Public Records Bill in California Faces Renewed Opposition Over Fees, Lawsuits

A new California bill, Assembly Bill 1821, has reignited a contentious debate over public records access, with transparency advocates accusing its author of reviving restrictive provisions that were previously removed. The bill, introduced by Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D-Downey), would allow government agencies to delay responses to certain records requests and charge fees of $22 to $66 per hour for searching and reviewing records deemed to be for "commercial use." It would also permit agencies to sue requesters they believe have "malicious intent."

Pacheco initially proposed a broader measure in March, but watered it down after facing opposition from transparency advocates and colleagues, limiting it to extending response timelines. That version passed the Assembly in May.

However, the latest amendments, co-written by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, reintroduce the more restrictive elements, which advocates say are even more severe than before.

Proponents argue the bill is necessary to prevent frivolous requests, particularly those generated by artificial intelligence, from overwhelming local governments. "Transparency is important to me.

We just want it to run efficiently, and these are just minor amendments or minor tweaks to the Public Records Act," Pacheco said. She cited examples like a request for Bay Area city officials' emails to train an AI service and a prank request for five years of 911 records in Fresno County.

But First Amendment advocates contend existing law already allows agencies to deny unduly burdensome requests. They argue the new provisions would chill legitimate requests and undermine the state's open records law.

"The only way that there's any government accountability is that people know what the government is doing. This looks a lot like an effort to evade accountability," said David Snyder of the First Amendment Coalition.

University of Florida professor David Cuillier warned the changes would "make California stand out as the most secretive state in the country."

The bill's provision to allow lawsuits for "malicious intent" is particularly controversial. While some local governments have sued over "vexatious" requests, California would be the first state to explicitly codify such authority.

Critics say this could be weaponized to deny requests. "It would be easily weaponized by agencies seeking to thwart transparency and accountability," Snyder said.

Pacheco dismissed fears, saying she doubts cities would sue often due to the limited fees recoverable.

The fee structure also drew criticism for potentially discriminating against requesters based on their intended use. Current law only allows charges for copying records.

The bill would exempt journalists, academics, and government agencies, but charge others $22 to $66 per hour for administrative or professional fees. Critics argue this violates a 2020 California Supreme Court ruling that such charges threaten access rights.

Additionally, the bill would extend response timelines from 10 calendar days to 10 business days for requests made in person or by email during business hours, but leave other request methods at agencies' discretion. Transparency advocates say this creates an arbitrary two-tier system.

Pacheco's office said the bill will be amended to prevent forcing every requester to justify their intent, but critics remain skeptical. The measure has drawn sharp opposition from groups including the ACLU of Northern California and Oakland Privacy, which called it "a virtual horror show of governmental non-transparency."