← California State Legislature · All bills
AB 1524
Courts: fees.
Assembly · Taxes and budget
What this bill does
This bill would require court records maintained in electronic form to be viewable at the court and be available for duplication at a cost, as specified. The bill would allow a member of the public to request to view or duplicate accessible records, on the premises of the court and with the requester's equipment in a manner that does not make physical contact with the record, without being charged any fees or costs to reproduce the record, unless reproduction would result in, among other things, damage to the record or unauthorized access to the court's computer systems or networks, as specified. …
Read the full official summary
Existing law, the Uniform Civil Fees and Standard Fee Schedule Act of 2005, establishes a set fee schedule for courts to implement for, among other things, filings, service, and changes of venue.
Existing law authorizes the court to charge a reasonable fee that does not exceed the costs of providing the service or product, if the Judicial Council approves the fee, as specified.
The bill would instead prohibit the court from charging a fee that exceeds the cost to the court of providing the service or product. The bill would require any fee not explicitly authorized by statute or rule to be approved by the Judicial Council. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by December 1, 2027, to report to the Legislature, as specified, regarding each fee charged by a superior court in the 2026–27 fiscal year for which the revenue collected by and distributed to the court as a result of the fee exceeds the court's cost of providing the service or product. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, by December 1, 2028, and December 1, 2029, to report certain data to the Legislature, as specified, regarding the 2027–28 and 2028–29 fiscal years, respectively.
Existing law authorizes trial court records to be created, maintained, and preserved in any form of communication or representation, including paper, optical, electronic, magnetic, micrographic, or photographic media or other technology. Existing law requires those court records be made reasonably accessible to the public for viewing and duplication, with a reasonable provision controlling for the costs of duplication, as specified.
This bill would require court records maintained in electronic form to be viewable at the court and be available for duplication at a cost, as specified. The bill would allow a member of the public to request to view or duplicate accessible records, on the premises of the court and with the requester's equipment in a manner that does not make physical contact with the record, without being charged any fees or costs to reproduce the record, unless reproduction would result in, among other things, damage to the record or unauthorized access to the court's computer systems or networks, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to impose reasonable limits on the use of the requester's equipment that are necessary to protect the safety of the records or prevent the copying of the records from being an unreasonable burden, as specified.
Official summary from the Legislative Counsel’s office, via OpenStates.
Floor votes (2)
June 3, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 79 yes · 0 no
Yes (79): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, Juan Alanis, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Tasha Boerner, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Lisa Calderon, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Leticia Castillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Phillip Chen, Damon Connolly, Laurie Davies, Carl DeMaio, Diane Dixon, Sade Elhawary, Stan Ellis, Heath Flora, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, James Gallagher, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Heather Hadwick, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Gregg Hart, Joshua Hoover, Jacqui Irwin, Corey Jackson, Jeff Gonzalez, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Tom Lackey, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Ali Macedo, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Al Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Liz Ortega, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Darsh Patel, Joe Patterson, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Kate Sanchez, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Tri Ta, David Tangipa, Avelino Valencia, Greg Wallis, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Rick Zbur, Anamarie Ávila Farías
Official motion wording
AB 1524 Judiciary Assembly Third Reading By KALRA
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 13, 2025 — Concurrence vote
Passed · 79 yes · 0 no · 1 other
Yes (79): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, Juan Alanis, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Tasha Boerner, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Lisa Calderon, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Leticia Castillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Phillip Chen, Damon Connolly, Laurie Davies, Carl DeMaio, Diane Dixon, Sade Elhawary, Stan Ellis, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, James Gallagher, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Heather Hadwick, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Gregg Hart, Joshua Hoover, Jacqui Irwin, Corey Jackson, Jeff Gonzalez, Natasha Johnson, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Tom Lackey, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Ali Macedo, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Al Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Liz Ortega, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Darsh Patel, Joe Patterson, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Kate Sanchez, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Tri Ta, David Tangipa, Avelino Valencia, Greg Wallis, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Rick Zbur, Anamarie Ávila Farías
Other / no vote recorded (1): Heath Flora
Official motion wording
AB 1524 JUD. Concurrence in Senate Amendments By KALRA
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov