California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1798.84 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Any waiver of a provision of this title is contrary to public policy and is void and unenforceable.

(b)Any customer injured by a violation of this title may institute a civil action to recover damages.

(c)In addition, for a willful, intentional, or reckless violation of Section 1798.83, a customer may recover a civil penalty not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) per violation; otherwise, the customer may recover a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars ($500) per violation for a violation of Section 1798.83.

(d)Unless the violation is willful, intentional, or reckless, a business that is alleged to have not provided all the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 1798.83, to have provided inaccurate information, failed to provide any of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 1798.83, or failed to provide information in the time period required by subdivision (b) of Section 1798.83, may assert as a complete defense in any action in law or equity that it thereafter provided regarding the information that was alleged to be untimely, all the information, or accurate information, to all customers who were provided incomplete or inaccurate information, respectively, within 90 days of the date the business knew that it had failed to provide the information, timely information, all the information, or the accurate information, respectively.

(e)Any business that violates, proposes to violate, or has violated this title may be enjoined.

(f)(1)A cause of action shall not lie against a business for disposing of abandoned records containing personal information by shredding, erasing, or otherwise modifying the personal information in the records to make it unreadable or undecipherable through any means.

(2)The Legislature finds and declares that when records containing personal information are abandoned by a business, they often end up in the possession of a storage company or commercial landlord. It is the intent of the Legislature in paragraph (1) to create a safe harbor for such a record custodian who properly disposes of the records in accordance with paragraph (1).

(g)A prevailing plaintiff in any action commenced under Section 1798.83 shall also be entitled to recover his or her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

(h)The rights and remedies available under this section are cumulative to each other and to any other rights and remedies available under law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2022 · leading case: Heather Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, 887 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Heather Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, 887 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2018). “" Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.84 . The statute does not define injury, nor does any state decision we could find.”

Boorstein v. CBS Interactive, Inc., 222 Cal. App. 4th 456 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The 90-day safe harbor in Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.84 (d) further underscores that the Act only applies once a customer makes a request.”

In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 313 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.84 . While the CRA allows for civil penalties when a defendant willfully, intentionally, or recklessly violates a section not at issue here, see id.”

In re Adobe Sys., Inc. Privacy Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “Statutory Standing The CRA also contains a statutory standing requirement. Section 1798.84, the remedies provision of the CRA, provides that “[a]ny customer injured by a violation of this title may institute a civil action to recover damages,” Cal.”

Gonzalez v. Comenity Bank (E.D. Cal. 2019). “2014); Cal, 3 Civ. Code §1798.84, subd. (c). 4 Here again, Gonzalez has prayed without caveat for a penalty under a statute that specifies 5 a maximum penalty, while also alleging facts that appear, in light of relevant case law, to be 6 sufficient to justify the maximum award.”

Gonzalez v. Comenity Capital Bank (E.D. Cal. 2019). “2014); Cal, 17 Civ. Code §1798.84, subd. (c). 18 Here again, Gonzalez has prayed without caveat for a penalty under a statute that specifies 19 a maximum penalty while alleging facts that appear, in light of relevant case law, to be sufficient 20 to justify the statutory maximum…”

In Re: Arthur J. Gallagher Data Breach Litig. (N.D. Ill. 2022). “” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.84 . Neither statute nor any state decision defines “injury.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.