AB 2287 amends Section 7110 of the California Business and Professions Code to add a new subsection that bars disciplinary action against a licensed contractor who "engages in the use of technologies, tools, and equipment" while performing construction work under the Contractors State License Law.
The change is short but consequential: it creates an explicit statutory exemption from the list of causes for disciplinary action in §7110(a). Because the bill does not define key terms or set conditions, it could limit the Contractors State License Board's ability to discipline licensees for conduct otherwise listed in the statute — including conduct tied to public‑safety laws — whenever the licensee claims they were using a technology, tool, or piece of equipment.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a standalone subsection into §7110 saying that, notwithstanding the causes for discipline listed in subdivision (a), a licensee who uses "technologies, tools, and equipment" in performing work under the contractors law shall not be subject to disciplinary action for that conduct. It does not create definitions, standards, or an approval regime for those technologies.
Who It Affects
Directly affects licensed contractors and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB); indirectly affects building departments, insurers, construction technology vendors, and property owners who rely on licensed contractors. It also touches attorneys and compliance officers who advise licensees and regulators on enforcement and risk management.
Why It Matters
The bill establishes a statutory shield for technology use that could reduce regulatory friction for companies adopting new methods, but it simultaneously raises questions about how California will preserve enforcement of building and safety laws, how insurers will price risk, and how disputes over the meaning of "technology" will be resolved.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2287 makes a surgical change to the Contractors State License Law by amending Section 7110. That section currently lists types of willful or deliberate conduct that can trigger disciplinary action by the Contractors State License Board — everything from violating building laws to breaching specific civil and penal statutes referenced in the provision.
The bill adds a short, standalone sentence that says a licensee who uses "technologies, tools, and equipment" while performing construction work under the law cannot be the subject of disciplinary action for that conduct.
On its face the change creates an affirmative statutory exemption to the causes for discipline listed in §7110(a). The bill does not supply qualifiers: it does not say that the technology must be approved, non‑hazardous, or used in good faith; it does not distinguish between experimental software, traditional power tools, or heavy machinery.
It does not carve out exceptions for conduct that would otherwise be criminal, nor does it instruct the CSLB on how to evaluate claims that a protected "technology" was in use.Practically, the provision hands enforcement authorities and courts the job of sorting claims. If a contractor diverges from code-compliant work and says the divergence resulted from using a covered technology, the CSLB must decide whether the exemption applies or pursue other remedies (civil claims, criminal prosecution by other agencies).
That will require investigations focused on evidence of what tool or technology was used, why, and whether the use itself violated safety standards. The absence of statutory definitions or standards increases the likelihood of litigation and inconsistent outcomes across cases and jurisdictions.Finally, because AB 2287 does not amend other laws that govern permits, criminal liability, or civil torts, the new exemption only addresses administrative discipline under §7110.
However, the practical effect could be broader: if administrative discipline becomes harder to obtain, regulatory oversight could shift toward local building departments, civil litigation, or insurance-based remedies, reshaping compliance incentives for contractors and their clients.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 7110 of the Business and Professions Code to add a new subsection creating an exemption from disciplinary causes listed in §7110(a).
The exemption applies to a licensee who "engages in the use of technologies, tools, and equipment" while performing construction work "pursuant to this chapter.", By phrasing the change "notwithstanding subdivision (a)," the bill appears to exempt technology‑related conduct from causes already listed in §7110(a), including willful or deliberate disregard of building laws.
The bill provides no definitions or regulatory standards for what counts as "technologies, tools, and equipment," nor does it set approval, reporting, or documentation requirements for invoking the exemption.
AB 2287 does not alter criminal statutes, permit requirements, civil liability, or appropriate funding for enforcement; it only changes administrative discipline grounds in the Contractors State License Law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds a statutory exemption for technology use
The bill inserts a new subsection (b) into §7110 that reads, in effect, "notwithstanding subdivision (a), a licensee who engages in the use of technologies, tools, and equipment in the course of performing construction work pursuant to this chapter shall not be subject to a cause for disciplinary action against themselves." Mechanically, the text creates a standalone carve‑out that operates against the laundry list of disciplinary causes already enumerated under subsection (a). That drafting choice makes the exemption broad: it applies whenever a licensee’s claimed conduct fits the description, rather than limiting the shield to specific items or circumstances.
List of causes for disciplinary action remains unchanged
The bill leaves intact the existing enumeration in §7110(a) — violations of building laws, certain Civil Code and Penal Code provisions, safety and labor laws, public contract rules, and similar authorities remain listed as causes for discipline. What changes is the reach of those causes: subsection (b) purports to remove disciplinary liability for any of the listed breaches that involve the use of a "technology, tool, or equipment," unless another law operates to discipline the conduct.
Shifts enforcement questions to CSLB, courts, and other agencies
Because the bill does not prescribe how to prove or evaluate a technology claim, enforcement will turn on investigation practices and legal interpretation. The CSLB will confront proof issues (what was used, who made the determination to use it, whether use caused the violation). Where the CSLB cannot discipline, oversight may shift to local building officials, civil plaintiffs, or criminal prosecutors, creating fragmented enforcement and new litigation over statutory scope.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- Licensed contractors who rely on software, automation, or specialized equipment — the exemption reduces the risk of administrative discipline when defendants can tie deficient work to a covered technology. This lowers regulatory friction for firms experimenting with digital design tools, robotics, or novel construction equipment.
- Construction technology vendors and integrators — broader statutory protection for technology use could accelerate market adoption and reduce vendor resistance tied to contractor discipline risk, improving sales and deployment of software and automated tools.
- Innovative general contractors and early adopters — firms that invest in new processes may gain a competitive advantage because the statute lowers one category of enforcement risk that often slows operational change.
Who Bears the Cost
- Contractors State License Board (CSLB) — the board faces narrower authority to pursue administrative discipline, increased evidentiary complexity in investigations, and likely higher litigation costs as parties litigate the exemption’s scope.
- Homeowners and building owners — may face reduced administrative remedies against licensees for defective or unsafe work if a contractor asserts the exemption; they may have to rely more on civil suits or warranty claims to resolve problems.
- Insurers and sureties — the shift in risk allocation could affect underwriting and premium pricing; insurers may see more claims in tort or bond payouts if administrative enforcement is limited, and may impose stricter contractual controls on insured contractors.
- Local building departments and other regulators — with constrained disciplinary authority at the state licensing level, local agencies may need to shoulder a larger share of enforcement, increasing inspection and litigation burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves a real problem — regulatory friction that can slow adoption of new construction technologies — by insulating contractors from administrative discipline, but it does so at the cost of weakening a straightforward enforcement tool that protects public safety; the central tension is between encouraging innovation and preserving robust, predictable enforcement of building‑safety standards.
Two implementation problems stand out. First, the bill is unusually broad and imprecise: it protects a licensee ‘‘who engages in the use of technologies, tools, and equipment’’ without defining any of those terms, setting a threshold for acceptable use, or requiring notice or approval.
That invites fact‑intensive disputes about whether an instrument or piece of software is a protected "technology," whether its use caused a violation, and whether the exemption applies to willful or reckless conduct. Expect courts and the CSLB to face repeated threshold questions about the statute’s scope.
Second, the bill changes the administrative enforcement landscape without providing alternative oversight mechanisms. Because the statutory exemption only addresses administrative discipline, criminal and civil remedies remain available — but in practice those pathways are slower, costlier, and less consistently applied.
The result could be a transfer of enforcement from an administrative regulator with licensing leverage to a patchwork of permit authorities, civil litigants, and prosecutors. That diffusion raises public‑safety and equity questions: who will bear the cost when a novel technology causes systemic defects, and how quickly can harms be corrected?
In short, AB 2287 lowers one barrier to technological adoption but does so by creating ambiguity and shifting risk rather than by specifying guardrails or approval processes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.