AB 637 makes it unlawful for any person or business to send commercial messages that falsely imply government or nonprofit endorsement, or that otherwise mislead disaster-affected Californians about goods or services tied to a declared state of emergency. The prohibition covers communications that advertise disaster-related products or services or that use the name of a geographic area subject to the emergency declaration.
The bill builds a narrow safe harbor: a commercial message avoids being “false or misleading” only if it includes a conspicuous, statutory disclosure (different text depending on whether the risk is implied government or implied nonprofit approval), names and identifies the provider’s incorporation status, and otherwise complies with existing advertising rules. AB 637 also sets a time window for applicability, gives multiple state enforcement agencies and local prosecutors standing to sue, creates civil penalties, and grants harmed consumers a private right of action with treble damages equal to the amount solicited.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill outlaws commercial disaster communications that create the impression of government or nonprofit endorsement, and defines a narrow safe harbor requiring a specific, conspicuous disclosure and provider identification. It applies for the duration of a state-of-emergency proclamation plus a short post-termination window (with an overall cap).
Who It Affects
For-profit disaster vendors, contractors, lead generators, online advertisers and platforms, licensed professionals whose communications relate to disaster relief, and not-for-profit organizations that risk impersonation. Regulators and local prosecutors gain explicit enforcement tools.
Why It Matters
AB 637 targets a recurring problem after emergencies—profiteering or deceptive offers that exploit displaced or vulnerable residents—by creating advertising-specific content rules and a private litigation hook that can multiply damages and incentivize enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 637 builds a statute focused on commercial messages that reach people inside or displaced from areas under a declared state of emergency. It draws two kinds of commercial communications into scope: (1) advertisements for goods or services related to losses caused by the disaster offered by for-profit entities, and (2) any commercial message that uses the name of a geographic area listed in the emergency declaration.
The bill does not target general public information from government or bona fide not-for-profits; instead it targets commercial actors who might imply authority or charitable status they do not have.
The bill defines what counts as “false or misleading” in two concrete ways. First, a communication is deceptive if it conveys the impression it was made by or approved by a governmental entity — including by using government names, symbols, seals, or images — when no such approval exists.
Second, a communication is deceptive if it implies connection with, or approval by, a not-for-profit disaster-relief organization, or deploys words such as “aid,” “relief,” or “assistance” in a way likely to be read as a nonprofit offer, unless the nonprofit has actually approved the communication. AB 637 explicitly excludes organizations operating on contingency-fee models from the definition of “not-for-profit.”To avoid classification as false or misleading, the bill requires a strict safe harbor: the ad must display a conspicuous statutory disclosure (different phrasing depending on whether the concern is government-impersonation or nonprofit-impersonation), must clearly identify the provider and that provider’s incorporation status, and must otherwise comply with existing advertising statutes.
The law defines “conspicuous” with a technical formatting rule (minimum type size, boldface, caps, and contrast requirements), which matters for how online, print, and broadcast ads are designed. The safe harbor is narrowly drawn and leaves room for enforcement if ads fail to meet the layout or content criteria.AB 637 applies from the date an emergency is proclaimed until 60 days after the emergency terminates, but it caps applicability at 180 calendar days for any single emergency.
Enforcement is exclusively civil: the Attorney General, local prosecutors and counsel, the Insurance Commissioner (for insurance-related communications), and the Department of Consumer Affairs (for communications about its licensees) may sue to enjoin violations, obtain receiverships, force refunds, and assess civil penalties. The bill also gives harmed individuals a private right of action permitting them to recover damages equal to three times the amount solicited by the deceptive communication, and specifies that these remedies stack with other available state penalties.
Finally, the measure clarifies that violations are civil, not criminal.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Safe-harbor disclosure text for false government-approval impressions: ads must prominently state exactly: “THIS PRODUCT OR SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR ENDORSED BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND THIS OFFER IS NOT BEING MADE BY AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.”, Safe-harbor disclosure text for false nonprofit-approval impressions: ads must prominently state exactly: “THIS PRODUCT OR SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED OR ENDORSED BY ANY NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION AND THIS OFFER IS NOT BEING MADE BY ANY NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.”, The bill defines “conspicuous” formatting as text displayed apart from other print, in at least 12-point boldface capital letters that are at least 2 point sizes larger than the next-largest print, with contrasting font, layout, or color.
Civil penalties are capped at $2,500 for an initial violation and $5,000 for each subsequent violating communication; penalties are payable to the general fund of the government entity that brought the action.
Private plaintiffs may sue and recover damages equal to three times the amount solicited by the deceptive communication, in addition to injunctions, refunds, and other civil remedies; the statute explicitly makes these remedies cumulative.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions driving scope: commercial disaster communication, false or misleading, conspicuous
Subdivision (a) is the operational heart of the bill: it defines what a commercial disaster communication is and what it means to be false or misleading. The provision captures both ads that sell disaster-related goods or services by for-profit actors and any commercial message that uses the name of an emergency-affected geographic area. It also supplies technical definitions — notably a strict formatting rule for what counts as “conspicuous” and exclusions such as contingency-fee providers from the not-for-profit definition — that will shape how the safe-harbor disclosure can be implemented across media.
Blanket prohibition on false or misleading commercial disaster communications
Subdivision (b) states the prohibition in straightforward terms: making or disseminating false or misleading commercial disaster communications within California is unlawful. Practically, this places content-based limits on commercial speech during emergency periods and creates a compliance obligation for advertisers to ensure their messaging does not imply official endorsement or charitable status when none exists.
Narrow safe harbor: exact disclosures and provider-identification requirements
Subdivision (c) delineates how an otherwise suspect communication avoids liability. There are two parallel paths depending on whether the problem is an implied governmental approval or an implied nonprofit approval. Each path requires the communication to conspicuously feature prescribed statutory language, to conspicuously identify the provider and its incorporation status, and to otherwise follow existing advertising laws. Because the statute prescribes exact disclosure wording and a strict definition of conspicuousness, compliance will depend on precise ad layout and copy — a small font or buried disclaimer is unlikely to suffice.
Temporal scope: emergency-window application with a 180-day cap
Subdivision (d) limits the statute to communications made after a state-of-emergency proclamation and until 60 calendar days after the emergency ends, but it bars application for more than 180 calendar days for any single emergency. Practically, this creates a predictable window for enforcement while preventing indefinite applicability to protracted incidents; the 180-day ceiling will matter for long-running disasters or rolling declarations.
Enforcement authorities and equitable remedies
These sections grant enforcement authority to the Attorney General, local prosecutors and counsels, the Insurance Commissioner (for insurance-related communications), and the Department of Consumer Affairs (for communications about its licensees). Courts may issue injunctions, appoint receivers, order refunds, and craft other relief necessary to prevent ongoing violations or to restore ill-gotten funds. The delegated enforcement across agencies creates tailored jurisdiction but also raises coordination questions in multi-issue cases.
Private right of action, civil penalties, cumulative remedies, and non-criminal classification
Subdivision (g) gives individuals harmed by a violation a private cause of action with damages equal to three times the amount solicited. The statute also prescribes civil penalties (up to $2,500 for first violation and $5,000 for subsequent communications) and specifies that its remedies are cumulative with other state laws. Finally, the bill clarifies that violations are civil infractions and not crimes, which limits the state’s response to civil enforcement and private litigation rather than criminal prosecution.
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
- Disaster-affected residents and displaced persons — the bill seeks to reduce scams and misleading offers at moments of heightened vulnerability, making it easier for individuals to distinguish legitimate offers from exploitative ones.
- Authorized not-for-profit relief organizations — the measure protects their brand and fundraising efforts by criminalizing impersonation-like conduct and setting a disclosure standard against deceptive commercial piggybacking.
- State regulators and local prosecutors — the statute gives them explicit, statute-backed authority to pursue bad actors in disaster contexts, including tailored jurisdiction for insurance- and license-related misrepresentations.
- Transparent businesses and service providers — firms that clearly identify themselves and follow the safe-harbor disclosure gain a competitive advantage against companies that try to imply illegitimate endorsements.
Who Bears the Cost
- For-profit disaster vendors, contractors, and lead generators — they must redesign ads, include precise disclosures, and face civil penalties and treble-damage exposure if courts find communications misleading.
- Online advertising platforms and publishers — platforms may need to police ads tied to named emergency areas or implement controls to ensure ads meet the conspicuous-disclosure standard, increasing moderation costs.
- Small businesses and sole practitioners unfamiliar with advertising law — they carry compliance risk because the disclosure format is prescriptive and could prove hard to apply in constrained ad formats (e.g., mobile banners, voice ads).
- Insurers and regulated licensees — communications touching on insurance or licensed services fall under the Insurance Commissioner or Department of Consumer Affairs jurisdiction, potentially increasing regulatory actions and supervision costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting vulnerable, disaster-affected people from deceptive commercial solicitations while avoiding overly broad rules that chill legitimate, timely offers of paid assistance and invite high-volume civil litigation; the statute attempts to solve the first problem with technical disclosure requirements, but those same rules create compliance burdens and prove hard to apply consistently across modern digital advertising formats.
AB 637 targets a real problem — deceptive disaster-related marketing — but its text raises implementation and interpretive questions. The statutory definition of “conspicuous” is unusually prescriptive; while it gives clarity, it may be difficult to apply to small-format digital ads, sponsored social posts, or voice and in-app messaging.
Advertisers will need practical guidance about whether a required disclosure fits within character-limited placements or whether additional prominent landing-page disclosures suffice. The bill’s subjective standard — communications that “give the impression” of government or nonprofit approval — invites litigation over consumer perception and may produce inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.
The scale of private remedies is another pressure point. Treble damages tied to the “amount solicited” creates a strong financial incentive for private suits and may produce outsized recoveries for small-dollar solicitations when courts interpret solicitation broadly (for example, including fees, estimates, or bundled offers).
At the same time, agencies and civil enforcers will have to coordinate across overlapping jurisdictions — AG, local prosecutors, Insurance Commissioner, and Department of Consumer Affairs — in cases that cut across insurance, licensing, and consumer-fraud claims. Finally, the bill’s limited temporal scope (60 days after termination but not more than 180 days) balances urgency and overbreadth, yet it may leave gaps for long-term recovery markets that emerge after the emergency period ends.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.