California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB446

Introduced
 
Introduced
2/18/25  
Refer
2/26/25  
Report Pass
4/2/25  
Refer
4/3/25  
Report Pass
4/2/25  
Refer
4/3/25  
Engrossed
5/28/25  
Refer
6/5/25  
Report Pass
6/25/25  
Refer
6/25/25  
Report Pass
7/9/25  
Refer
7/9/25  
Report Pass
8/20/25  
Enrolled
8/28/25  
Chaptered
10/3/25  

Caption

An act to amend Section 1798.

Impact

The amendment aims to enhance consumer protections by ensuring rapid notification of data breaches, thereby allowing affected individuals to take timely actions to protect their personal information. Furthermore, the bill promotes accountability by requiring businesses to submit security breach notifications to the Attorney General within 15 days if the breach affects more than 500 residents. This change encourages transparency about how organizations handle personal data and impacts existing laws governing data security and privacy in California.

Summary

Senate Bill 446, introduced by Senator Hurtado, seeks to amend Section 1798.82 of the California Civil Code concerning the notification requirements following data breaches. This bill mandates that businesses and individuals that own or license computerized data containing personal information must disclose a data breach to affected residents of California within 30 calendar days of discovering the breach. The bill recognizes that certain circumstances might necessitate delaying the notification, particularly if such a delay might address the needs of law enforcement agencies while an investigation is underway.

Sentiment

The general sentiment around SB 446 seems to be supportive, particularly among consumer rights advocates who view the quicker notification timeframe as a significant step toward protecting individuals from identity theft and fraud. However, there are concerns from business interests who argue that the 30-day requirement could impose undue burdens, especially for smaller entities that may need more time to assess the breach's impact and take appropriate steps.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between rapid notification and the need for a thorough investigation by law enforcement. Critics may argue that the potential for delays, even when justified, could still risk undermining public trust in how organizations manage breaches. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate about the ramifications of the bill on operational costs for businesses, especially regarding compliance with the new reporting timelines and the costs associated with improved security measures.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB137

An act to amend Sections 1798.

CA AB306

An act to amend Sections 17958, 17958.

CA AB1166

An act to amend Sections 1788.

CA SB749

An act to amend Section Sections 798.

CA AB463

An act to amend Section 1799.

CA AB410

An act to amend Sections 17940, 17941, and 17942 of of, and to repeal and add Section 17943 of, the Business and Professions Code, relating to bots.

CA AB116

An act to amend Sections 1276.

CA AB129

An act to amend Section 19878 of, and to add Sections 19816.

CA AB456

An act to amend Sections 798.

CA AB143

An act to amend Sections 4511.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.