Statutory route from abusive services to knowing facilitators
AB 621 / Civil Code 1708.86
California AB 621 became Chapter 673 of the 2025 statutes, amending Civil Code section 1708.86. Approved and filed on 13 October 2025 and effective 1 January 2026, it expands civil-law mechanisms concerning prohibited sexually explicit deepfakes and certain enabling services.
Liability and notice mechanics
Section 1708.86(b)(3) covers knowing facilitation or reckless aiding and abetting within the statutory scope. A depicted individual or public prosecutor can provide specified evidence and service information through the designated process. Failure to take necessary cessation steps within thirty days after receipt creates a presumption, subject to an investigation extension; notice itself is not adjudication. Prosecutors may seek injunctions and civil penalties of $25,000 per violation or $50,000 for malicious violations. Those are available remedies, not assessed amounts.
establishes a receipt-based conditional presumption
Effective-date anchor, not receipt of any particular notice or expiration of the legal mechanism.
A depicted individual/public prosecutor must supply sufficient evidence of enabling an ongoing violating service, name it, generally describe enabling services and supply contact details; use prominently displayed designated process if present. Failure to take necessary cessation steps within 30 days after receipt supplies the presumption; a court may extend for investigation. No automatic adjudication or universal30-day immunity.
AB 621 / Civil Code 1708.86 → Public prosecutors under 1708.86
authorizes civil enforcement and court-awarded remedies
Effective-date anchor; actual judgment and quantum require their own record.
Public prosecutors may seek injunction/equitable relief, USD 25,000 per violation or USD 50,000 malicious violation, reasonable fees and other court relief without proof of actual harm to the depicted individual. These are remedy conditions, not assessed or received money. Private claimant damages are a different menu.
San Francisco City Attorney’s Office → AB 621 / Civil Code 1708.86
supplied litigation-based rationale for facilitator liability
2025-03-18 – 2025-03-18
Committee staff connects the office’s2024 case and difficulty reaching overseas/fictitious operators to expansion toward enablers, expressly including payment processors. This is a published design rationale, not a recipient-specific liability finding or motive about revenue.
AB 621 / Civil Code 1708.86 → Enabling-service providers — statutory class
creates conditional civil exposure for specified facilitation
Effective date; not a finding that a particular provider violated the statute. Duties are not represented as ending on this date.
CIV 1708.86(b)(3) covers knowing facilitation or reckless aiding/abetting of prohibited creation/disclosure. Service primary purpose, underlying conduct and statutory/federal/ISP exceptions matter. It does not designate every host, app store, bank or AI service.
David Chiu — San Francisco City Attorney → AB 621 / Civil Code 1708.86
was identified as sponsor of
2025-03-18 – 2025-03-18
March 18 committee analysis identifies Chiu as sponsor and reproduces his case for facilitator liability, explicit prosecutor standing and larger penalties. No private drafting contract or undisclosed direction established.
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan — AB 621 author → AB 621 / Civil Code 1708.86
authored and offered primary-purpose clarification for
2025-03-18 – 2025-03-18
Official analysis identifies the author and describes her proposed clarification. The proposed redline is not proof of adoption on March 24; later wording timing is unestablished.
March 18 committee analysis identifies Chiu as sponsor and reproduces his case for facilitator liability, explicit prosecutor standing and larger penalties. No private drafting contract or undisclosed direction established.
Official analysis identifies the author and describes her proposed clarification. The proposed redline is not proof of adoption on March 24; later wording timing is unestablished.
Committee staff connects the office’s2024 case and difficulty reaching overseas/fictitious operators to expansion toward enablers, expressly including payment processors. This is a published design rationale, not a recipient-specific liability finding or motive about revenue.
Effective date; not a finding that a particular provider violated the statute. Duties are not represented as ending on this date.
CIV 1708.86(b)(3) covers knowing facilitation or reckless aiding/abetting of prohibited creation/disclosure. Service primary purpose, underlying conduct and statutory/federal/ISP exceptions matter. It does not designate every host, app store, bank or AI service.
Effective-date anchor, not receipt of any particular notice or expiration of the legal mechanism.
A depicted individual/public prosecutor must supply sufficient evidence of enabling an ongoing violating service, name it, generally describe enabling services and supply contact details; use prominently displayed designated process if present. Failure to take necessary cessation steps within 30 days after receipt supplies the presumption; a court may extend for investigation. No automatic adjudication or universal30-day immunity.
Effective-date anchor; actual judgment and quantum require their own record.
Public prosecutors may seek injunction/equitable relief, USD 25,000 per violation or USD 50,000 malicious violation, reasonable fees and other court relief without proof of actual harm to the depicted individual. These are remedy conditions, not assessed or received money. Private claimant damages are a different menu.