SB 768 requires California trial courts to send the Judicial Council monthly counts of specified unlawful detainer (UD) case outcomes and representation status, aggregated by the ZIP Code of the rented premises. The Judicial Council must publish the collected UD data as a downloadable spreadsheet every four months and also maintain an annual, regionally viewable dataset on eviction proceedings that it reports to the Legislature.
This creates a regular, ZIP-level dataset on eviction filings, counsel representation for tenants and landlords, case dispositions (dismissal, default, judgment), and trial activity. For policymakers, legal-service providers, researchers, and local governments, the bill aims to close an information gap that has made it difficult to track where evictions are concentrated and where legal representation is reaching tenants or landlords.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires courts to report monthly counts of predefined data points for unlawful detainer cases, aggregated by the premises ZIP Code, and directs the Judicial Council to publish those reports every four months. Separately, it instructs the Judicial Council to produce an annual, geographically viewable eviction dataset and report to the Legislature.
Who It Affects
Trial courts (data collection and reporting), the Judicial Council (data aggregation, publication, and annual reporting), legal aid organizations and tenant/landlord attorneys (whose representation rates will be measured), and policymakers, researchers, and local governments that use eviction data to target services.
Why It Matters
SB 768 standardizes and centralizes eviction metrics at a granular geographic level, enabling targeted policy responses and grant-making decisions and improving transparency about who receives counsel in eviction cases.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 768 creates two related reporting streams to improve public knowledge about evictions and legal representation in California. First, it adds Government Code Section 68652, which obligates each trial court to report to the Judicial Council every month totals for a set list of unlawful detainer metrics—such as filings, representation status for defendants and landlords, types of pretrial judgments, trial counts, dismissals requested by plaintiffs, and final judgments—aggregated by the ZIP Code of the rented premises.
The bill limits that ZIP-level UD reporting to cases filed on or after January 1, 2026.
Second, the bill adds a new Chapter 8 to the Code of Civil Procedure requiring the Judicial Council to collect and publish annually the number of eviction proceedings initiated and counts of tenants and landlords represented by counsel. That annual dataset must be viewable by geographic region, and the Judicial Council must deliver an annual report to the Legislature beginning July 1, 2026.
Together, the monthly ZIP-level UD reporting and the yearly regional eviction dataset create both a higher-frequency, granular feed and a broader annual snapshot.Practically, the reporting chain is straightforward: courts supply counts to the Judicial Council; the Council consolidates and posts the monthly submissions every four months as a downloadable spreadsheet, and separately maintains the yearly eviction dataset and report. The bill does not create new penalties or funding streams; it relies on existing court reporting channels and the Judicial Council’s publication tools.
Because SB 768 prescribes aggregation by ZIP code and by geographic region rather than releasing case-level identifiers, it focuses on counts and status markers rather than personally identifiable data.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Each trial court must report to the Judicial Council every month totals for specified unlawful detainer metrics aggregated by the ZIP Code of the premises.
Required UD metrics include filings, defendant and landlord representation at case resolution, pretrial default/stipulated judgments, trial counts (bench vs. jury), plaintiff-requested dismissals, and final judgments.
The ZIP-level UD reporting requirement applies only to unlawful detainer cases filed on or after January 1, 2026.
The Judicial Council must post all monthly UD submissions as a publicly downloadable electronic spreadsheet every four months.
Separately, the Judicial Council must publish an annual, region-viewable eviction dataset (counts of proceedings and representation) and report that data to the Legislature beginning July 1, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Monthly ZIP-level reporting of unlawful detainer counts
This section requires each trial court to deliver monthly totals for a defined set of unlawful detainer data points, aggregated to the ZIP Code of the premises. The list is specific: filings, representation status for defendants and landlords at case resolution, types of pretrial judgments (including defaults and stipulations), trial counts broken out by bench and jury, dismissals at plaintiff request, and final judgments for plaintiff or defendant. The provision limits the universe to UD cases filed on or after January 1, 2026, and frames the output as aggregate counts rather than case-level records.
Timing and public posting requirement
The bill separates reporting cadence and publication cadence: courts must report monthly, but the Judicial Council need only post the consolidated information publicly every four months as a downloadable electronic spreadsheet. That creates a rolling dataset with periodic public refreshes rather than a live feed. The section does not allocate funds, impose penalties for nonreporting, or specify technical formats, leaving operational details to the Judicial Council and courts' existing reporting systems.
Annual eviction dataset and legislative reporting
Section 156 requires the Judicial Council to compile the number of eviction proceedings initiated and counts of tenants and landlords represented by counsel, publish that information online annually with geographic-region viewability, and submit an annual report to the Legislature beginning July 1, 2026. This is a higher-level, annual complement to the more granular UD reporting in §68652 and is framed as an ongoing informational obligation for the Council.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing 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
- Tenants and tenant advocacy groups — will gain transparent, ZIP-level and regional data to target outreach, measure access to counsel, and identify neighborhoods with concentrated filings.
- Legal aid organizations and pro bono programs — can use the datasets to prioritize communities for representation programs, match resources to filing hotspots, and support grant applications with concrete metrics.
- Policymakers and local governments — receive standard, regular metrics to evaluate eviction trends, allocate emergency housing funds, or design local legal-rights campaigns.
- Researchers and journalists — obtain downloadable, machine-readable summaries that enable independent analysis of eviction geography and representation patterns over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Trial courts and court clerks — must add monthly aggregation and reporting tasks to their workflows, which may require staff time or IT adjustments to extract ZIP-level counts from case management systems.
- The Judicial Council — assumes responsibility for consolidating monthly inputs, maintaining public spreadsheets, and producing the annual regional dataset and legislative report without an explicit appropriation.
- Small landlords and private attorneys — face increased public visibility when their representation rates and outcomes are summarized at ZIP and regional levels, which could influence local enforcement or advocacy strategies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade-off is between producing timely, geographically granular eviction and counsel-representation data to inform policy and the administrative/ privacy burden on courts and the Judicial Council: more detail and frequency increase usefulness but also raise implementation costs, data-quality variability, and disclosure risk.
SB 768 improves transparency but leaves key implementation choices open. The bill prescribes what counts to report and how often to publish aggregated outputs, but it does not define a technical standard or format for court submissions, nor does it fund IT work or specify enforcement for nonreporting.
That raises practical questions about data quality: courts will vary in how readily their case-management systems can extract ZIP-level counts and representation flags, and differences in local coding practices could produce inconsistent series across counties. The limitation to cases filed on or after January 1, 2026 reduces historical comparability and may produce a multi-year ramp-up period before statewide patterns are reliable.
Privacy and small-number disclosure present another challenge. The bill mandates ZIP-level aggregation, but some ZIP Codes are small or sparsely populated; without suppression rules or minimum-count thresholds, published spreadsheets could risk re-identification or reveal information about individual households or landlords.
The statute also measures representation at 'case resolution' without further definition, which creates ambiguity about how settlements, stipulations, or mediated outcomes are coded—differences that will affect measured representation rates and conclusions drawn by researchers and policymakers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.