What changed, and when.
The history behind the stamp. Every move in the law this site tracks — and every material change this site makes, corrections included — is logged here, dated, with its basis. Subscribe by feed at /feed.xml.
Reflects California law as of July 13, 2026.
Full-site review: § 2699(j)'s second sentence restored, the 60/65-day window corrected, and five missing authorities added
A full-depth review verified the site against the current statute and dockets. Corrections: a cured § 226(a) wage-statement violation reaches zero without any reasonable-steps cap (§ 2699(j), sentence two — the engine, the statute quote, and the cure prose all now say so); the 60-day mark is the agency's does-not-intend deadline, not the intent deadline (§ 2699.3(a)(2)(A)–(B)); the issue-preclusion line (Rocha v. U-Haul; Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment), the construction-exemption decision (Oswald v. Murray Plumbing), and the fourth headless-split decision (Williams v. Alacrity Solutions) joined the authorities. Leeper v. Shipt (S289305) was re-confirmed as pending.
Bears on: The Penalty & Exposure · Penalty Calculator · The Cure Tracks · Deadlines & Timeline · Standing & Arbitration · PAGA vs. Class Action · Authorities · CBA Exemptions · For Attorneys · For Employers · For Workers · Anatomy of a Notice · Notice Decoder · The Life of a Claim · What is PAGA? · Settlement & Approval · Glossary
Basis: This site's correction log (this page); every change verified against leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and the Court's records, July 13, 2026
Legal currency re-confirmed through June 28, 2026
The site's statute text (AB 1170-stamped), case postures, and the pending status of Leeper v. Shipt (S289305) were re-verified against leginfo and the California Supreme Court's pending-issues list. No substantive change in the law.
Basis: The site's dated currency stamp (shown on every page)
AB 1170 takes effect — a new stamp, no new substance
The statute now carries an AB 1170 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 67) stamp. AB 1170 was the Legislature's annual code-maintenance bill: no penalty tier, cap, split, cure track, or standing rule changed. The substantive regime remains the 2024 reform.
Bears on: What Changed in 2024
Basis: AB 1170 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 67)
California Supreme Court takes up the “headless PAGA” question (Leeper v. Shipt, S289305)
Review granted on the court's own motion to decide whether every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual claim, or whether a plaintiff may plead a representative-only action. The published Court of Appeal split has since been ordered held behind it — Leeper and (later) Williams v. Alacrity contra; CRST Expedited and Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation pro — and none of the four decisions is binding while review is pending (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)).
Bears on: Standing & Arbitration · PAGA vs. Class Action · Authorities
Basis: Cal. Supreme Court No. S289305
The reform's notice-and-cure machinery becomes operative
SB 92's rebuilt § 2699.3 pre-suit procedure — the small-employer confidential cure track and the large-employer early evaluation conference — became operative on this date.
Bears on: The Cure Tracks · Deadlines & Timeline · Anatomy of a Notice · Notice Decoder
Basis: SB 92 (Stats. 2024, Ch. 45)
The 2024 reform is signed (AB 2288 / SB 92)
The most consequential rewrite in PAGA's history: tiered penalties ($25/$50/$100/$200, $500 no-employee), the 15% and 30% reasonable-steps caps, the rebuilt cure tracks, “personally suffered each” standing, injunctive relief, and the 65/35 split. Governs civil actions brought on or after June 19, 2024 (unless the LWDA notice predates that day — § 2699(v)).
Bears on: What Changed in 2024 · The Penalty & Exposure · Standing & Arbitration
Basis: AB 2288 (Stats. 2024, Ch. 44); SB 92 (Stats. 2024, Ch. 45)
A living reference earns trust by showing its history — including its corrections.