Victims of domestic violence in California will soon have a legal process to revoke their abuser’s access to connected smart devices such as smart locks, home cameras and online accounts, under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October.
Senate Bill 50, authored by state Sen. Angelique Ashby (D-Sacramento), requires companies to disable a perpetrator’s access to shared smart devices within two business days once a survivor requests it. The law goes into effect Jan. 1.
“California is at the forefront of technology advancements, and we believe this bill reinforces the idea that there is a balance between supporting technological advancement while also protecting our vulnerable populations,” Ashby’s office said in an email.
Under the new law, survivors need to provide documentation such as a restraining order, police report or signed statement from a medical or social services professional, along with proof showing their legal possession of the device to file a device protection request.
Once a complete request is received, companies must act within two business days to disable the abuser’s access or help the survivor reset the device. Companies that fail to comply can face civil penalties of up to $2,500 per device. The law also requires companies to keep survivors’ information confidential and securely dispose of it within 90 days.
SB 50 builds on Ashby’s previous work on this issue. Last year, she introduced a broader bill addressing tech-based abuse, which failed and was combined with SB 1394 to focus solely on cutting off a perpetrator’s remote access to vehicles. SB 50 restores that broader intent, extending protections to more connected devices and digital accounts survivors use daily.
When convenience becomes weapons of abuse
According to a survey by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, 97% of victim service programs reported that their clients experience some level of technology-facilitated abuse in their gender-based violence cases. Common forms include monitoring phone calls and internet activity, tracking location through apps or hidden devices like AirTags, remotely controlling smart home systems and impersonating survivors with fake accounts, among others.
When it comes to consumer technology, the line between smart convenience and invasive surveillance is evolving. These smart home devices are increasingly weaponized in two broad categories: one involves surveillance, such as smart doorbells or cameras that tell an abuser when someone arrives or leaves home; the other involves control of everyday household functions like lights, temperature or access to one’s own home, which can strip victims of autonomy and reinforce an abuser’s dominance, showing they can intrude into the victim’s life even when not physically present.
Tracy Rosenberg, the advocacy director at Oakland Privacy, a statewide citizens’ coalition advocating for privacy rights that supported the bill, said that in many cases the abuser is the one who originally installed the home’s connected devices and understands how they work. This creates an uneven playing field where tech-savvy abusers have endless ways to harass their victims while victims struggle to identify, let alone disable, the systems being used against them.
“The idea of SB 50 is that compliance is legally required, so survivors don’t have to argue with companies [to cut off an abuser’s access],” Rosenberg said. “And the bill creates a consistent process [to file the request], which will make it easier to correct those built-in disparities.”
Limited options left survivors vulnerable
Before SB 50, domestic violence programs and law enforcement agencies had limited tools to address tech-based abuse, leaving survivors vulnerable even after seeking help.
Jonathan Raven, the assistant CEO of the California District Attorneys Association and former Chief Deputy of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, noted that while evidence of tech-based harassment could be used to file stalking or domestic violence charges, that reactive approach failed to protect survivors in real time.
“The fact that the prosecutors can use that evidence and information, still doesn’t protect the survivor or prevent those threats and harassments from continuing in the future,” Raven said.
Domestic violence organizations echoed this frustration. Multiple organizations said there was little they could do beyond advising survivors to contact tech companies directly — a process that was often inconsistent and required survivors to navigate corporate bureaucracies while in crisis. Now, SB 50 gives advocates a concrete tool to help their clients.
Ashlie Bryant, co-founder and CEO of 3Strands Global Foundation, an organization that supports survivors of human trafficking, said, “Our case managers, workforce development specialists, education specialists and clinicians all know about SB 50. They will now be able to file requests [to help survivors] disconnected from any exploiter or trafficker.”
From legislation to implementation
As with many laws, the real test of SB 50 will come in its implementation. Raven said that prosecutors, police and victim service organizations will all need to be educated about the law so they can guide survivors through filing a device protection request and help prevent further harassment.
Casey Gwinn, founder of Alliance for HOPE International, added that the real challenge is figuring out who will take on this new responsibility within already overburdened agencies and shelters.
“It’s a resource issue,” Gwinn said. “We don’t have people who are paid to help survivors with this. We need a system where, when survivors ask for help, we can clearly show them the steps and support available.”
Holding tech companies accountable
The responsibility also falls on the tech companies. California may be leading the way with legislation addressing technology-facilitated abuse, but advocates say the broader tech industry still tends to be reactive rather than proactive when it comes to preventing abuse.
“Many connected devices aren’t necessarily designed and implemented with misuse in mind,” the National Network to End Domestic Violence said in an email. “Often, companies’ policy and enforcement practices around abuse cases happen after the fact, as opposed to proactively or preventively.”
Peninsula Press reached out to several major smart device companies, including Google’s Nest, Amazon’s Ring and Blink, for comment on their policies and the passage of SB 50. None responded by publication time.
Privacy advocates noted that mindset needs to change. Rosenberg from Oakland Privacy said that while some companies make an effort, “they are at best doing the minimum in response to public outcry,” adding that SB 50 correctly assumes companies will not always act responsibly on their own. The law, she said, effectively “forces them to” do the right thing and fulfill their obligations to protect users from harm.
