AB1865 makes it unlawful for a person, business, candidate, or political committee to transmit a “text message advertisement” to a device assigned to a California resident, subject to narrow statutory exceptions. The bill defines the regulated material by its principal purpose—promoting goods, services, realty, credit, or political objectives.
The measure couples substance restrictions with operational obligations (consent/opt-out mechanics and timing control) and creates civil enforcement paths for private recipients and public prosecutors. Compliance will require senders and vendors to change list practices, consent flows, and message-timing systems if the bill becomes law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars the transmission of text message advertisements to phone numbers assigned to California residents, while carving out limited exceptions for carrier-originated messages (with opt-out), senders with an existing relationship (with opt-out), affiliates where the subscriber consented, and certain forwarded emails. It also forbids sending covered text ads between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. recipient local time and requires senders to adjust timing based on the recipient’s time zone associated with the telephone number.
Who It Affects
Commercial marketers, political campaigns and committees, third‑party SMS aggregators and platforms, and communications vendors that send or manage bulk texts to California phone numbers. Mobile carriers and paging/two‑way messaging providers appear as limited actors, mainly for the carrier‑direction exemption and for routing concerns. California mobile subscribers are the protected group.
Why It Matters
AB1865 creates a state‑level regulatory regime that goes beyond simple consent rules: it limits when messages may be delivered, narrows permissible senders, and embeds compliance duties tied to residence and time zone. That combination changes technical and consent workflows for anyone who uses SMS for marketing or political outreach and raises enforcement exposure.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill centers on a simple prohibition: a sender may not transmit a “text message advertisement” to a mobile or two‑way messaging number assigned to a California resident. The statute defines a text message advertisement by its principal purpose—if the core aim is to promote goods, services, realty, credit, or a political objective, the message is regulated.
The definition explicitly covers not only plain text but images and video delivered in the same message.
AB1865 then lays out a short list of exceptions. A message sent at the direction of a carrier is allowed only if the subscriber is given an option to opt out of those carrier messages.
A business, candidate, or political committee can send ads to someone with whom it has an existing relationship, but the sender must offer an opt‑out for future texts from that sender. Affiliates may send messages only where the subscriber has consented to receive affiliate communications.
The text also exempts emails that were forwarded to a mobile device without the original sender’s knowledge.Independently of consent or relationship, the bill imposes a rigid timing rule: senders may not transmit covered text ads between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. for the recipient’s local time. The sender must determine and use the recipient’s local time based on the telephone number.
The statute expressly makes the timing rule enforceable by civil action.Enforcement mixes private and public remedies. A recipient may sue a transmitter who “knew, or should have known,” the message violated the timing rule; the statute authorizes monetary relief and injunctive relief.
Public prosecutors and the Attorney General may also pursue civil penalties and equitable relief. The law clarifies that violations are civil, not criminal, and that carrier providers are not required to police messaging unless they transmitted the message at their direction.
The bill concludes with basic definitions of covered services and the covered form of advertising.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The prohibition applies when a text ad is sent to a number assigned for mobile telephony, pager, or two‑way messaging service to a California resident—sender location is not the trigger, the recipient’s assigned number is.
The definition of “text message advertisement” covers messages whose principal purpose is promotional or political and explicitly includes images and video embedded or attached to the message.
Even messages that otherwise qualify under an exemption may not be sent between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. recipient local time; senders must adjust delivery using the recipient’s time zone as associated with their telephone number.
A recipient may sue a transmitter who ‘knew, or should have known’ the timing rule was violated and recover at least statutory monetary relief; the statute also makes punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief available.
The Attorney General or a public prosecutor can obtain civil penalties (up to $500 per person, per message), injunctive relief, and costs; the statute states these remedies are cumulative and not criminal.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Core prohibition and scope
This subsection establishes the central rule: no person, business, candidate, or political committee shall transmit a text message advertisement to a mobile or two‑way messaging device assigned to a California resident. It also frames the governing test—the message’s principal purpose—to determine whether a communication is an advertisement rather than, for example, transactional or informational content. Practically, this forces senders to assess intent and content at the message level rather than rely solely on consent labels.
Statutory exceptions (carrier, existing relationship, affiliates, forwarded email)
These paragraphs carve out narrowly drawn exceptions. Messages sent at a carrier’s direction are permitted only when subscribers receive an opt‑out option. Businesses, candidates, or political committees with an existing relationship can send messages if they offer opt‑out controls. Affiliate sends are allowed only when explicit affiliate consent was given to the primary business. Forwarded emails are excluded when the forward occurred without the original sender’s knowledge. Each exception creates a different consent/opt‑out workflow that senders must implement and document.
Nighttime delivery ban and timing mechanics
This subsection prohibits delivering covered text ads between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. local recipient time, regardless of any consent. It instructs senders to adjust timing based on the recipient’s local time zone as associated with the telephone number. That creates a concrete technical obligation—senders must determine a recipient’s local time from telephone number metadata or other means and schedule or suppress deliveries accordingly.
Private and public enforcement
The statute gives recipients a private cause of action against a transmitter who ‘knew, or should have known’ the nighttime rule was violated and enumerates remedies including monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. It separately empowers public prosecutors and the Attorney General to seek civil penalties (specified by statute), injunctive relief, and costs. The provision also clarifies that these remedies are cumulative and that violations are civil, not criminal.
Carrier liability and definitions
The bill relieves carriers of a general duty to police content unless the message was transmitted at their direction, limiting intermediary liability. It also supplies definitions—most notably for “mobile telephony service” and “text message advertisement”—that determine what counts as a covered device and covered content. Those definitions will drive technical compliance (what devices and message formats fall within the ban).
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
- California mobile subscribers: gain an explicit statutory shield against unsolicited promotional and political SMS during nighttime hours, reducing intrusive interruptions and potential privacy exposure.
- Recipients of political messaging who seek quieter windows: the 9:00 p.m.–9:00 a.m. restriction protects residential quiet hours for political outreach as well as commercial marketing.
- Consumer advocates and privacy enforcement groups: receive a clear statutory hook to pursue enforcement and to encourage industry best practices around consent and message timing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commercial marketers and brands that rely on SMS: must rework consent flows, manage opt‑outs by relationship and by affiliate, and implement time‑zone delivery controls—raising development and operational costs.
- Political campaigns and committees: face narrower pathways for outreach to California phone numbers and increased litigation risk if automated sends miss the timing rule.
- SMS aggregators and third‑party vendors: will need enhanced geo‑targeting, number‑assignment checks, and auditing capabilities to prove compliance and to avoid being named as transmitters in suits.
- Small businesses using low‑cost SMS tools: may lack the technical ability to implement time‑zone suppression or maintain the documentation necessary to rely on the bill’s exceptions, increasing compliance burden.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is balancing robust consumer quiet‑time and unwanted‑message protections against the operational realities and speech interests of commercial and political communicators: protecting recipients’ privacy and peace requires strict rules, but strictness creates technical burdens, ambiguity about what counts as an ad, and a litigation environment that may over‑deter legitimate outreach.
The bill leaves several operational and legal questions unresolved. The timing requirement relies on the ‘local time zone as associated with the recipient’s telephone number,’ but telephone numbers do not reliably indicate current subscriber location when people move, port numbers, or travel.
That produces a practical compliance gap: senders must choose a method (area code heuristics, carrier lookup, explicit consent capture) each with accuracy and privacy trade‑offs.
The knowledge standard for private suits—‘knew, or should have known’—is fact‑intensive but potentially broad, exposing many senders and vendors to liability even where violations were caused by third‑party list errors. High per‑message damages and cumulative remedies increase litigation incentives and raise the specter of high aggregate exposure from bulk sends.
Finally, the principal‑purpose test for what counts as an advertisement can be murky for mixed‑purpose messages (transactional notices with promotional links, or informational political communications), creating compliance uncertainty and potential chilling effects for legitimate communications.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.