SB 52: Housing rental terms: algorithmic devices.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units and requires a landlord to provide specified notice to tenants prior to an increase in rent. Existing law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, prescribes statewide limits on the application of local rent control with regard to certain properties. That act, among other things, authorizes an owner of residential real property to establish the initial and all subsequent rental rates for a dwelling or unit that meets specified criteria, subject to certain limitations.

This bill would make it unlawful for any person to sell, license, or otherwise provide to 2 or more persons a rental pricing algorithm, as defined, with the intent or reasonable expectation that it be used by 2 or more persons, as specified, to set rental terms, as defined, for residential premises. The bill would make it unlawful for a person to set or adopt rental terms based on the recommendation of a rental pricing algorithm if the person knows or should know that the rental pricing algorithm processes nonpublic competitor data, as defined, to set rental terms and that the pricing algorithm or the recommendation of the algorithm was used by another person to set or recommend a rental term for residential premises in the same market.

Existing law establishes the Attorney General as the head of the Department of Justice, with charge of all legal matters in which the state is interested, except as specified. Existing law imposes various requirements on the Attorney General related to consumer protection, including, among others, the supervision of charitable trusts and the enforcement of antitrust laws.

This bill would authorize the Attorney General, and the city attorney or county counsel in the jurisdiction in which the rental unit is located, to file a civil action for a violation of the bill, as specified, and would authorize a person who is harmed by a violation of the bill to file a civil action, as specified.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 7

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. August 29, 2025August 29 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
2. August 20, 2025August 20 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.
3. July 17, 2025(Ayes 49. Noes 15. Page 2578.)
4. July 17, 2025Assembly Rule 63 suspended.
5. July 17, 2025Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
6. July 17, 2025From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (July 16).
7. July 8, 2025From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
8. July 2, 2025From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 9. Noes 3.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
9. June 26, 2025From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
10. June 9, 2025Referred to Coms. on JUD. and P. & C.P.
11. June 3, 2025In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
12. June 2, 2025Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes 9. Page 1362.) Ordered to the Assembly.