California Bill AB 1821 Would Add Fees and Court-Based Delays to Public Records Requests

California’s Assembly Bill 1821 (AB 1821) has moved from the Assembly to the state Senate after lawmakers approved a version that adds new fees and a court‑based “malicious intent” provision to the California Public Records Act (PRA). The bill would allow state and local agencies to charge $22.35 per hour for administrative work and $66.26 per hour for professional services when responding to a public records request. Fees would be adjusted for cost‑of‑living increases.

AB 1821 also gives agencies the option to ask a court to determine whether a requester has “malicious intent.” If a court finds intent, the request can be put on hold until the court decides. The measure does not authorize punitive damages, penalties, or damages actions against requesters.

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D‑64th district). Pacheco’s office says the changes target “commercial requesters” who use records for profit, such as data brokers, and not journalists or educators. The bill’s supporters argue that it will help small government entities—particularly counties and cities—manage large, vexatious requests that strain staff.

A key example cited by Pacheco’s office is a 2021–2022 case in El Dorado County. The county faced a request for more than 42,000 records across four email domains. The requester was unable to narrow the request, and the county had to seek court assistance. Pacheco says the malicious‑intent provision would address such situations.

Opponents, including the First Amendment Coalition, have criticized the bill as a direct attack on transparency. The coalition’s executive director, David Snyder, said the new language “would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability.” Snyder also warned that the fee structure could “chill” general access to government information.

The California Public Records Act, enacted in 1968 and codified as Division 10 of Title 1 of the California Government Code, requires that public agencies disclose records unless exempted by law. The act has historically limited fees to copying costs. AB 1821 would be the first state law to allow agencies to charge for staff time.

The bill’s “malicious intent” clause is a point of contention. Critics note that California law has long prohibited agencies from suing record requesters. The new provision would be the first to allow a court to determine intent and potentially delay requests.

Supporters argue the clause is a safeguard. Graham Knaus, CEO of the California State Association of Counties, said the court determination would only be used in rare cases and would leave the decision to an impartial judge rather than the agency.

The bill’s passage in the Assembly was followed by a vote in the state Senate. Lawmakers have until the end of August to send the bill to Governor Gavin Newsom. If signed, AB 1821 would amend the PRA and could affect how residents, journalists, and businesses access public information.

The debate reflects a broader national conversation about open government. The California Public Records Act has been a model for transparency laws across the United States. Any change to the act is closely watched by advocacy groups, media organizations, and public officials.

At this time, the bill’s final language has not yet been adopted by the Senate. Stakeholders are monitoring the process closely, as the outcome will determine whether California agencies can impose higher fees and seek court action against record requesters.

The next steps for AB 1821 will involve Senate committee hearings, public comment periods, and a possible floor vote. The outcome will shape the balance between government efficiency and public access to information in California.