AB 1073 creates a pathway for California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) to release an employee’s quarterly wage records to a “qualified third‑party vendor” when the employee provides written permission, including permitting direct electronic transmission for specified permissive uses (credit, leasing, employment screening, insurance, government transactions). The bill tightly defines the vendor gatekeeping criteria, bars the department from using state funds for implementation, and requires vendors to pay fees covering startup and administrative costs; unauthorized access or disclosure is made a misdemeanor.
Separately, the bill expands Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 to allow peremptory disqualification motions aimed at justices of the Courts of Appeal in certain post‑reversal situations, sets short filing windows and reassignment rules, and tasks the California Law Revision Commission with a time‑limited study on recusal practices. The recusal provisions are temporary and include explicit sunset dates.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires EDD to provide quarterly wage records to an employee or, with written permission, to a qualified consumer‑reporting vendor and permits electronic transmission for narrowly defined, FCRA‑aligned purposes. It also amends Section 170.6 to let parties move to disqualify appellate justices who authored or joined a reversed opinion when the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Who It Affects
Workers who want faster, direct verification of wages; consumer reporting agencies that meet the bill’s vendor criteria; entities that use wage verification (lenders, landlords, employers, insurers) as subscribers; EDD operations required to implement vendor integration; and appellate courts, litigants, and judicial administration for reassignment procedures.
Why It Matters
This formally opens a source of official wage data to the private verification market under employee control while shifting implementation costs to vendors and limiting state expenditures. On the judicial side, it creates a new procedural lever to challenge appellate panel assignments after a Supreme Court reversal, with tight timelines and temporary duration — a change that can affect appellate workflow and litigant strategy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Part A of AB 1073 rewrites how EDD may disclose wage records that are currently confidential under the Unemployment Insurance Code. The bill defines a narrow set of "permissible uses" aligned with the Fair Credit Reporting Act — essentially verification and consumer‑reporting uses — and creates a special vendor class, "qualified third‑party vendors," that must meet three operational criteria (existing contracts in other states, prior systems integration, and a USDOL review history).
An employee can instruct EDD in writing to release their quarterly wage totals and identifiers, and EDD must provide that information to the employee for free or transmit it electronically to or through a qualified vendor at the employee’s request.
The vendor side is tightly circumscribed. Qualified vendors may share wage data with paying subscribers only for permissible uses and only when the employee’s written permission expressly covers release to that subscriber.
Subscribers may not resell or redisclose the data. The statute maintains existing federal and state confidentiality obligations, adds an explicit misdemeanor for unauthorized access or disclosure, and directs EDD to recover startup and administrative costs from vendors consistent with federal guidance (Part 603, 20 CFR).
The bill also forbids EDD from using state funds to execute the vendor agreement, effectively shifting build and operational costs to the private vendor through fees.Separately, the bill amends Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 to extend the existing peremptory disqualification remedy to justices of the Courts of Appeal in limited circumstances: only after the California Supreme Court has reversed a court of appeal decision and remanded for further (non‑ministerial) proceedings, and only against the justices who authored or joined the reversed decision and are assigned to the remand. It imposes compressed deadlines for filing those motions (15 days for reversals on or after Jan 1, 2026; special windows for earlier reversals), directs the presiding justice to assign panels within 30 days of remittitur, authorizes the presiding justice to replace up to three justices, and makes the expanded recusal procedures operative for a limited period, with a required Law Revision Commission study on recusal practices due in 2028 and a statutory sunset in 2031–2032.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Qualified third‑party vendor criteria: a vendor must already have contracts for similar services with at least three other states, completed systems integration in one or more states, and had its business model/data‑sharing materials reviewed by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Employee control and free access: the EDD must provide wage information to the employee or their representative at no charge and may transmit that data electronically to a qualified vendor only with the employee’s written authorization.
No state implementation funds: the department is prohibited from expending state funds to execute the vendor agreement and must charge vendors fees (consistent with 20 CFR Part 603) to cover startup and administrative costs.
Subscriber limits and prohibitions: vendors may release wage records to subscribers only for FCRA‑aligned 'permissible uses,' only with the employee’s written authorization naming the subscriber, and subscribers are forbidden to resell or redisclose the wage data.
Recusal timing and sunset: following a California Supreme Court reversal and remand, the presiding justice must assign a three‑justice panel within 30 days of remittitur, and a motion to disqualify the authoring or concurring justice must be filed within 15 days for reversals on/after Jan 1, 2026; the expanded recusal rules expire Jan 1, 2031, with related study and repeal provisions to follow.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: permissible uses, qualified vendor, subscriber, wage information
This subsection sets the vocabulary that controls the rest of the wage‑data regime. "Permissible uses" tracks the FCRA list (credit, leasing, employment screening, insurance, government transactions). The "qualified third‑party vendor" test is functional and intentionally narrow: prior contracts in 3+ states, at least one completed systems integration, and a USDOL review of the vendor’s materials. "Subscriber" and the exact fields constituting "wage information" are defined (name, SSN, employer name, quarterly wages). Those precise definitions limit downstream use and scope of what qualifies as covered data.
Release mechanics and vendor integration
Subdivision (b) requires EDD to release wage information to a qualified vendor upon written employee authorization; (c) requires EDD to provide the same wage information to the employee free of charge. Subdivisions (d) and (e) direct EDD to permit employee‑requested electronic transmission and to enter a formal agreement with a qualified vendor to enable that transmission. Subdivision (f) confines vendor use to permissible uses and contemplates vendor‑to‑subscriber sharing only under restrictions in subdivision (g). The practical effect is an on‑demand, employee‑initiated electronic feed from a state system to a vetted private vendor.
Subscriber restrictions, confidentiality, fees, and criminal penalty
These provisions impose operational controls: subscribers may only obtain and use wage data for permissible uses and only with express written authorization naming them; subscribers cannot resell or redisclose received data. The statute reiterates that the wage information remains confidential under federal and state rules and requires vendors to compel confidentiality from their recipients. EDD cannot use state funds to implement vendor agreements and must bill vendors for implementation and administrative costs (capped to reasonable costs under federal rules). Unauthorized access, use, or disclosure is a misdemeanor, inserting criminal liability as an enforcement pathway.
Extend peremptory disqualification to appellate justices after reversal
The amendment expands existing Section 170.6 so a party or attorney may make a peremptory disqualification motion against one or more justices of a Court of Appeal, but only after the California Supreme Court reverses the court of appeal and remands for further (non‑ministerial) proceedings. The presiding justice must assign the remanded case to a three‑justice panel within 30 days of remittitur, and motions targeting authoring or concurring justices are subject to compressed filing deadlines (15 days for reversals on/after Jan 1, 2026). The presiding justice can, at their discretion, replace up to three justices in response to such a motion.
Law Revision Commission study and sunset
This section mandates a Law Revision Commission study on recusal/recusal effectiveness by Sept 30, 2028, developed with input from the Commission on Judicial Performance. The study must cover effectiveness, prevalence, impact on hearing times, and costs. The recusal expansion carries explicit temporality: the statutory provisions are operative through Jan 1, 2031 (with inoperative/repeal dates set in 2031–2032), making these procedural changes experimental and time‑limited.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employees seeking rapid verification: Workers who need official wage proof (for renting, credit, employment background checks, or benefits) gain a direct, free, and potentially faster channel to transmit verified quarterly wages to third parties under their control.
- Qualified consumer reporting agencies: Vendors that already operate similar services in multiple states and have completed integrations can expand offerings and monetize EDD data feeds, subject to fees, and capture a new verification market.
- Subscribers that rely on verified income data: Lenders, landlords, insurers, and employers can receive authoritative wage records (with employee consent), reducing reliance on self‑attestation and speeding underwriting or screening processes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Qualified third‑party vendors: Vendors must meet strict eligibility criteria, complete integration work, and pay startup and administrative fees to EDD instead of the state bearing implementation costs, increasing upfront investment and compliance obligations.
- EDD operational teams: Even with vendor fees, EDD must negotiate agreements, oversee integrations, and monitor confidentiality and access—work that may require new technical and oversight capacity and create operational complexity.
- Appellate courts and judicial administration: The reassignment timelines and additional motion practice will impose scheduling and administrative burdens on presiding justices and the Judicial Council, potentially increasing case management workload during the statute’s operative window.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between expanding employee control and market access to authoritative wage records (improving speed and reliability of verifications) and protecting sensitive state‑held personal data while avoiding vendor concentration, implementation risk, and misuse — paired with an entirely separate trade‑off in the judiciary context between correcting potential judicial bias after reversal and preserving appellate efficiency and guardrails against tactical disqualification motions.
The bill meshes two distinct policy domains — consumer data transfers and appellate recusal — each with implementation challenges. On the wage‑data side, the vendor eligibility gate is narrow by design, which reduces the number of vendors that can connect quickly but also may limit competition and create vendor concentration risks.
The prohibition on using state funds nominally shifts costs to vendors, but does not eliminate EDD’s program management responsibilities; if fee revenue lags or disputes arise over what counts as "reasonable" costs under federal guidance, EDD could face implementation delays or legal challenges. Criminalizing unauthorized access as a misdemeanor adds an enforcement tool, but prosecutorial discretion and evidentiary hurdles mean that civil and contractual controls will likely carry most practical weight.
For the appellate recusal changes, compressed filing windows (15 days in many cases) and automatic reassignment directives are intended to limit perceived bias after reversal, but they risk tactical filings that delay proceedings or force wholesale panel reshuffling on procedural grounds. The temporary nature of the reform, coupled with the mandated Law Revision Commission study, signals that the Legislature views these changes as experimental; however, courts will need operational guidance on when reassignment is warranted versus when the rule would be exploited for delay.
Finally, the act’s bifurcated scope — state wage data commercialization and appellate procedure reform under one bill — may complicate coordinated oversight and raises questions about whether the two tracks will receive the implementation attention each requires.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.