50, Chapter 676) from the official authenticated chaptered document format to a web page display format on the California Legislature website. All statutory language, definitions, requirements, penalties, and exemptions remain identical.
TECHNICAL
The bill text was reformatted from the official 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL' chaptered document (with page numbers and centered headers) to a web page layout including navigation elements, a digest key showing Vote: MAJORITY, Appropriation: NO, Fiscal Committee: YES, Local Program: YES, and a publication date of 10/14/2025.
Floor votes · Senate Jun 4, 2025 · Assembly Sep 8, 2025
How they voted
38–0
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 40
Jun 4, 2025
D
Democratic30
96% Yea
R
Republican10
90% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
31
Key actions
14
Committee
4
Amendments
10
Oct 13, 2025
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 9, 2025
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2708.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 8, 2025
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Sep 8, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 3002.) Ordered to the Senate.
lower
Sep 3, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time and amended.
lower
Sep 2, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
lower
Aug 29, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (August 29).
lower
Jul 16, 2025
Lower · Passed
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.
lower
Jul 9, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Jun 27, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Jun 26, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 24).
lower
Jun 16, 2025
Committee
Referred to Coms. on P. & C.P. and JUD.
lower
Jun 4, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1512.) Ordered to the Assembly.
upper
May 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
upper
May 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1189.) (May 23).
upper
Apr 2, 2025
Upper · Passed
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.
upper
Jan 29, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Dec 16, 2024
Introduced
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Angelique Ashby
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 50
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 50. 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