AB 2621 amends Section 1041 of the California Financial Code to replace the phrase "his or her" with the gender-neutral pronoun "their." The bill is purely textual: it does not alter the existing requirement that a proposed bank or trust company's articles of incorporation be submitted to the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation for approval before filing with the Secretary of State.
Practically, AB 2621 imposes no new substantive obligations, fees, or enforcement mechanisms. Its value is stylistic and administrative—bringing statutory language in line with modern drafting practices and reducing gendered terminology in banking statutes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill changes a single pronoun in Financial Code §1041, substituting "their" for the existing "his or her." It leaves intact the section's substantive mechanics, including pre-filing submission to the commissioner and the post-filing obligations spelled out in subsections (a)–(c).
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are limited to prospective state-chartered banks and trust companies, the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation, and the Secretary of State—none face new compliance duties. Legislative drafters and counsel will note the change as part of code modernization.
Why It Matters
Although textual and nondisruptive, the amendment signals continued attention to gender-neutral statutory language and reduces the small but real risk of archaic wording persisting in statutes. For most professionals it changes nothing substantive, but it matters for drafting consistency and public-facing statutory language.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1041 sets the preconditions and immediate post-filing steps for forming a state-chartered bank or trust company: submit the proposed articles to the commissioner for approval before filing, then after filing provide the commissioner a certified copy, a statement proving contributed capital is fully paid and deposited, and pay a $2,500 fee. AB 2621 edits only one phrase in that statute — it replaces the gendered phrase "his or her" with the singular, gender-neutral pronoun "their."
The bill does not change the substantive duties, thresholds, or fees in §1041. It preserves the commissioner's approval role and the existing documentation and capital-verification requirements in subsections (a)–(c).
There is no new regulatory standard, no new enforcement authority, and no appropriation or penalty attached to the edit.From an implementation standpoint, the change is administrative: code editors, the Secretary of State's office, and agency rulewriters will update statutory text in published code databases and internal references. Agencies should not need to revise forms, procedures, or guidance, because the legal obligations remain the same; the amendment simply modernizes phrasing.
Practitioners should treat this as a housekeeping revision, but watch for companion edits elsewhere if the Legislature is pursuing broader gender-neutralization across related provisions.Finally, although legally immaterial in almost all cases, textual edits like this can matter in edge-case statutory interpretation disputes. Courts typically treat pronoun modernization as stylistic, but small textual variations can attract attention in litigation where statutory text is the central issue.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2621 replaces the phrase "his or her" with "their" in Financial Code §1041; no other language in the section is altered.
The bill leaves intact the pre-filing requirement that articles of incorporation be submitted to the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation for approval.
Subsections (a)–(c) remain unchanged: (a) requires filing a copy of the articles certified by the Secretary of State; (b) requires evidence that contributed capital is fully paid and deposited in a state or national bank in California; (c) preserves the $2,500 filing fee payable to the commissioner.
The Legislative Counsel's Digest characterizes the amendment as nonsubstantive—a drafting modernization rather than a policy change.
AB 2621 creates no new regulatory obligations, penalties, fiscal effects, or appropriations; its impact is limited to statutory text and published code revisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Pronoun modernization in bank-formation provision
The amendment replaces "his or her" with "their" in the opening sentence of §1041. Mechanically this is a single-word substitution intended to remove gendered language. The practical effect is limited to the printed code and statutory databases; the operative requirement — submission of the articles to the commissioner for approval before filing with the Secretary of State — remains the same.
Certified copy requirement remains intact
Subsection (a) continues to require the proposed bank or trust company to file with the commissioner a copy of its articles certified by the Secretary of State after those articles have been filed. That obligation is unchanged by AB 2621 and preserves an existing documentary checkpoint for the commissioner's records and review.
Capital verification statement unchanged
Subsection (b) still obliges applicants to submit a statement, in a form the commissioner requires, verifying that the contributed capital is fully paid in lawful money and deposited in a California state or national bank subject to demand withdrawal, net of authorized preopening expenditures. AB 2621 does not alter the substance, timing, or evidentiary expectations of that verification.
Fee provision preserved
Subsection (c) maintains the $2,500 fee payable to the commissioner. The bill does not change fee amounts, collection authority, or the commissioner's existing fee-related administrative processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance 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
- Prospective state-chartered banks and trust companies — benefit only symbolically from clearer, inclusive statutory language without incurring new compliance burdens.
- Regulatory drafters and in-house counsel — get a cleaner statute to cite and fewer archaic formulations to explain in client-facing materials.
- Diversity, equity, and inclusion advocates — secure a small win in removing gendered language from the Financial Code, reinforcing broader statutory modernization efforts.
- Publishers and database maintainers of California law — receive an explicit instruction to update published texts and annotations for accuracy and consistency.
Who Bears the Cost
- Legislative drafting and administrative staff — incur minimal time and expense to process, publish, and update the statutory text in official code publications and databases.
- Secretary of State and the Commissioner's office — face negligible administrative work to ensure internal references and online text reflect the updated wording, though no procedural changes are required.
- Legal research platforms and compliance teams — must update citation records and internal compliance manuals to reflect the revised statutory wording, a one-time editorial cost.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the legitimate goal of updating statutes for inclusivity and modern drafting against the need to preserve textual precision and legal certainty: a small stylistic edit improves readability and inclusiveness but carries a nonzero risk that careless or widespread substitutions could introduce ambiguity into statutes that courts and agencies rely on for bright-line rules.
On its face AB 2621 is a harmless, stylistic change. The primary implementation task is editorial: updating official code text, internal manuals, and electronic legal databases.
Because the bill does not alter thresholds, duties, fees, or enforcement provisions, agencies and regulated parties should not need to change forms or substantive practices.
The analytical tension to watch is cumulative: individually innocuous textual edits can, in aggregate or in poorly executed edits, create interpretive ambiguity. Replacing gendered pronouns is usually safe, but automated or broad-brush replacements across complex statutory language can inadvertently change meaning when gendered references are embedded in multi-part constructions, cross-references, or definitions.
Practically, courts tend to treat these modernizations as nonsubstantive, but litigants may still seize on textual differences in close cases. Finally, the bill raises the housekeeping question of whether the Legislature will pursue a coordinated, code-wide modernization effort and how that effort will be staffed, funded, and quality-controlled to prevent drafting errors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.