Overview:
Here are some of the most noteworthy 2025 laws that go into effect on Jan. 1.
Cannabis cafes and expanded outdoor drinking? An end to a banking fee? More protections for your credit score if you face medical debt? These are among the roughly 1,000 new laws hitting California starting the first day of 2025.
If that sounds like a lot, it could have been much more: California lawmakers introduced nearly 5,000 bills in the most recent legislative session ending this fall, a two-year period that saw nearly half die without a single vote.
In all, lawmakers passed about 1,200 bills in 2024 and Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed 200 of those. And that’s the bureaucratic funnel in a nutshell.
Most of these incoming laws are technical, fix previous laws or are narrow in scope. But there are some that affect lots of Californians, or are just plain interesting.
There are the consumer finance protection laws, numerous education-related laws — including one to expand alcohol education that was written by a former lawmaker arrested for a DUI — as well as a law banning local voter ID rules and another granting a few more days to fight an eviction. Paris Hilton makes a cameo, too.
Here are some of the noteworthy laws taking effect Jan. 1.
Cannabis cafes and entertainment zones
Starting Jan. 1, alcohol and cannabis sales could expand in some parts of California thanks to two new laws that aim to increase central city foot traffic, which has yet to fully recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Senate Bill 969, authored by state Sen. Scott Weiner, will let local governments designate “entertainment zones,” where bars and restaurants can sell alcoholic beverages for people to drink on public streets and sidewalks.
Some organizations, such as the California Alcohol Policy Alliance, oppose SB 969 because it could contribute to drunk driving accidents and increased alcohol mortality rates.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a similar bill in 2022, but it was limited to San Francisco. In September, the city experimented with an entertainment zone for Oktoberfest and reported at least 10 times more foot traffic than the 2023 celebration.
“Getting people out in the streets to enjoy themselves is critical for communities across our state to bounce back from the pandemic,” Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, said in a statement.
Anti-union meetings
In the new year, California employers won’t be able to require workers to attend any meetings related to their political or religious views — or how their bosses feel about unions.
That’s according to a new law, Senate Bill 399, that is one of the most prominent of the usual wave of new workplace laws businesses are expected to follow each year.
The legislation came as the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority sought to support a rising wave of unionization across California and the nation.
The law bans mandatory workplace meetings in which the employer discusses their “opinion about religious or political matters,” the latter of which is defined to include the decision on whether to join a union. Workers cannot be disciplined for refusing to attend such a meeting under SB 399.
Troubled teens gain protections
Hundreds of state-licensed residential treatment centers for children and youth up to age 21 operating in California will have to comply with a new law that brings greater transparency — particularly when they use restraints and seclusion rooms.
After restraining a youth, or putting them in a seclusion room, the facility is required to provide a report to both the youth and to their parent or guardian. The report must include a description of the incident; which staff members were involved; the rationale behind their actions; how long the incident lasted; and other details.
A copy of the report must be provided to the California Department of Social Services within seven days. The department is required to review reported incidents for any health and safety violations and, if needed, investigate the incident.
Another provision of the law, requiring the department to make data about these incidents publicly available on its website, doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2026. Then, parents or guardians weighing the difficult decision to send their children to these facilities can access information about any potential misuse of restraints and seclusion rooms.
One of the most widely-recognized champions of the bipartisan measure as it advanced through the Legislature was Paris Hilton. In April, the hotel heiress, socialite and media personality visited the state Capitol to advocate on behalf of the legislation, and recount the physical and emotional abuse she experienced while living at youth treatment centers in California and other states.
A vocal critic of the “troubled teen industry,” Hilton praised the passage of the law in August.
“For too long, these facilities have operated without adequate oversight, leaving vulnerable youth at risk,” Hilton said in a statement. “I hope our state is the standard for transparency and accountability in these facilities moving forward.”
California’s lemon law is changing
The year 2025 is shaping up to be a confusing one for Californians unlucky enough to buy a new or used car that turns out to be a clunker.
Starting Jan. 1, car buyers who purchase a faulty vehicle will have to navigate a new version of California’s “lemon law” that for five decades has given consumers the right to demand car companies fix or replace defective vehicles they sell.
That is, unless lawmakers quickly pass a law that allows some of the car companies to opt out of the new requirements.
The confusion stems from a law Gov. Gavin Newsom reluctantly signed in late September, after the bill was hastily jammed through the Legislature in the waning days of the session following secret negotiations between lobbyists.
Newsom said it was important to address the problem of California’s courts getting clogged with lemon law cases, even as critics said the bill significantly watered down consumer protections.
But Newsom said he signed it only after lawmakers said they’d introduce legislation next year to make the reforms voluntary for automakers.
Lawmakers have already introduced legislation they say meets Newsom’s demands. It’s now anyone’s guess how long it will take the bill to make it through the Senate and the Assembly and get Newsom’s signature. Meanwhile, portions of the new lemon law take effect Jan. 1; others in April.
Adding to the confusion, a month after Newsom signed the new lemon bill, Assembly Bill 1755, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s lemon law doesn’t require manufacturers to honor a car’s warranty when it’s re-sold as a used vehicle. Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, courts had interpreted the lemon law to require manufacturers to replace or repair a defective used car or truck if the clunker was sold within the window of its original new-vehicle warranty.
The justices said that if Californians have a problem with how they’ve interpreted the statute, state lawmakers are welcome to write a new bill.
Tenants facing eviction could stay longer in their homes
Tenant advocates suffered a big defeat this fall when California voters decided against expanding cities’ ability to limit rent increases. But a state law set to take effect Jan. 1 will give renters facing eviction a little more breathing room.
The law doubles the time tenants have to respond after receiving an eviction notice from five business days to 10. Lawyers who work with renters say that what may seem like a minor procedural change could make a big difference in allowing people to stay in their homes.
Tenants who are served an eviction notice and don’t respond in writing within the legal timeframe can lose their case by default, potentially incurring financial penalties and a black mark on their record that affects their future ability to obtain housing. That’s true even if a tenant has a valid legal defense — for example, if their landlord increased the rent above state limits or refused to fix problems like lack of heat or broken door locks. About 40% of California tenants lose their cases this way, researchers have estimated.
“Five days has never been enough for a tenant to find legal assistance and try to decipher the complaint filed against them, find out what kind of defenses they have, fill out the paperwork and make it to court,” Lorraine López, a senior attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, told CalMatters earlier this fall.
Teachers can’t be forced to ‘out’ LGBTQ students
Amid a flurry of recent school board policies aimed at the rights of transgender students, California passed a new law in July that prevents schools from requiring staff to notify parents if a student identifies as LGBTQ.
The new law, AB 1955, came in response to a handful of school boards adopting policies that require teachers and other school staff to notify parents if a student identifies as a gender other than what’s on their school records.
“Teachers can still talk to their parents,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a press conference on Monday in which he touted a new plan to improve career opportunities for adults. “What they can’t do is fire a teacher for not being a snitch. I don’t think teachers should be gender police.”
LGBTQ advocates said that “forced outing” policies, such as those adopted in Chino, Temecula and a dozen other districts, infringe on students’ privacy and could potentially harm students whose parents disapprove of their identity.
Voter ID ban
California has become the latest battleground over voter identification requirements, a longtime conservative priority newly propelled in recent years by election fraud complaints from President-elect Donald Trump.
Under a state law that takes effect on Jan. 1, local governments across California will be prohibited from compelling voters to present identification to cast a ballot in an election.
Dave Min, an Irvine Democrat just elected to Congress, took up the ban this year as a state senator after Huntington Beach voters in March adopted a charter amendment allowing the city to require ID in its municipal elections. That measure — which takes effect in 2026, and also grants the city authority to add more in-person voting locations and monitor ballot drop-boxes — was part of a broader push by local leaders to make Huntington Beach a bulwark of resistance against California’s liberal governance.
Supporters believe that mandatory voter identification, a popular policy in Republican states, can address growing public concerns about election integrity following Trump’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. But other than when new voters register, Democrats in California have resisted ID requirements, which they argue disenfranchise young, low-income, disabled and nonwhite voters without providing any real benefit because there is not widespread election fraud.
State officials contend that requiring voter ID is already illegal in California because of a provision in the election code that prohibits “mass, indiscriminate, and groundless challenging of voters solely for the purpose of preventing voters from voting.” Lawmakers passed the ban this summer anyway — which Min said would clarify any potential ambiguities around elections where only local issues are on the ballot — part of a string of bills to crack down on local conservative rebellions.
No fines for declined ATM withdrawals
Californians who try to withdraw money but don’t have enough in their bank accounts won’t fall deeper into a financial hole from having to pay a fine, thanks to a new state law.
The law covers instances in which banks charge customers when their withdrawals are declined instantaneously, such as at ATMs, because of insufficient funds. It takes effect Jan. 1.
Assembly Bill 2017 applies to banks and credit unions that are regulated by the state; Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it in September. The bill was backed by several consumer advocacy groups, including the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition and East Bay Community Law Center, which called penalties for insufficient funds “junk fees” and said getting rid of them will protect financially vulnerable consumers.
Medical debt and your credit score
Everyday people across the country skip medical care because of cost. Those who do seek medical help may end up with a balance they can’t pay off. That debt can hurt people’s credit scores, resulting in long-term financial burdens.
Starting Jan. 1, a new state law will prohibit health providers and debt collectors from reporting medical debt information to credit agencies. That means unpaid medical bills should no longer show up on people’s credit reports, which consumer advocacy groups say is a boon for patients with debt.
Here’s why: While the law will not forgive someone’s debt, by keeping it off credit reports, it might provide some reassurance that a hospital stay or trip to urgent care won’t later affect their credit standing. Lower credit scores usually result in higher interest rates and make it harder for people to qualify for a home rental, a car loan or even employment.
During legislative hearings, the law’s author, Sen. Monique Limón, a Democrat from Santa Barbara, contended that because people don’t choose to have a medical emergency or illness, this type of debt should not count against them. Supporters also argued that medical debt is more prone to inaccuracies because of billing mistakes by health providers and insurers.
The main three credit bureaus – TransUnion, Equifax and Experian — stopped reporting medical debt under $500 in 2023. But most people with medical debt owe far more than that.
Stiffer penalties for theft
Californians accused of certain drug and retail theft crimes may already be facing stiffer penalties under an initiative voters passed this year, alongside related bills Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law.
Voters this November overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, which both modifies and adds key changes to California law.
That includes prosecutors being able to charge people convicted of various third-time drug offenses with a so-called treatment-mandated felony, which would direct them to substance use disorder or mental health treatment in lieu of up to three years in jail or prison.
Under the new law, courts are also obligated to warn people convicted of selling or providing certain drugs, such as fentanyl, that they could face murder charges for later distributing illegal drugs that kill someone.
And heavier consequences may also extend to petty theft and shoplifting offenses, including the possibility of up to three years in jail or prison if a person has already been twice convicted for certain theft offenses.