Our five proposals, in detail

The limits every proposal must respect

Two rules shape everything below, and no California law can change either one.

• Section 230. Federal law says a website or search engine is not treated as the publisher of what its users post, and it blocks any state law inconsistent with that rule (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) and (e)(3)). A state cannot make Google or a host liable for a user's false post, and in Hassell v. Bird (2018) 5 Cal.5th 522 the California Supreme Court held that a court order against the author could not be enforced against Yelp, which was not a party. So our proposals act on the author of a post. Websites and search engines can choose to honor a ruling; they cannot be forced to.
• The First Amendment. Opinion and true statements are protected. A court can order someone not to repeat specific statements only after those statements have been found defamatory at trial, and the order must be narrow (Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1141). Anything that removes speech before a full hearing raises serious prior restraint problems. Our proposals are written so no remedy comes before a final decision.

Proposal 1. A fast, low cost ruling on whether a statement is false

Current law

A person named in a false post can sue the author for defamation. That case can take years and cost far more than most people can afford, and it often draws an anti SLAPP motion (see Proposal 4). Many hosts and search engines will look at a court order before acting on a defamation complaint, but for most people that order is out of reach. Our guide on why winning a defamation case does not remove the post explains the gap.

Our proposal

A streamlined court proceeding that answers one question: is this exact statement a false statement of fact about the petitioner, and defamatory? There would be no money damages, which keeps the case smaller and faster. The draft includes:

• A sworn petition that quotes the exact statement and where it appears, signed under penalty of perjury.
• The petitioner must prove falsity by clear and convincing evidence, a higher bar than an ordinary civil case. Opinion, hyperbole and true statements cannot qualify.
• A real hearing where the author can respond, present evidence and appeal.
• If the statement is found false and defamatory, a narrow order that the author remove or correct that statement only, consistent with Balboa Island, plus a certified copy that anyone can verify.
• Penalties for fraudulent petitions and forged orders, which have been used to trick search engines in the past.

The hard part: an author who cannot be found or served

A ruling is only credible if the other side had a real chance to be heard. Due process requires notice "reasonably calculated" to reach the person (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306). Here is how California handles a defendant who is hard to find today:

• Anonymous authors. A plaintiff can sue a "Doe" defendant (Code Civ. Proc. § 474) and ask the court to let them subpoena the website for identifying information, but only after showing a prima facie case (Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154). Sites often hold little more than an email address or IP address, and many are hosted outside the United States.
• Service by court order. Since January 1, 2026, Code Civ. Proc. § 413.30 lets a court, on motion, order service by a method reasonably calculated to give actual notice, including email, but only after the plaintiff describes every attempt at ordinary service and why each failed. Service through social media messages is not settled; a published Court of Appeal decision rejected it, in a civil harassment restraining order case, before that amendment (Searles v. Archangel (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 43). Service by publication in a newspaper (§ 415.50) rarely reaches anyone in practice.
• Defaults. If a served defendant never responds, the court can enter a default judgment. A defendant who never actually learned of the case can ask to set it aside (§ 473.5).

Critics have warned us, fairly, that one sided proceedings are not credible on fact specific questions. Courts and commentators have raised the same concern about mass lawsuits where defendants are served only by email and judgments are entered by default. So our draft adds these limits on top of current law:

• No ruling on a petition unless the court first finds the author was actually served, or was given notice by a court ordered method after a documented, diligent search.
• If the author never appears, the petitioner must still prove falsity with evidence at a hearing. A default alone is never enough.
• Any ruling entered without the author is labeled on its face as uncontested, so websites and search engines can weigh it accordingly.
• The author can reopen an uncontested ruling and be heard on the merits.

Open questions

We have not solved the case where an author cannot be identified at all, for example a site hosted abroad that keeps no records. We do not think a court should rule against someone it has no realistic way to reach, and we will not pretend this proposal fixes that case. We are also still studying whether a proceeding with no damages would draw anti SLAPP motions, and how to keep filing fees low without inviting abuse.

Proposal 2. No paying to remove damaging posts about private people

Current law

California already bans one version of this business. A person or site that publishes booking photos may not charge a fee to remove them, and a person who is charged can sue for $1,000 per violation plus attorney fees (Civ. Code § 1798.91.1). Extortion law can also apply. In People v. Bollaert (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 699, the operator of a site that posted intimate images with victims' names, and who also ran a second site that charged victims for removal, was convicted of extortion. But extortion requires proving a threat, and that is much harder when the publishing site and the removal service really are run by different people.

Our proposal

A narrow civil rule aimed at the business model, not at publishing. It would cover a site that publishes damaging claims about a private individual and then asks that person for money to remove, hide or bury them, directly or through a partner, affiliate or referral arrangement. The draft would:

• Apply only to payments demanded from the person named, or someone acting for them, in exchange for removing or suppressing content about that person.
• Exclude subscriptions, paywalls, advertising, licensing and ordinary editorial decisions, and leave news organizations' correction policies alone.
• Give the person named a civil claim for the money paid, plus damages and attorney fees, and let public prosecutors enforce it.

Open questions

We are researching how other states wrote their booking photo laws and which ones reach other kinds of content, and how to define a "partner" arrangement precisely enough that legitimate reputation services are not swept in.

Proposal 3. A clear path to identify anonymous attackers

Current law

Anonymous speech is protected, but not absolutely. California courts let a plaintiff learn a poster's identity only after making a prima facie showing of a real claim, and the poster can move to quash the subpoena (Krinsky v. Doe 6; Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1). Courts in other states use similar tests, such as Dendrite International v. Doe No. 3 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) and Doe v. Cahill (Del. 2005). California also lets an anonymous speaker recover fees for quashing certain subpoenas tied to out of state cases (§ 1987.2(c)). The test is sound. The problem is that the path is slow, expensive and unclear for people without a lawyer. Our unmasking guide walks through it.

Our proposal

Write the existing judicial test into a defined statutory procedure: a standard form petition, required notice to the anonymous poster through the website so they can respond, a set timeline for the website to answer, a court decision under the Krinsky standard, and limits on how the identity can be used if disclosed. It would cover actionable defamation, true threats and unlawful harassment. Speech that is merely critical or unwelcome would not qualify.

Open questions

How to handle sites outside the United States, and whether identities disclosed under the procedure should stay sealed until a later ruling.

Proposal 4. Anti SLAPP fairness for private people with good faith claims

Current law

California's anti SLAPP law lets a defendant ask the court to dismiss a lawsuit early when it arises from speech on a public issue, unless the plaintiff shows a probability of winning. A defendant who wins the motion is entitled to attorney fees; a plaintiff recovers fees only if the motion was frivolous or meant to delay (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1)). Some exemptions already exist (§ 425.17). The law protects speech, which is why we support it. A growing number of states have adopted anti SLAPP laws based on the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which also makes fees mandatory for a defendant who wins. Our anti SLAPP guide explains how this plays out for victims.

Our proposal

Keep the motion and the fee award exactly as they are for speech on public issues and for any suit meant to silence criticism. Narrow one situation: a private individual, not a public figure or a business suing over reviews, who brings a claim in good faith over a statement of fact about their private life and loses the motion on a close question. In that case the court would have discretion to reduce the fee award, rather than being required to award full fees. The goal is that the risk of a large fee bill does not stop real victims from going to court at all.

Open questions

Free speech groups will reasonably worry that any change invites abuse. We want their criticism before this goes further, and we are studying how courts decide "good faith" and "private figure" today so the test does not become a loophole.

Proposal 5. Doxxing that leads to threats and stalking

Current law

California makes it a crime to post someone's personal identifying information online with intent to place them in reasonable fear for their safety, by a message that incites others to harass them (Pen. Code § 653.2). It is a misdemeanor. Since January 1, 2025, victims can also sue the person who doxed them under Civ. Code § 1708.89, added by AB 1979 (2024), for damages including statutory damages of $1,500 to $30,000, punitive damages, attorney fees and an injunction, and can file under a pseudonym. But that claim copies the criminal law's intent standard: the poster must have meant to put the victim in fear and to cause imminent harm or harassment by someone else, which is hard to prove. Victims can also sue for stalking (Civ. Code § 1708.7) or seek a civil harassment restraining order, and federal law covers cyberstalking across state lines (18 U.S.C. § 2261A). Oregon and Washington have civil doxxing claims with broader intent standards (ORS 30.835). See our doxxing guide.

Our proposal

Amend Civil Code § 1708.89 so the claim is usable: cover publishing someone's home address, phone number, workplace or family details without consent with intent, or knowledge, that it will be used to stalk, harass or injure them, as Oregon and Washington do (RCW 4.24.792), instead of requiring proof of imminent harm by a third party. Adopt Washington's rule that information being available somewhere else is not a defense, and state a clear filing deadline. We also support plain language court materials so victims know the claim exists, and training so the criminal law is actually used.

The amended claim would not reach reporting on matters of public concern, information about public officials' public duties, lawful public records used for legitimate purposes, or publication without intent to cause harm. The line we are drawing is between exposing someone so others will hurt them, and reporting facts the public has a real interest in.

Open questions

How to prove intent without chilling journalists, and how a civil claim should work alongside California's existing protections for people in the Safe at Home address confidentiality program.

What happens next

These drafts will change. We are asking legal scholars, free speech groups and victim advocates to find what is wrong with them, and we track where each one stands on our legislative tracker. If a legislator agrees to carry a bill, the actual bill language would be written by California's Office of Legislative Counsel. Until then, none of this is law.