California’s new 2026 laws take effect, changing rules for renters, health coverage, elections, workplaces, AI, and consumer refunds

A broad package of California laws took effect January 1, 2026, with changes that touch everyday life in ways that are likely to show up quickly: what landlords must provide in many rentals, how much patients may pay out of pocket for insulin under certain health plans, how fast counties must report vote totals, what employers must tell workers about their rights, and what delivery apps must do when an order goes wrong. The state also begins enforcing a new set of rules aimed at large developers of advanced artificial intelligence and at chatbot services used by minors.

Many of the laws are framed as consumer and worker protection measures, and several come with compliance deadlines or enforcement mechanisms that will matter as agencies publish templates, begin audits, or respond to complaints.

AB 628: Working stoves and refrigerators become part of “habitability” for many rentals

What changed: For many new, renewed, or amended residential leases, landlords must provide a working stove and refrigerator and keep them in working order. CalMatters reported the law was aimed at a longstanding practice, especially in parts of Los Angeles, where some tenants were expected to buy and move major appliances after signing a lease.

What it means for renters: The most practical effect is at move-in. Requiring major appliances reduces upfront costs and can also reduce disputes about whether a unit is “move-in ready.” Renters who previously negotiated appliances into leases may see that issue disappear in many standard rental transactions.

What it means for landlords: The law pushes appliance responsibility into the same category as other baseline habitability expectations—something owners must plan for, document, and maintain. The day-to-day impact will likely turn on maintenance requests, replacement timelines, and how landlords allocate costs across units, especially in older buildings.

SB 40: Insulin cost-sharing caps and limits on step therapy for certain plans

What changed: SB 40 limits how much certain plans can require patients to pay out of pocket for insulin. The statutory text describes a cap of no more than $35 in cost sharing for a 30-day supply for large-group plans issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026. It also restricts step-therapy prerequisites for insulin coverage beginning in 2026 and delays similar cap requirements for many individual and small-group plans until 2027.

What it means for patients: For people who take insulin and are in covered plan categories, the cap is intended to make monthly costs more predictable. The details will still matter. Plans differ on formularies, tiers, and what counts as a covered insulin product, so the practical experience may hinge on whether a plan covers the specific insulin a patient uses and how the plan structures pharmacy benefits.

What it means for employers and insurers: Large-group coverage changes typically appear in plan documents, pharmacy benefit manager arrangements, and formulary design. SB 40 also adds a compliance layer by limiting step therapy for insulin and requiring at least one insulin option per drug type to be on the formulary for covered large-group plans.

AB 5: Faster ballot-count reporting, with built-in exceptions

What changed: AB 5 adds a new Elections Code section that requires county elections officials, on or before the 13th day after an election, to finish counting most ballots and release a vote count for those ballots. The law includes explicit exceptions for provisional ballots and ballots requiring signature verification or curing, and it requires counties to file a notice of extension explaining why they will miss the deadline.

What it means for voters: The law is designed to shorten the “partial-results window” where totals change for days, often fueling confusion about how and why vote counts shift. Even with the new deadline, late-arriving and problem ballots will still be counted under the exceptions, meaning totals can still move after the 13-day mark—just with more structure around what counties must report and when.

What it means for counties: AB 5 effectively sets a public-facing operational benchmark. Counties may need staffing and process changes for high-volume elections, and the extension notices create a record that state officials, the public, and litigants in election-related disputes can review.

SB 294: “Workplace Know Your Rights Act” notice requirement begins February 1

What changed: SB 294 requires employers to provide a stand-alone written notice to current employees on or before February 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, summarizing specified workplace rights. The Labor Commissioner is required to develop and post a template notice, and the law authorizes penalties of up to $500 per employee per day for certain violations, with higher maximums for certain ongoing violations described in agency guidance.

What it means for workers: The notice requirement is intended to make workplace rights more visible and less dependent on workers' “already knowing where to look.” In practice, the impact may be strongest for workers who are new to a job, unfamiliar with the system, or reluctant to raise issues without clear information about protections and enforcement agencies.

What it means for employers: This is compliance work with a calendar attached. Employers need processes to deliver the notice annually, track distribution, and update versions as agencies revise templates. Because the law also points to constitutional rights in workplace law enforcement interactions, employers may also update internal protocols for how supervisors respond when law enforcement arrives at a worksite.

Statewide minimum wage: $16.90 per hour, with ripple effects for exempt salaries

What changed: California’s statewide minimum wage increased to $16.90 per hour as of January 1, 2026, according to the Department of Industrial Relations.

What it means for workers: The change directly affects minimum-wage workers and can also influence pay scales above minimum wage when employers adjust wage ladders to preserve internal differentials. It does not replace higher local minimum wages, which still apply in many cities and counties.

What it means for employers: California ties certain salary thresholds and exemptions to the minimum wage, so increases can trigger secondary compliance issues beyond hourly payroll. Employers operating across multiple cities often have to harmonize state, local, and industry-specific minimum wage requirements.

AB 578: Food delivery platforms must offer refunds and clearer customer support

What changed: AB 578 requires delivery platforms to provide refunds when orders are undelivered, incorrect, or only partially fulfilled, and to provide access to a real customer service representative when automated systems cannot resolve an issue. The law also prohibits platforms from using tips to offset base pay and requires itemized pay breakdowns for delivery workers, according to the governor’s office summary.

What it means for customers: The practical shift is from “app credit by default” toward cash refunds in common failure scenarios, depending on how platforms implement the law. ABC10 reported the law requires a full refund to the original payment method when an order is missing, incorrect, or never arrives.

What it means for delivery workers: Tip “offset” restrictions and itemized pay disclosures are designed to clarify what portion of a driver’s earnings is base pay versus customer tips. That transparency can matter in disputes about compensation practices and in public scrutiny of gig-economy pay structures.

SB 1053: Plastic checkout bags are further restricted statewide

What changed: SB 1053 tightens California’s plastic bag rules by closing what state officials describe as a loophole that allowed thicker plastic film bags to be treated as “reusable.” The governor’s office summary says the law eliminates plastic checkout bags and pushes retailers toward truly reusable bags that meet higher durability standards or paper bags that meet recycled-content requirements.

What it means for shoppers: At checkout, the default is increasingly “bring your own” or pay for paper. The policy is meant to reduce the volume of plastic bags that continue to circulate even after earlier statewide restrictions.

What it means for retailers: Stores need to implement procurement changes and point-of-sale adjustments that meet the new requirements. Some local governments and lawmakers have also emphasized that the law regulates what can be handed out at checkout, not whether stores can sell other bag types, an important distinction for compliance and consumer expectations.

SB 53: Large “frontier” AI developers must publish safety frameworks and report serious incidents

What changed: SB 53, the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, took effect January 1, 2026. The law requires large frontier AI developers to publish a framework describing how they incorporate standards and best practices, create a mechanism for reporting critical safety incidents to the state, provide whistleblower protections tied to significant health and safety risks, and establish civil penalties enforceable by the Attorney General, according to the governor’s office.

What it means for the public: The day-to-day effect is not that consumers will suddenly see warnings on every AI output. Instead, the law is designed to force a public-facing paper trail about how the largest model developers evaluate and mitigate high-end risks. CalMatters reported the law requires large model makers to publish frameworks addressing how they manage “catastrophic risk,” and to report critical safety incidents within set timeframes, with penalties that can reach $1 million per violation.

What it means for tech companies: SB 53 is a documentation-and-disclosure regime. Companies covered by the thresholds will need internal risk governance, incident reporting pathways, and a way to reconcile what is published publicly with what is sensitive from a security perspective. How aggressively the law shapes behavior may depend on enforcement resources and how often the state receives incident reports.

AB 489: AI chatbots can’t pose as licensed professionals

What changed: AB 489 prohibits AI chatbots from presenting themselves as doctors, nurses, or other licensed professionals, according to the governor’s office summary.

What it means for consumers: The goal is to reduce misrepresentation in settings where users might treat chatbot outputs as professional advice. The law fits into a broader national debate about how to label automated systems so that users understand they are interacting with software, not a credentialed human being.

What it means for platforms: Companies offering health-adjacent chatbots may need clearer disclosures, branding changes, and safeguards that prevent interfaces from implying credentials. For services that partner with health systems, the compliance focus may be on user-facing representations and marketing claims as much as underlying functionality.

SB 243: Added safeguards for minors using AI chatbots

What changed: SB 243 requires AI companies to include disclaimers that chatbots are not real people when used by minors and to implement safety protocols aimed at preventing chatbots from encouraging self-harm, according to the governor’s office summary.

What it means for families and schools: The law aims to reduce the risk that minors treat AI companion-style interactions as a substitute for real-world support during crises. In practice, the “how” may matter as much as the “what”: how platforms detect minors, how warnings are delivered, and how safety interventions work when conversations reference self-harm.

What it means for AI companion providers: SB 243 points toward higher liability and documentation expectations for services that market emotional or social companionship features. Reuters has reported that states, including California, are moving first on regulating AI companion systems, raising questions about enforcement, private litigation, and the possibility of future federal standards.

AB 250: A temporary filing window for certain workplace sexual assault cover-up claims

What changed: AB 250 temporarily lifts the statute of limitations for adult survivors bringing certain civil claims tied to alleged workplace-related sexual assault cover-ups. The filing window runs from January 1, 2026, through December 21, 2027, according to the governor’s office summary.

What it means for potential plaintiffs and defendants: A revival window can quickly change the litigation landscape, as previously time-barred cases can be filed during the window. For businesses and institutions, the practical effect can include renewed demands for record retention, insurance coverage reviews, and internal investigations into historic allegations.

SB 642: Expanded equal pay enforcement and longer time to bring claims

What changed: SB 642 expands California’s equal pay framework by broadening key definitions, extending the statute of limitations to three years, allowing recovery for up to six years, and clarifying categories of unlawful pay practices, according to the governor’s office summary.

What it means for workers: Longer timelines can matter in pay equity disputes, where employees often learn about disparities over time rather than immediately. Broader definitions can also affect what evidence is relevant and how employers justify pay differences.

What it means for employers: Employers may face stronger incentives to document pay decisions, standardize compensation bands, and evaluate job classifications. The law’s practical impact will likely be felt in HR audits, wage-and-hour litigation, and administrative enforcement actions.

AB 727 and AB 1264: New school requirements on ID cards and food standards

What changed: AB 727 requires student ID cards at public middle schools, high schools, and public colleges/universities to include a 24/7 Trevor Project hotline and related resources, according to the governor’s office summary. AB 1264, described by the governor’s office as a first-in-the-nation measure, aims to remove certain ultra-processed foods from public school meals.

What it means for schools and parents: These are operational mandates that will show up in procurement and policy, from student ID redesigns to cafeteria menu planning. They also reflect a broader legislative trend of using schools as a primary point of intervention for youth mental health and nutrition policy.