On September 26, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 45 (AB-45), which amends existing law to strengthen privacy protections for the personal information of individuals receiving or providing health care services, including reproductive health care. AB-45 restricts the processing of personal information collected within the precise geolocation of family planning centers and in-person health care facilities. The law also regulates geofencing practices and sets new standards for the protection of research records related to individuals receiving health care services. Notably, AB-45 provides for a limited private right of action for individuals aggrieved by certain violations of the law. The law will take effect on January 1, 2026.
Key requirements of AB-45 include:
- New Definitions/Expanded Scope of Application:
- AB-45 extends the scope of existing law to apply to any “person” (i.e., natural person, association, proprietorship, corporation, trust, foundation, partnership or any other organization or group) engaging in the restricted or prohibited activities set forth in the law (the law previously applied only to “businesses,” as the term is defined under the CCPA).
- AB-45 uses the CCPA’s definitions of “sale,” “personal information,” and “precise geolocation” (but broadens these definitions to apply to all “persons,” not only “consumers” or “businesses,” as these terms are defined in the CCPA).
- “Collection” is broadly defined to mean “buying, renting, gathering, obtaining, receiving, or accessing any personal information pertaining to a natural person by any means. This includes receiving information from the natural person, either actively or passively, or by observing the natural person’s behavior.”
- “Family planning center” means “a facility categorized as a family planning center by the North American Industry Classification System . . . including, but not limited to, a clinic or center that provides reproductive health care services.”
- “Geofence” means “any technology that enables spatial or location detection to establish a virtual boundary around, and detect an individual’s presence within, a ‘precise geolocation’ as defined in [the CCPA].”
- “Share”: The definition of “share” is broader than the CCPA’s definition, and means “sharing, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a natural person’s personal information by another person to a third party, whether or not for monetary or other valuable consideration.”
- Strict Limits on Processing of Personal Information Collected Near Family Planning Centers. AB-45 prohibits the collection, use, disclosure, sale, sharing or retention of personal information of any individual at or within a precise geolocation of a family planning center, unless it is necessary to provide the goods or services explicitly requested by the individual (or as otherwise provided by law or in a collective bargaining agreement).
- Private Right of Action: Individuals and entities aggrieved by a violation of these provisions can sue for damages up to three times the actual damages and any other expenses, costs or reasonable attorneys’ fees.
- Exemptions: Providers of health care, health care service plans and contractors (as defined in Cal. Civ. Code Sect. 56.05) and HIPAA covered entities and business associates are exempted from coverage. (With respect to contractors and business associates, the exemption applies only if such entities are contractually obligated to comply with all applicable state and federal privacy laws.)
- Prohibition on Geofencing Health Care Facilities. AB-45 prohibits the use of geofencing technology around in-person health care facilities for the purpose of tracking, identifying, collecting personal information from, or sending targeted ads or notifications to, persons seeking, receiving or providing health care services. The law further makes it unlawful to sell personal information to, or share personal information with, third parties for the above-listed prohibited purposes. The law also prohibits the use of personal information obtained in violation of these prohibitions.
- Exemptions: The law does not prohibit an in-person health care facility from geofencing the facility’s own location to provide necessary health care services, nor does it prohibit a reproductive health care provider from using geofencing technology to provide security to protect patients, staff or property. The law also exempts lawful warrants and subpoenas, certain matters regarding labor union activities, and certain research conducted pursuant to federal law.
- Protection of Research Records. The law prohibits the release of personally identifiable research records of individuals seeking or obtaining health care services in response to subpoenas or requests made pursuant to other states’ laws that interfere with a person’s rights under the California Reproductive Privacy Act or a foreign penal civil action.
- Penalty for Noncompliance. In addition to the law’s limited private right of action, the California Attorney General is empowered to enforce the law. Violations may result in injunctive relief and a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation. Penalties fund the California Reproductive Justice and Freedom Fund, which supports reproductive and sexual health education initiatives.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- Age Appropriate Design Code
- Age Verification
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Audit
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Consumer Rights
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Breach
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Protection Officer
- Data Security
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Deceptive Trade Practices
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Defense
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Design
- Digital Markets Act
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DORA
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Electronic Protected Health Information
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- Financial Data
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Geolocation Data
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- HIPAA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Large Language Model
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Louisiana
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Michigan
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Mobile
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OCPA
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Online Privacy
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Notice
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Profiling
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk Assessment
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Salesforce
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Sensitive Data
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- States Attorney General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code