AB 2731 amends Section 10 of the California Business and Professions Code to update the statutory language that governs who may exercise powers or perform duties that the code grants to a public officer. The amendment modernizes wording, replacing a phrase about a "person legally authorized by the officer" with "a person authorized pursuant to law by the officer," and presents the change as nonsubstantive.
Though the bill does not create new regulatory powers, alter licensing requirements, or add substantive duties, the revised phrasing can matter in close legal questions about the scope and legality of delegations. Administrative bodies, licensing boards, and attorneys who litigate statutory delegation will want to note how this cleaner language might be read by courts and applied in agency practices.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises the text of §10 so that when the Business and Professions Code grants a power to a public officer or imposes a duty on that officer, the power may be exercised or the duty performed by the officer’s deputy or by "a person authorized pursuant to law by the officer," unless expressly provided otherwise. It does not add penalties, duties, or new regulatory authority.
Who It Affects
State licensing boards and regulatory agencies that operate under the Business and Professions Code, their counsel, regulated professionals and businesses that rely on board decisions, and courts that interpret delegation language in administrative statutes.
Why It Matters
A single-phrase wording change in a foundational delegation clause can influence judicial interpretation about the source and scope of delegated authority, documentation requirements for delegations, and whether ad hoc or informal delegations meet the statute’s standard. The bill is a drafting cleanup on its face, but it touches the mechanics of administrative delegation across an entire code.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 10 has long been a default rule in the Business and Professions Code: when the code gives authority to a public officer or imposes a duty on that officer, the code presumes that a deputy or an authorized person can perform the function unless the statute says otherwise. AB 2731 keeps that structure intact but swaps one phrase for another — "person legally authorized by the officer" becomes "person authorized pursuant to law by the officer." The bill is presented as nonsubstantive, meaning it is intended as a drafting clarification rather than a change in policy.
Practically, the amendment does two things: it modernizes statutory diction and it underscores that authorization must be tied to legal authority ("pursuant to law"). That subtle shift can matter in contexts where delegations are informal, where delegations stem from internal policies rather than express statutory grant, or where opponents challenge the legal basis for an individual's exercise of power.
Agencies that rely on internal delegations will want to ensure those delegations rest on a clear legal footing.The bill does not create new compliance obligations, fees, or enforcement mechanisms. It applies only to language in §10 of the Business and Professions Code and does not amend other codes or create cross-references.
For day-to-day operations, licensing boards and regulated entities should expect no immediate procedural changes, but legal counsels may adjust delegation memos and administrative practices to cite the controlling legal authorization more explicitly.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2731 replaces the phrase "person legally authorized by the officer" with "person authorized pursuant to law by the officer" in Business and Professions Code §10.
The amendment preserves the existing rule that a deputy may exercise powers or perform duties granted to a public officer unless a statute expressly forbids delegation.
The bill is labeled nonsubstantive and does not add new powers, penalties, fees, or regulatory obligations to licensing boards or regulated professionals.
Because the new wording ties authorization to being "pursuant to law," agencies relying on informal or policy-based delegations should document the statutory or regulatory basis for those delegations.
The change is limited to §10 of the Business and Professions Code and does not amend delegation language in other codes or statutes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Update core delegation language in the Business & Professions Code
This single operative section replaces the existing phrasing about who may exercise a public officer’s powers. Mechanically, it leaves the delegation structure intact — powers still may be exercised by deputies or by persons the officer authorizes — but swaps "legally authorized" for "authorized pursuant to law," a formulation that signals authorization must be grounded in statute, regulation, or other legal authority. That shift matters mainly in close cases about whether a delegation is legally supported.
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
- State licensing boards — They get clearer, more modern statutory wording that can strengthen the legal footing of formally documented delegations and reduce quibbles over archaic phrasing.
- Administrative counsel and agency lawyers — The revised language gives a clearer hook for drafting delegation memos and for defending delegation decisions in litigation by emphasizing authorization "pursuant to law."
- Regulated professionals and businesses — They gain marginally improved transparency about the legal basis for delegated actions, which can aid in administrative appeals or compliance planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- Agency administrative staff — Minor administrative effort to update internal delegation documents and cite explicit legal authority where previously reliance may have been on internal policy alone.
- Regulatory counsels — Slight increase in legal review to confirm that existing delegations are supported by statute or regulation, and to revise delegation instruments if necessary.
- Litigants and courts — Potential for short-term litigation over the precise meaning of "authorized pursuant to law" as compared with prior language, producing legal costs and judicial time in close cases.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between clarity and flexibility: the bill seeks clearer, legally grounded delegation language to reduce sloppy or ad hoc delegations, but that very clarity can restrict the informal flexibility agencies sometimes rely on to operate efficiently, potentially inviting litigation over whether existing delegations meet the heightened textual standard.
The bill is framed as a nonsubstantive drafting change, but phrasing choices in delegation clauses are not purely cosmetic. "Authorized pursuant to law" can be read two ways: as a clarification that authorization must have some grounding in statute/regulation (narrowing informal delegations), or as a stylistic modernization with no change in meaning. Which reading prevails will depend on how courts treat the amendment if that question arises.
Agencies that have historically relied on internal policies rather than explicit statutory delegation may face demands to formalize or better document authority.
Implementation risk is small but real. The bill does not create a new enforcement mechanism or retroactive invalidation rule, so invalidation of past actions would require a court to find a lack of lawful authorization.
Still, the amendment invites operational housekeeping — updating delegation instruments, administrative orders, and job descriptions to cite the legal basis for delegated authority. There is also a cross-code coherence risk: other codes use different delegation phrasing, and courts may read §10 in light of those variations, producing inconsistent outcomes across regulatory domains.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.