AB 576 establishes a regulatory framework for entities that use internet platforms to solicit charitable donations in California. It defines “charitable fundraising platform” and “platform charity,” treats qualifying platforms and platform charities as trustees for charitable purposes, and brings them under the supervision of the California Attorney General.
The bill focuses on transparency and donor protections: it requires registration and annual reporting, conspicuous pre-donation disclosures about who receives funds and any fees or timing delays, written consent rules for using a charity’s name, requirements to hold solicited funds separately, and makes vendor contracts available for AG inspection. Corporate platforms, platform charities, charities, donors, and the AG would face new operational and compliance obligations if implemented.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill designates most internet-based fundraising services that list or enable donations to named charities as trustees subject to AG oversight and requires them to register and renew annually. It compels platforms and platform charities to file sworn annual reports, disclose to donors where donations go and what fees or time lags apply, obtain consent to use a charity’s name (with narrow exceptions), and hold solicited funds in segregated accounts until distribution.
Who It Affects
Online fundraising platforms, platform charities that run or are paired with those platforms, and recipient nonprofit organizations listed on or referenced by those platforms. Vendors that actually perform solicitation functions on their own platform also fall under the rule, while a charity’s own donation page and pure technical vendors are excluded. The Attorney General gains new inspection and enforcement authority.
Why It Matters
The bill changes legal status for many digital fundraisers—moving them from commerce-adjacent services into fiduciary oversight—and creates operational duties (registration, reporting, segregation of funds, disclosures) that will require process changes, new data flows, and likely legal and technical compliance work. It also creates practical rules for handling unconsented listings and reliance on government-maintained good‑standing lists.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 576 starts by drawing a functional line: a “charitable fundraising platform” is any online service that, for Californians, lists named recipient charities, enables peer‑to‑peer fundraising, lets users choose charities tied to purchases or activity, or provides a customizable donation site for charities. The draft explicitly excludes a charity’s own donation page and vendors that only provide back‑end technical services unless those vendors themselves use their platforms to solicit.
The bill also creates a parallel category called “platform charity” for charities that operate or facilitate fundraising on these platforms and makes clear both types are subject to Attorney General supervision as trustees.
Once an entity meets the definition, AB 576 requires it to register with the AG’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers and to file annual, sworn reports that let the AG verify whether funds were solicited and distributed appropriately. Those reports must include numbers of donations, amounts raised, distribution timelines, platform and partner fees (excluding ordinary payment processing fees in some circumstances), and which recipient organizations received or did not receive funds.
The bill protects donor privacy by forbidding disclosure of personally identifiable donor information in those filings.The bill builds a practical compliance pathway around charity status: platforms and platform charities may rely on machine‑readable, structured lists or APIs published by the IRS, the Franchise Tax Board, and the Attorney General to determine whether a recipient charity is in “good standing.” If an agency does not publish such a list or API, platforms are not required to comply with that particular check while the data remains unavailable. This approach shifts some verification work to public agencies but introduces dependence on their data publishing practices.AB 576 also requires clear, conspicuous disclosures to donors before a donation is completed.
Platforms must state exactly who will receive the funds, any circumstances under which a named recipient might not receive them, the maximum time it will take to disburse funds (or state that disbursement is contemporaneous), what fees or deductions apply, and whether the donation is tax‑deductible. In many cases platforms must obtain written consent from a recipient charity before using its name; limited exceptions allow unconsented listings if the platform restricts itself to published identifying information and provides a conspicuous notice that the charity did not consent and has not reviewed peer‑to‑peer content.Finally, the bill addresses custody and accountability: platforms must hold donations in accounts separate from other corporate funds, promptly ensure transfers to recipient charities with accounting of any fees, provide donors with tax receipts in line with existing Business and Professions Code sections, and make vendor contracts used for solicitation and fund handling available for Attorney General inspection.
Those rules are designed to prevent diversion of donated funds and to give the AG evidence to investigate misuse.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 576 lists five concrete platform activities that trigger regulation: (A) naming recipient charities for donations, (B) enabling peer-to-peer fundraising, (C) selecting recipients based on purchases or user activity, (D) listing recipients tied to platform-based grants from purchases, and (E) providing a customizable donation site for charities.
Platforms and platform charities may rely on machine‑readable lists or APIs published by the IRS, California Franchise Tax Board, or the AG to determine a recipient organization’s good standing; if such machine‑readable data is not available from an agency, the platform is excused from that check for that agency until the data is provided.
A recipient charitable organization can demand removal of its listing; the platform must verify the request and remove the organization within three business days after verification.
Contracts with vendors that solicit, process, or account for donations on the platform must be made available for inspection by the Attorney General, creating a documentary trail of outsourcing arrangements and fee splits.
The bill exempts ordinary technical vendors (hosting, domain, security certificates, payment processing) from the fundraising definition unless those vendors themselves perform solicitation on their own platform.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope: what counts as a charitable fundraising platform
This section sets the gate: it defines a charitable fundraising platform by function, not by corporate form, and lists five example activities that trigger coverage (listing named recipient charities, enabling peer fundraising, selecting recipients tied to purchases, listing recipients for platform‑based grants, and providing a customizable donation interface). It also carves out several exclusions — the charitable organization’s own donation page, pure technical vendors, certain donor‑advised fund sponsors, and some activities that fall under existing commercial fundraiser or commercial coventurer rules — which narrows but does not eliminate coverage for many intermediaries.
Trustee status and registration with the Attorney General
This part declares qualifying platforms and platform charities to be trustees for charitable purposes subject to AG supervision and requires registration with the AG’s Registry of Charities and Fundraisers. Registration must be renewed annually and is subject to a fee the AG sets and deposits under the statute. The practical implication is that many digital fundraisers will enter a familiar nonprofit regulatory environment—with sworn filings and the AG’s oversight—rather than operating as purely commercial entities.
Annual sworn reporting: content and donor privacy
Platforms and platform charities must file annual reports under oath that allow the AG to check solicitation and distribution practices. The required data includes counts and amounts of donations, timing for distributions, fees charged, and which recipient organizations received funds or did not. The statute explicitly protects donor privacy by prohibiting disclosure of personally identifiable donor information in these filings, so the reporting is aggregate and transactional rather than donor‑level.
Good‑standing checks and reliance on machine‑readable lists
This section requires platforms to ensure recipient charities are in good standing but provides a practical compliance route: platforms may rely on machine‑readable structured lists or APIs published by the IRS, the Franchise Tax Board, and the AG. If an agency fails to publish those resources, platforms are excused from that particular check until the agency provides the data. That trades off platform verification burdens against reliance on public agency data practices.
Donor disclosures and consent rules for using charity names
Before completing a donation, platforms must present conspicuous disclosures about the ultimate recipient of funds, reasons a named charity might not receive funds, maximum time to transfer funds, fees deducted or added (with some exclusions), and tax deductibility. Written consent from a recipient is required to use its name, but the bill permits narrow exceptions where only published identifying information is used and a conspicuous notice states the charity did not consent; in those cases platforms must promptly remove a charity within three business days after a verified removal request.
Receipts, segregation of funds, and prohibition on diversion
Platforms and platform charities must provide donors with tax receipts consistent with California Business and Professions Code requirements, hold solicited funds in separate accounts rather than commingling with corporate operating funds, and make prompt transfers to recipient charities with a clear accounting of any fee deductions. The statute flatly prohibits diversion or misuse of donated funds, creating a custody obligation separate from ordinary commercial money movement.
Vendor contracts subject to AG inspection
When platforms contract with vendors to handle solicitation, processing, accounting, or distribution of donations, those contracts must be available for Attorney General inspection. That provision increases transparency about outsourcing arrangements and fee sharing and gives the AG a tool to trace how funds move through third-party processors and service providers.
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 — receive clearer, upfront disclosures about who receives funds, potential delays, deductibility, and fees, reducing the chance of confusion or inadvertent giving to intermediaries.
- Recipient charitable organizations — gain a formal mechanism to prevent unauthorized use of their name (removal within three business days after verification) and more clarity about when and how donations will reach them.
- Attorney General’s office — acquires structured registration, sworn reports, vendor contracts, and segregated‑fund requirements that improve the AG’s ability to detect diversion and enforce donor protection laws.
- Smaller charities using platform services — benefit from greater transparency about fee deductions and timing of transfers, which can aid budgeting and reconciliation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Online fundraising platforms and platform charities — must build or expand compliance programs: register annually, prepare sworn reports, present conspicuous disclosures, segregate donation accounts, and respond to removal requests.
- Platform vendors that cross the solicitation line — may be reclassified as platforms if they solicit on their own platform, creating new regulatory exposure and potential licensing or filing costs.
- Attorney General’s office — will likely see an increase in filings and inspection requests, requiring resources to process registrations, review sworn reports, and inspect contracts, even if fee revenue offsets some costs.
- Smaller or emerging platforms — face fixed compliance costs (legal, technical, operational) that could chill entry or push consolidation toward larger incumbents that can amortize those costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to balance stronger donor protections and charity control against the operational and compliance costs of regulating internet intermediaries: greater transparency and custody obligations reduce the risk of diversion and donor confusion, but they also impose real technical, legal, and administrative burdens on platforms and vendors—risks that could push activity out of regulated channels or favor larger incumbents able to absorb compliance costs.
AB 576 creates a compliance regime that is operationally specific but depends on third‑party data and practical verification steps that may be harder to execute than they appear. Allowing reliance on machine‑readable IRS, Franchise Tax Board, and AG lists reduces the immediate vetting burden for platforms, but it also creates a single point of failure: if an agency does not publish the data in a usable format, platforms are excused from the check, which could leave gaps in donor protection.
The bill punts some verification work to public agencies without obligating those agencies to provide the data on any timeline.
The consent exceptions are another tension point. Requiring written consent for use of a charity’s name protects charities from implied endorsement, but the permitted shortcut—using only published identifying information and a conspicuous notice that the charity did not consent—still allows third parties to list charities without prior permission.
That regime reduces friction for broad listings and marketplace features but raises risks of reputation harm, spoofing, or misleading peer‑to‑peer campaigns, particularly where platforms do not moderate content closely.
On custody and vendor oversight, the statute requires segregated accounts and makes vendor contracts inspectable, which improves traceability but raises practical questions. Many platforms use payment processors that aggregate funds and remit on schedules; defining when funds are “held” by the platform versus processed by a third party will require careful contract terms and reconciliation practices.
The vendor‑contract inspection requirement also intersects with commercial confidentiality and negotiated fee structures, potentially creating friction between transparency demands and businesses’ desire to keep competitive terms private.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.