AB 665 amends Section 90018 of the California Financial Code to require the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to include information on actions taken with respect to the Office of the Ombuds in the Department’s statutorily required annual report published on its website. The amendment inserts the Office of the Ombuds into the existing list of items the report must cover — which already includes rulemaking, enforcement, oversight, consumer complaints and resolutions, education, research, and the Financial Technology Innovation Office.
The change is narrow on its face but consequential in practice: it elevates the Ombuds’ activities into the Department’s routine public accounting, which increases transparency and creates expectations about what the Ombuds must track and disclose. That raises practical questions about scope, confidentiality, metrics, and the operational burden on DFPI and on regulated entities whose matters may be summarized in the report.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the DFPI commissioner to include information about actions taken by the Office of the Ombuds in the department’s annual report posted on its website. The report continues to cover other items (rulemaking, enforcement, oversight, complaints, the Financial Technology Innovation Office) and may include recommendations to improve oversight, transparency, or product availability.
Who It Affects
Directly affects DFPI staff (reporting and the Ombuds unit), consumer advocates who monitor complaint resolution, and regulated financial firms that may appear in aggregated reporting. Compliance officers and legal teams will need to coordinate recordkeeping and disclosure practices with the Ombuds.
Why It Matters
The amendment makes Ombuds work part of DFPI’s public record, increasing accountability and the potential to surface systemic problems. It also creates new implementation choices about what to publish, how to protect confidential information, and how much operational data the Ombuds must collect and retain.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 90018 already requires the Commissioner to publish an annual report on the DFPI website describing the agency’s work under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. AB 665 adds a single item to the list of topics the report must include: “the activities of the Office of the Ombuds.” The bill leaves the rest of the statutory language intact, including the option for the report to include recommendations aimed at improving oversight, transparency, or the availability of beneficial financial products and services.
Because the amendment does not define what “information on actions taken with respect to the Office of the Ombuds” means, DFPI will need to translate that phrase into an operational reporting framework. Practically, that will involve deciding which metrics to collect (e.g., counts of inquiries, categories of complaints, resolution outcomes, systemic referrals), what narrative context to provide, and what time periods to cover.
Those choices will determine whether the new requirement produces useful public insight or merely a checkbox-style summary.The statutory change also triggers privacy and confidentiality considerations. Ombuds interactions often contain sensitive consumer data and, in some cases, information about pending investigations or enforcement actions.
DFPI’s report will have to strike a balance between meaningful disclosure and legal or policy constraints — for example, protecting Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and not prejudicing ongoing enforcement. That balance will shape both the content published and the recordkeeping practices required of Ombuds staff.For compliance teams at regulated firms, the immediate takeaway is operational: expect more routine aggregation of Ombuds-related data and possible public summaries of complaint trends.
That will likely prompt coordination between compliance, legal, and DFPI-facing staff to ensure that records are captured in a way that both serves Ombuds work and anticipates public reporting. Over time, incorporation of Ombuds activity into the annual report could influence DFPI priorities if recurring systemic issues identified by the Ombuds surface in the public record.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 665 amends Financial Code §90018 to add “the activities of the Office of the Ombuds” to the mandatory topics the DFPI annual report must include.
The statute continues to require the report be prepared by the Commissioner and published on the department’s internet website.
The report’s scope already covers rulemaking, enforcement, oversight, consumer complaints and resolutions, education, research, and the Financial Technology Innovation Office; AB 665 simply inserts the Ombuds into that roster.
Section 90018(c) preserves the commissioner’s ability to include recommendations in the report, meaning Ombuds-related findings could lead to public policy suggestions from DFPI.
The bill uses broad language — “information on actions taken with respect to the Office of the Ombuds” — leaving DFPI discretion (and an implementation task) to define specific metrics, anonymization standards, and disclosure limits.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Annual report requirement and publication duty
Subsection (a) reiterates the existing duty: the Commissioner must prepare and publish an annual report on the department’s website describing actions taken under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. This provision sets the delivery mechanism (a single public report on DFPI’s site) rather than specifying implementation detail, so operational choices about format, timing, or supporting materials remain within DFPI authority unless otherwise prescribed elsewhere.
Core report topics and the Financial Technology Innovation Office
Paragraph (1) lists the report’s substantive areas (rulemaking, enforcement, oversight, complaints and resolutions, education, research) and paragraph (2) already required coverage of the Financial Technology Innovation Office. Practically, these clauses set expectations for multi-year trend reporting and cross-team coordination inside DFPI; AB 665 leaves these intact so the Ombuds item must fit into an established reporting architecture that covers both policy and operational activity.
New: reporting on the Office of the Ombuds
Paragraph (3) is the new text added by AB 665 and requires the annual report to include information on actions taken with respect to the Office of the Ombuds. The language is intentionally open-ended — it does not prescribe metrics or categories — which gives DFPI flexibility but also creates immediate implementation questions about what counts as an ‘action’ (individual case handling, systemic referrals, policy advisories, outreach) and how to present sensitive information without compromising confidentiality.
Permitted recommendations to improve oversight and access
Subsection (c) allows the Commissioner to include recommendations in the annual report aimed at improved oversight, greater transparency, or increased availability of beneficial financial products and services. Including Ombuds activity in the report makes it more likely that the Ombuds’ casework will feed into public recommendations — but the statute does not create a requirement to act on recommendations, nor does it prescribe a response timeline or accountability mechanism.
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
- Consumers who file complaints: increased public reporting on Ombuds activity can surface systemic problem areas and demonstrate how individual issues are handled, giving consumers greater visibility into dispute-resolution outcomes.
- Consumer advocates and researchers: the presence of Ombuds data in DFPI’s annual report creates a new, centralized source of information for trend analysis and policy advocacy.
- Policymakers and oversight bodies: a public record that includes Ombuds activity helps legislative and oversight actors see where informal resolution channels are producing policy-relevant patterns and may inform statutory fixes or resource decisions.
- The Office of the Ombuds: formal inclusion in the annual report raises its institutional profile and may strengthen the unit’s case for resources or organizational support within DFPI.
Who Bears the Cost
- DFPI operational units, including the Ombuds: the department will need to allocate staff time and systems to collect, vet, anonymize, and publish Ombuds-related information, imposing administrative and IT costs.
- Compliance and legal teams at regulated firms: firms should expect more formalized DFPI summaries that can trigger inquiries or reputational risk, requiring coordinated record retention and potential responses to DFPI follow-ups.
- The Ombuds’ informal dispute-resolution function: public reporting requirements could pressure the Ombuds to limit candid, off-the-record problem-solving or to formalize processes that were previously lighter-touch, increasing workload.
- Privacy officers and records managers: preparing redacted, aggregate, or anonymized summaries compatible with privacy law will consume resources and require careful protocols to avoid inadvertent disclosure of sensitive consumer data.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is transparency versus confidentiality: the bill pushes for public accountability by elevating Ombuds activity in the annual report, but it does not resolve how to protect sensitive consumer information or preserve the informal, candor-dependent dispute-resolution role of an ombuds without creating additional operational burdens on the agency and the regulated entities it oversees.
AB 665 is short and procedural, but the practical levers it touches are complex. The statute’s broad phrasing — requiring “information on actions taken with respect to the Office of the Ombuds” — leaves DFPI responsible for defining what data are collected, how they are aggregated, and how confidentiality is protected.
Those implementation choices will determine whether the reporting meaningfully improves public understanding or simply produces a superficial summary that adds little to existing transparency. The bill does not allocate funding or specify data standards, so the department may face competing priorities in executing a substantive Ombuds section within the annual report.
Another unresolved issue is the interplay between transparency and the Ombuds’ effectiveness. Ombuds offices frequently rely on confidential, informal channels to resolve matters quickly; routine public reporting risks chilling those conversations if parties fear exposure.
At the same time, limited reporting can obscure systemic problems. The statute leaves no guidance on redaction standards, whether case-level data may be published in anonymized form, or how to coordinate disclosure with ongoing enforcement actions, which risks either over-disclosure or under-inclusion depending on DFPI’s choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.