AB 826 amends Section 1770 to add a cluster of new, enumerated unfair or deceptive acts in consumer transactions. The bill introduces veteran‑targeted disclosure requirements for events and advertising, bans unreasonable fees charged to assist applicants in obtaining public social services (including some veterans’ benefits), requires prominent disclosures on consumer financial solicitations, and tightens price‑and‑fee disclosure obligations for sales and advertising.
It also prohibits certain interactions between mortgage brokers or lenders and home improvement contractors in loan negotiations.
These changes convert specific practices into explicit statutory violations enforceable under California’s unfair and deceptive acts framework. The net effect is a set of bright‑line obligations for marketers, promoters, lenders, contractors, and financial solicitors — plus new factual markers (font size, envelope disclosures, defined factors for ‘unreasonable’ fees) that compliance teams must operationalize or litigate over.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates new numbered prohibitions inside subdivision (a) of Section 1770 covering: veteran‑focused advertising disclosures and affiliate disclaimers; a ban on charging ‘unreasonable fees’ to assist with public social services; mandatory identification and a bold 18‑point ‘‘THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT’’ statement in financial solicitations (with a 16‑point envelope rule for mail); fuller price disclosure requirements; and a ban on using home improvement contractors to negotiate residential loans.
Who It Affects
Organizations that advertise or host events about veterans’ benefits (including insurers and lead generators), home improvement contractors and mortgage brokers or lenders, covered persons under the Financial Code who send solicitations, retailers and broadband providers that advertise bundled prices, and anyone charging for assistance with public social services.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces general prohibitions with precise, enforceable mechanics (type size, wording, exemption carve‑outs, and fee‑reasonableness factors), raising compliance costs and creating new statutory hooks for enforcement and private claims. It also targets common schemes that exploit veterans and consumers seeking social‑service help, shifting the compliance burden onto advertisers, lenders, and promoters.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 826 expands the list of acts and practices that are unlawful under Section 1770 by adding several industry‑specific obligations and clarifying how disclosures must look and be delivered. For veteran‑related events and advertising, the bill requires promoters to include a specific oral and written statement that they are not authorized to file certain VA benefit applications or accept fees for preparing them — and to make a separate disclosure when the event is not affiliated with VA organizations.
The provision aims to make it harder for third‑party promoters to imply official endorsement or charge for services veterans can get free.
On fees for help obtaining public social services, the bill outlaws charging an ‘‘unreasonable fee’’ for preparing or aiding applications for state and federal benefits. It sets out non‑exclusive factors courts should consider — time, novelty, skill, relationship length, and the provider’s experience — and expressly exempts attorneys in specified administrative or court proceedings.
That framework is deliberately open‑ended: it does not set a dollar cap but replaces the status quo with a fact‑intensive reasonableness test.For financial and marketing communications, AB 826 prescribes formatting and content obligations. Solicitations for consumer financial products from a ‘‘covered person’’ must include the name and contact info of the sender and an 18‑point bold statement — ‘‘THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.
YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS OFFER’’ — in the same language as the solicitation. For solicitations in physical mail, the same notice must appear on the front of the envelope in at least 16‑point bold type.
The bill also requires advertised prices to include all mandatory fees (with limited exceptions for taxes and postage) and recognizes FCC broadband labeling as compliance for broadband providers.Beyond disclosure mechanics, AB 826 bars mortgage brokers or lenders from using a home improvement contractor to negotiate the terms of a loan secured by the borrower’s residence when that loan finances a home improvement. The bill clarifies that referrals and purchases of executed contracts remain permissible when otherwise lawful.
Finally, it cross‑references existing statutory standards for what counts as ‘‘clear and conspicuous’’ text and sets operative dates; some of those dates and references create practical sequencing issues for implementers that the bill does not resolve in‑text.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires any advertisement or event about veterans’ benefits to state, in the same font size as the word “veteran,” orally and in writing: “I am not authorized to file an initial application for Veterans’ Aid and Attendance benefits on your behalf, or to represent you before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals… It would be illegal for me to accept a fee for preparing that application on your behalf.”, Promoters must also, when not affiliated with VA entities, orally and in writing disclose that the event is not sponsored by the VA, CDVA, or recognized veterans’ organizations and that promoted insurance products are not endorsed by those bodies.
A solicitation for a consumer financial product from a covered person must include the sender’s name and contact information and an 18‑point bold disclosure stating “THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT…,” with a 16‑point bold version required on the front of mail envelopes.
The bill bans charging an “unreasonable fee” to prepare or aid applications for public social services, lists five non‑exclusive factors for determining reasonableness (time, novelty, skill, relationship, and provider experience), and exempts attorneys in covered administrative or court proceedings.
Advertising a price that omits mandatory fees is unlawful except for government‑imposed taxes and postage; compliance by broadband providers with the FCC’s consumer label is treated as compliance with this pricing rule, while a narrow restaurant/grocery exemption excludes third‑party delivery platforms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ban on unreasonable fees for helping obtain public social services
Paragraph (24) makes it unlawful to charge or receive an ‘‘unreasonable fee’’ to prepare, advise, or help applicants secure public social services, a category that explicitly includes certain veterans’ benefits. The bill defines ‘‘unreasonable fee’’ not by a fixed dollar figure but by five non‑exhaustive reasonableness factors (time/effort, novelty/difficulty, required skill, relationship length, and provider reputation). Practically, businesses that assist with benefit applications must document services and time and be prepared to justify fees against those factors; attorneys handling appeals or court work are carved out of this prohibition.
Veteran‑targeted advertising and event disclaimers
Paragraph (25) imposes precise content and display requirements on any advertising or event that discusses veterans’ benefits. It requires a pre‑specified sentence denying authority to file Aid and Attendance applications or represent clients before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, to be printed in the same type size and font as the word ‘‘veteran’’ and spoken and provided in writing at the start of any presentation. The provision also requires a clear non‑affiliation/endorsement statement where events are not sponsored by VA entities, and it exempts persons who are licensed and authorized to act before VA bodies. From an implementation standpoint, organizers and advertisers must integrate prescribed text into event scripts, marketing creatives, and signage or risk running afoul of an enumerated unlawful practice.
Solicitation rules for consumer financial products
Paragraph (28) forces covered persons soliciting consumer financial products to identify themselves and to include a prominent disclosure in the solicitation: an 18‑point bold statement that the communication is an advertisement and that recipients are not required to act. For physical mail solicitations, the same language must appear on the envelope front in at least 16‑point bold. The paragraph also adopts Financial Code definitions for ‘‘covered person’’ and narrows what counts as a solicitation (excluding mass advertising and consumer‑initiated contacts). Compliance teams for banks, lenders, and nonbank financial marketers must implement template language and font controls in direct mail and personalized electronic outreach.
All‑in price disclosure and broadband label alignment
Paragraph (29) prohibits advertising a price that omits mandatory fees or charges other than taxes and postage, effectively requiring headline or advertised prices to be ‘all‑in.’ The provision explicitly recognizes compliance with the FCC’s broadband consumer label as satisfying this paragraph for broadband providers. It also exempts certain financial transactions already subject to federal or state disclosure laws and creates a limited exemption for particular in‑store food and beverage mandatory charges — excluding third‑party delivery platforms from that exemption. The practical effect is to push sellers toward clearer, upfront price disclosures and to import existing federal labeling rules as safe harbors for broadband vendors.
Prohibition on contractors negotiating home‑secured loans
Subdivision (b) forbids mortgage brokers or lenders from using a home improvement contractor to negotiate the terms of a loan secured by the borrower’s residence when the loan finances home improvements. The provision names the covered categories of lenders/brokers and clarifies that ordinary referrals by contractors to lenders and purchases of executed contracts by lenders are still permitted so long as other laws (including state contractor and real estate rules) are respected. The rule targets a familiar channel for steering homeowners into high‑cost or unsuitable home‑secured financing tied directly to contractors’ interests.
Definition and operative dates
Subdivision (c) ties any future ‘‘clear and conspicuous’’ disclosure requirement back to the definition in Section 1791(u), effective July 1, 2025, while subdivision (d) states the section becomes operative on July 1, 2024. That sequencing leaves implementers with a definitional gap for a year where obligations are operative but the definitive statutory gloss on ‘‘clear and conspicuous’’ is not yet adopted in the code references used by this bill. Compliance teams and regulators will need to reconcile those dates when issuing guidance.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice 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
- Veterans and their families — They receive clearer, mandated warnings at marketing events and in advertisements that reduce the risk of paying for services that the VA or affiliated organizations provide for free.
- Consumers seeking public social services — The prohibition on ‘‘unreasonable’’ preparer fees aims to curb exploitative charges for help obtaining benefits, potentially preserving more of applicants’ limited resources for essential needs.
- Rate‑sensitive shoppers — The all‑in price disclosure requirement reduces ‘‘drip pricing’’ tactics, making it easier for consumers to compare advertised offers across retailers and service providers.
Who Bears the Cost
- Event organizers and promoters targeting veterans (insurers, lead‑generators, for‑profit counselors) — They must add mandated script language, rework marketing materials to match font‑size rules, and document oral disclosures, increasing production and training costs.
- Nonbank financial marketers and covered persons — They must revise solicitation templates, implement font‑sensitive formatting for mail and digital outreach, and maintain contact‑information disclosures, raising compliance and mailing costs.
- Home improvement contractors and mortgage brokers — Contractors lose a lever for negotiating loan terms and brokers face a new prohibition that will require changes to referral and contracting practices; both may see reduced deal flow or increased transaction friction.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a desire for clear, veteran‑protective and consumer‑facing bright‑line rules against the costs and ambiguity that arise when regulators and businesses must translate those rules into varied marketing channels and individualized services—protecting vulnerable consumers while imposing precise formatting and fee‑reasonableness tests that can be costly to implement and litigate over.
AB 826 dresses policy choices in technical rules — font sizes, envelope placement, and a multi‑factor standard for ‘‘unreasonable’’ fees — which creates practical implementation frictions. The veterans’‑disclosure requirement uses a relative formatting rule (‘‘same type size and font as the term ‘veteran’’’) that is simple in principle but messy in execution: what counts as the controlling instance of the word ‘‘veteran’’ in multi‑format ads; how the rule applies to small mobile screens; and whether audio disclaimers meet the same comparative requirement are all open questions.
The solicitation formatting mandates impose concrete production constraints on personalized mail and email campaigns that will require template controls and quality assurance across marketing vendors.
The bill also leaves important legal interactions unresolved. It imports safe harbors from federal disclosure regimes for certain financial transactions and defers to the FCC broadband label, but it does not harmonize how those federal rules interact with California’s private‑rights enforcement pathways under consumer statutes.
The open‑ended ‘‘unreasonable fee’’ test removes price caps but invites fact‑intensive litigation over what constitutes proportionality in diverse client engagements. Finally, the operative‑date sequencing (operational rules effective July 1, 2024, with a key definitional cross‑reference effective July 1, 2025) creates a transition period where businesses lack the statutory definition the bill later points to — an ambiguity that regulators and courts will need to resolve if the bill becomes enforceable.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.