California lawmakers have finished the final regular day for amending bills on the floor. Now the focus shifts to which measures can clear their final votes by Aug. 31.
California’s 2026 legislative session has entered its final stretch.
Aug. 21 was the last day for lawmakers to amend bills on the Assembly or Senate floor. Aug. 31 is the next major deadline: the last day for each house to pass bills before the Legislature adjourns for the year.
The issue for Califronians is no longer simply which bills lawmakers are debating.
It is:
Which bills are still alive, which have already cleared the Legislature, and which could change the lives of Californians if they become law?
Parriva has been tracking the session’s major deadlines, including the Aug. 14 fiscal committee deadline, in its guide to California education changes for Latino parents. The Aug. 21 deadline is the next major checkpoint in that process.
With only days remaining before the Aug. 31 deadline, here are several measures worth watching across immigration, housing, workers, privacy and small business.
AB 2624: New privacy protections for immigration service providers
Status: Passed the Legislature; headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom
Assembly Bill 2624 is one of the clearest examples of why the final legislative days matter to immigrant communities.
The bill, authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, would create an address confidentiality program for certain immigration support-service providers, employees and volunteers who face threats or harassment because of their work. It would also restrict certain efforts to publicly distribute personal information with the intent of facilitating violence or threats.
The bill was enrolled Aug. 19 after passing both chambers.
If signed, the new program would begin taking effect in October 2027.
The practical question for immigrant communities is straightforward:
Who would qualify for the protections, and what information could be kept confidential?
The answer could matter to nonprofit organizations, community legal clinics, health-care facilities and others that provide immigration-related services.
This is also an area where Parriva’s ongoing coverage of California immigration policy can help readers understand the difference between a bill’s political debate and the protections it would actually create.
AB 2576: Housing and transit-oriented development
Status: Passed the Legislature; awaiting action by the governor
Housing remains one of the most consequential issues in the final days of the session.
Assembly Bill 2576 focuses on the interaction between California’s transit-oriented housing policies and historic-resource protections. The measure is particularly relevant to communities such as Pasadena, where historic properties and transit-oriented development can come into conflict.
The bill cleared the Legislature this week and is now moving toward the governor’s desk.
For renters and prospective homebuyers, the larger issue is bigger than the technical language of the legislation:
How much housing can California build near transit, and which properties can local governments exclude from those housing rules?
That question fits into a much larger housing story Parriva has been following throughout the year.
For readers, the important thing to watch now is whether Newsom signs the measure and what implementation could mean for local housing decisions.
SB 947: Could AI make decisions about workers?
Status: Still moving through the final legislative process
Artificial intelligence has become one of the session’s most consequential emerging policy areas.
Senate Bill 947 would establish restrictions around employers’ use of automated decision systems in decisions affecting workers. The legislation covers systems using machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics or artificial intelligence to make or support decisions that significantly affect workers.
The bill would also provide protections against retaliation for workers who exercise rights established under the measure.
The debate has divided worker advocates and business groups.
Supporters argue that employees need protections when algorithms influence hiring, discipline, termination and other significant workplace decisions.
Business groups have raised concerns about compliance requirements and potential costs.
That makes SB 947 particularly relevant to both workers and small-business owners.
The question California is confronting is increasingly practical:
If an algorithm helps decide whether you get hired, disciplined or fired, who is responsible for that decision?
AB 2564: Could retailers use your data to change prices?
Status: Still in the final legislative push
Another bill with direct consequences for consumers and businesses is Assembly Bill 2564, which addresses so-called surveillance pricing.
The bill would generally prohibit retailers from using certain personal information gathered through electronic surveillance technology to set customized prices for consumers. The measure specifically addresses pricing determined through technology, data analytics, artificial intelligence and other computational processes.
The legislation includes exceptions, including certain loyalty programs, publicly disclosed eligibility-based discounts and other circumstances spelled out in the bill.
The issue is becoming increasingly important as retailers collect more information about how consumers shop.
For consumers, the question is:
Should a retailer be able to use information about you to determine what price you see?
For small businesses, the question is different:
What new compliance requirements could California impose on businesses that use customer data and technology to set or promote prices?
That consumer-business tension is one of the defining themes of the final days of the session.
SB 690: Another major fight over online privacy and business liability
Status: Still moving
Senate Bill 690 takes a different approach to California privacy law.
The current version would change who can bring certain actions involving alleged violations of California’s pen-register restrictions when the conduct occurs through a website, online application or mobile application.
Under the amended measure, those particular actions could be brought only by the state attorney general. The bill would also apply the limitation retroactively to certain pending claims.
That matters to businesses because California’s privacy laws have created significant litigation exposure around online tracking and data collection.
It also matters to consumers because privacy advocates argue that restricting private enforcement could reduce one avenue for challenging alleged violations.
SB 690 therefore sits directly between two competing priorities:
consumer privacy and business liability.
Its final status should be closely watched during the final legislative days.
The bigger story is what changed after the deadline
These bills cover very different issues.
But together they reveal where California’s policy fights are heading.
Housing: How should California balance new housing requirements with local historic protections?
Immigration: How much privacy should be available to people who provide immigration services?
Work: How much control should employers have when artificial intelligence helps make decisions about employees?
Consumer protection: Should businesses be allowed to use personal information to customize prices?
Privacy: Who should have the power to enforce California’s online privacy laws?
Those questions are more important to readers than the bill numbers themselves.
That is also why Parriva’s earlier California Legislature bill-kill analysis is an important part of this continuing story. The Aug. 13 fiscal deadline narrowed the field. The Aug. 21 amendment deadline narrowed it further.
Now comes the final test.
What happens between now and Aug. 31?
Lawmakers have until Aug. 31 to pass bills. After the Legislature adjourns, bills that have cleared both chambers move to Gov. Newsom for consideration. The governor’s deadline for bills passed before Sept. 1 is Sept. 30.
That means the final days can move quickly.
A bill can pass.
A bill can fail.
Negotiators can reach a last-minute agreement.
Or a measure that appeared likely to survive can simply run out of time.
There is also a particularly important distinction for readers:
Passing the Legislature does not mean a bill is law.
A measure must still reach the governor, who can sign it, veto it or allow it to become law without a signature under California’s constitutional process.
What Californians should watch
For immigrant communities, AB 2624 is already at the governor stage and could establish new privacy protections for qualifying immigration service providers.
For renters and homebuyers, housing measures such as AB 2576 could influence how state housing policy interacts with local development and historic preservation.
For workers, SB 947 could establish new rules governing how employers use automated decision systems.
For consumers, AB 2564 raises a new question about whether personal data can influence the price a shopper receives.
For small businesses, SB 947 and AB 2564 are particularly important because new worker and consumer protections can also create new compliance responsibilities.
Parriva’s small-business coverage and resources will continue tracking those implications from the perspective of the businesses that have to operate under the new rules.
The Aug. 21 deadline did not end California’s legislative session.
It marked the beginning of the final legislative sprint.
Between now and Aug. 31, Parriva will continue watching the bills that matter most to California communities, with particular attention to housing, immigration, health, education, workers and small businesses.
The goal is not to overwhelm readers with hundreds of bill numbers.
It is to answer the question that matters:
What changed in Sacramento, and what could it mean for you?
Parriva will update this tracker as bills pass, fail, reach the governor or change in ways that materially affect California communities.
