California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1798.99.35 (2026)

The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act

✓ 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 business that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation, which shall be assessed and recovered only in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General.

(b)Any penalties, fees, and expenses recovered in an action brought under this title shall be deposited in the Consumer Privacy Fund, created within the General Fund pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1798.160, with the intent that they be used to fully offset costs incurred by the Attorney General in connection with this title.

(c)(1)If a business is in substantial compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (1) through (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 1798.99.31, the Attorney General shall provide written notice to the business, before initiating an action under this title, identifying the specific provisions of this title that the Attorney General alleges have been or are being violated.

(2)If, within 90 days of the notice required by this subdivision, the business cures any noticed violation and provides the Attorney General a written statement that the alleged violations have been cured, and sufficient measures have been taken to prevent future violations, the business shall not be liable for a civil penalty for any violation cured pursuant to this subdivision.

(d)Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to serve as the basis for a private right of action under this title or any other law.

(e)The Attorney General may solicit broad public participation and adopt regulations to clarify the requirements of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2024–2026 · leading case: Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, 113 F.4th 1101 (9th Cir. 2024).
Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, 113 F.4th 1101 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.35 (c)(1), (2).”
Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2026). · cites it 4× “At this stage of the litigation, we cannot conclude that NetChoice is likely to succeed in showing that the CAADCA’s remaining provisions are not volitionally severable from its enjoined notice-and-cure provision, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.35 (c)(2). We remand to the district…”
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.