AB 2221 treats internet-based charitable fundraising platforms and platform charities as trustees subject to California Attorney General supervision. The bill defines which online activities count as solicitation, requires platforms and platform charities to register with the Attorney General before soliciting, and imposes annual reporting, disclosure, and funds-handling obligations.
The measure aims to increase transparency and donor protections for online giving by requiring conspicuous pre-donation disclosures (who receives funds, potential alternative dispositions, timing, and fees), written consent rules for using a charity’s name, mandatory tax receipts, and inspection access to vendor contracts. For platforms and nonprofits that enable modern peer-to-peer and purchase-linked giving, the bill creates new compliance workstreams and direct AG oversight that will affect operations, integration choices, and contractual arrangements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines 'charitable fundraising platform' and 'platform charity,' makes those entities trustees for charitable purposes, and requires registration with the California Attorney General before any solicitation. It mandates annual, sworn reports, specific pre-donation disclosures, written-consent rules for listing charities, and rules for holding and distributing donated funds.
Who It Affects
Third-party fundraising platforms (including peer-to-peer and cause-marketing platforms), platform charities that solicit or grant funds, recipient charities listed on platforms, and vendors under contract to process or distribute donations. Smaller tech vendors that remain purely technical service providers are mostly excluded unless they themselves solicit.
Why It Matters
The bill brings modern online fundraising under existing trustee supervision and disclosure regimes, forcing platforms to adopt nonprofit-style compliance (registration, reporting, segregation of funds). That shifts legal risk onto platforms and changes how commerce-linked and peer-to-peer giving is structured and disclosed to donors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2221 starts by carving out a functional definition of a charitable fundraising platform: any internet-based service that lists charities, enables peer-to-peer campaigns, or routes donations based on user purchases. The bill draws a careful perimeter — excluding a nonprofit’s own giving page, pure technical vendors that do not solicit on their own, certain donor-advised-fund sponsor activities, and some traditional commercial-fundraising channels — but otherwise treats platforms that enable solicitation as trustees for charitable purposes.
Once an entity falls inside that definition, the bill requires registration with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers before it may solicit Californians, and it requires annual renewals and fees. Platform charities — entities that either solicit on a platform or grant funds based on platform activity — must also be registered as trustees, and partnerships between platforms and platform charities must be reported to the Attorney General so the office knows who is operating together.The bill imposes substance-heavy compliance: annual sworn reports that let the Attorney General trace whether funds were solicited and distributed properly; conspicuous, pre-donation disclosures that tell donors who will actually receive funds, whether a named recipient might not receive the funds and what will happen in that case, the maximum time for distribution, any fees deducted or added (excluding digital payment processor fees), and whether the gift is tax-deductible.
Platforms must obtain a charity’s written consent before using its name in solicitations unless narrow conditions are met (for example, when only certain public identifying information is referenced and the platform conspicuously notes the lack of consent). Platforms must remove a charity upon a legitimate written request within three business days.On fund handling, AB 2221 requires platforms and platform charities to hold donations in accounts segregated from operating funds, to send contributions or grants promptly with an accounting of fees, or to follow donor-facing disclosures that allow redirection or refunds if a recipient cannot receive the gift.
Contracts with vendors that handle solicitation, processing, or distribution must be available for Attorney General inspection. Practical compliance will hinge on machine-readable good-standing lists from the IRS, the California Franchise Tax Board, and the Attorney General: platforms may rely on those lists to determine whether a charity is eligible to receive funds, but the reliance pathway also creates operational dependencies on those agencies’ publishing practices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Platforms must register with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers before soliciting in the state and renew that registration annually, subject to a fee deposited per Section 12587.1.
A platform must provide conspicuous, pre-donation disclosures including (a) who will receive the donation, (b) the maximum time to transfer funds to the recipient, (c) any fees deducted or added (excluding digital payment processing fees), and (d) whether the donation is tax-deductible.
A platform may not use a recipient charity’s name in a solicitation without that charity’s written consent unless the platform limits itself to certain public identifiers and conspicuously discloses that the charity did not provide consent; removal requests must be verified and acted on within three business days.
Platforms and platform charities must hold donations in accounts separate from their operating funds and either send donations with an accounting of fees, redirect to an alternate recipient, or refund donors in accordance with prior disclosures.
When relying on whether a recipient charity is in 'good standing,' a platform may use machine-readable lists published by the IRS, the Franchise Tax Board, and the Attorney General; if an agency’s list is unavailable, the platform is not required to comply with that reliance rule for that agency while the list is missing.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope — who is a 'charitable fundraising platform' or 'platform charity'
This subsection lays the groundwork by defining key terms: what activities bring an internet entity within the statute (listing charities, peer-to-peer campaigns, purchase-linked donations, customizable platforms offered to charities) and what is excluded (a charity’s own giving page, purely technical service providers, certain donor-advised-fund sponsors, and specific non-internet solicitation channels). Practically, this is the gatekeeper: your product or service must be tested against these tests to determine whether you are a trustee under California law.
Registration, trustee status, and partnership notifications
Once an entity fits the definition, it becomes a trustee for charitable purposes and must register with the Attorney General’s Registry before soliciting Californians. Registration is annual and fee-based; platform charities that already are trustees must still notify the Registry when they partner with a platform. This provision converts operational relationships into reportable legal relationships the AG can monitor.
Annual sworn reporting requirements
Registered platforms and platform charities must file annual reports under oath providing granular data: number and amounts of donations, how long it took to distribute funds, fees charged by platform or partners, and lists of recipient organizations that did or did not receive funds. The statute explicitly protects donor personally identifiable information from disclosure, but requires aggregate and transaction-tracking data sufficient for enforcement and compliance analysis.
Good-standing rule and reliance on machine-readable lists
Platforms may only solicit or transfer funds to charities in 'good standing' and may rely on machine-readable lists published by the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, and Attorney General to verify status. If an agency stops publishing such a list, the statute says the platform is not obligated to comply with that specific reliance requirement while the list is unavailable — a practical hedge that reduces immediate legal exposure but creates operational dependency on third-party publishing practices.
Pre-donation disclosures and written-consent regime
Before a donor completes a gift or selects a charity, the platform must provide conspicuous disclosures addressing who receives funds, conditions where a named recipient might not receive funds and alternative dispositions, the maximum time to transfer the funds, fees charged or added (payment processing fees excepted), and tax-deductibility. The bill also requires written consent from a recipient charity to use its name, with narrow exceptions that permit reference to certain public identifiers if the platform clearly discloses the lack of consent; removal requests must be honored within three business days after verification.
Tax receipts
After a donor gives through activities described in the statute, the platform or platform charity must promptly provide a tax donation receipt consistent with existing Business and Professions Code provisions. This ties platform behavior to existing tax-reporting and substantiation practices familiar to nonprofits and donors.
Segregation and disposition of donated funds
Donations must be held separate from the platform’s other operating funds and either be sent to recipient charities with a fee accounting, redirected according to pre-disclosed alternatives, or refunded as disclosed to the donor. This subsection prevents commingling and creates recordkeeping and cash-management requirements that will affect accounting and treasury operations for platforms and platform charities.
Vendor contracts available for Attorney General inspection
When a platform contracts with vendors to handle solicitation, processing, or distribution, those contracts must be available for inspection by the Attorney General. That creates a direct compliance pathway into commercial arrangements and places a premium on contract terms, vendor selection, and data-sharing clauses.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services 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
- Donors — gain clearer, standardized pre-donation disclosures about who will receive their gifts, timing, fees, and backup plans if a named charity cannot receive the funds, reducing confusion in peer-to-peer and cause-marketing contexts.
- Recipient charitable organizations — get control mechanisms (written-consent rule and a three-business-day removal requirement) that limit unauthorized use of their name and provide a clear process to stop unwanted solicitations.
- Attorney General’s office and regulators — receive structured, sworn reporting and vendor contract access that improve visibility into how online fundraising works and where funds flow, strengthening enforcement and oversight capabilities.
- Established nonprofits and platform charities in compliance — benefit from a level playing field as new entrants and third-party platforms are required to follow similar trustee obligations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Charitable fundraising platforms (including startups and mid-sized providers) — face new compliance costs: registration fees, annual sworn reporting, updating UI/UX to display required disclosures, segregation of funds, and potential contract renegotiations with vendors.
- Platform charities and charities listed on platforms — must manage consent processes, monitor platform use of their names, and potentially handle more administrative requests to remove listings or verify status; smaller charities may need better administrative capacity.
- Vendors and payment processors — while pure technical vendors are excluded if they don’t solicit, vendors that touch solicitation or distribution will face requirements to make contracts inspectable and may see additional contractual risk allocation and due diligence demands.
- Attorney General’s office — although the bill increases enforcement tools, the office will need staff and resources to process registrations, examine reports, verify compliance, and inspect contracts, unless existing budgets are adjusted.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is donor protection versus operational burden: AB 2221 tightens transparency and legal accountability for online fundraising to protect donors and recipient charities, but it does so by imposing trustee-style registration, reporting, and fund-handling obligations on digital platforms — obligations that can slow innovation, raise costs for smaller platforms, and complicate integrated commerce-linked giving models.
AB 2221 aims for transparency, but it creates operational frictions that could reduce the speed and convenience donors currently enjoy. Requiring conspicuous disclosures and segregation of funds can increase checkout friction and slow down immediate transfers; platforms will need to balance compliance with maintaining conversion rates.
The written-consent exception — which allows referencing certain public identifiers without prior consent provided the platform discloses the lack of consent — is mechanically helpful but invites disputes about what constitutes 'conspicuous' disclosure and whether peer-generated content created by fundraisers amounts to an unauthorized solicitation.
The bill’s reliance mechanism on machine-readable 'good-standing' lists is practical but fragile: platforms can lean on those lists to avoid deep individual verifications, yet that approach makes platforms operationally dependent on the IRS, FTB, and Attorney General to publish and maintain timely lists. If those lists are incomplete or delayed, platforms face either legal exposure or operational paralysis.
Finally, mandating that contracts with vendors be available for AG inspection increases transparency but raises confidentiality and competitive concerns in commercial agreements; platforms and vendors will need to rethink nondisclosure provisions and data-sharing clauses to accommodate regulator access without exposing trade secrets.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.