Existing law generally regulates the importation of wild animals into the state and the sale of dogs, cats, and birds. Existing law requires a person seeking to bring or import a dog into the state for purposes of resale or change of ownership to obtain a health certificate for that dog, as specified. Existing law requires a breeder of dogs to disclose to a purchaser of a dog certain information, including the breed, sex, color, and identifying marks at the time of sale, a record of inoculations and worming treatments administered, and whether the dog has any known disease, illness, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects its health, as specified.

This bill would prohibit, except as specified, a person from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait, as specified. The bill would provide that each transgenic pet animal imported for profit, sold, or offered for sale in this state in violation of that prohibition is a separate violation and is punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $5,000. The bill would authorize the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred, to bring an action to enforce that prohibition, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates the importation of wild animals into the state and the sale of dogs, cats, and birds. Existing law requires a person seeking to bring or import a dog into the state for purposes of resale or change of ownership to obtain a health certificate for that dog, as specified. Existing law requires a breeder of dogs to disclose to a purchaser of a dog certain information, including the breed, sex, color, and identifying marks at the time of sale, a record of inoculations and worming treatments administered, and whether the dog has any known disease, illness, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects its health, as specified.

This bill would prohibit prohibit, except as specified, a person from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state a transgenic pet animal, as defined, that has been modified or developed by intentional genomic alterations, as defined, unless the intentional genomic alteration is to benefit the health of the animal or to enhance the animals interaction with humans, animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait, as specified. The bill would provide that each transgenic pet animal imported for profit, sold, or offered for sale in this state in violation of that prohibition is a separate violation and is punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $5,000. The bill would authorize the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, and or the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred, to bring an action to enforce that prohibition, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates the importation of wild animals into the state and the sale of dogs, cats, and birds. Existing law requires a person seeking to bring or import a dog into the state for purposes of resale or change of ownership to obtain a health certificate for that dog, as specified. Existing law requires a breeder of dogs to disclose to a purchaser of a dog certain information, including the breed, sex, color, and identifying marks at the time of sale, a record of inoculations and worming treatments administered, and whether the dog has any known disease, illness, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects its health, as specified.

This bill would prohibit a person from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state a pet animal, as defined, that has been modified or developed by intentional genomic alterations, as defined, unless the intentional genomic alteration is to benefit the health of the animal or to enhance the animals interaction with humans, as specified. The bill would provide that each pet animal imported for profit, sold, or offered for sale in this state in violation of that prohibition is a separate violation and is punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $5,000. The bill would authorize the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, and the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred, to bring an action to enforce that prohibition, as specified.

Existing law provides that it is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation relating to animal welfare for adoptable animals.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1382 (Castillo) - Ethics Over Aesthetics Act

Bill Summary:

AB 1382 prohibits selling, importing for profit, or offering for sale in California a transgenic pet animal, as defined, subject to certain exceptions.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, potentially significant workload cost pressures to the state funded trial court system to adjudicate any civil cases filed as a result of this bill (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund). The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknowns, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $8,000 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. While the courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations.

Background:

Transgenic animals are those that have been subject to genetic modification, which allows for new traits or capabilities which are not natural to the animal. Transgenic animals may be differentiated from genetically modified animals in that genetically modified animals are modifications of existing genetics within the animal, while transgenic animals have insertions of new genetics into the animal’s makeup. Transgenic animals are not new, however transgenic animals have primarily been utilized in the science and research space.

Proposed Law:

• Establishes the Ethics Over Aesthetics Act, which prohibits a person in California from profiting from, selling, or offering to sell a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait.
• Provides the following exceptions from the Act:
  • The transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of benefiting the health of the transgenic pet animal, including, but not limited to, making the transgenic pet animal resistant to a disease or condition.
  • The transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of enhancing the transgenic pet animal’s interaction with humans, including, but not limited to, promoting hypoallergenic traits, and does not alter the natural functions of the transgenic pet animal.
  • The transgenic pet animal is a fish species that satisfies all of the following requirements: it is a live tropical marine or freshwater animal that will be maintained in a closed system, kept out of California waters, and not used for research, human consumption, or bait; the person or entity seeking to import, distribute, possess, and sell the animal has submitted an application and fee to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW); and DFW has determined the animal poses no reasonably foreseeable risk to native fish, wildlife, or plants.
• Provides that each transgenic pet animal imported for profit, sold, or offered for sale in this state in violation of the Act is a separate violation and shall be punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $5,000.
• Establishes the following definitions for purposes of the Act:
  • “Cosmetic transgenic trait” means a transgenic trait that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal’s appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendages.
  • “Pet animal” means a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, mouse, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish, or other species of animal kept for the purpose of being a household pet.
  • “Transgenic pet animal” means a pet animal that possesses a transgenic trait, and includes the progeny of a transgenic pet animal.
  • “Transgenic trait” means a trait that has been deliberately altered, modified, or engineered, through means not possible under natural conditions, by insertion of a foreign gene using genetic engineering methods, including, but not limited to, the introduction of chromosomes containing artificially transferred genetic material from any other organism or a laboratory construct, regardless of whether the original source’s genetic material was altered, modified, or engineered before insertion, or whether the originally transferred genetic material was inherited through normal reproduction.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1382 (Author:Castillo)

Version: May 13, 2026

Hearing Date: June 16, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AM

SUBJECT

Ethics Over Aesthetics Act

DIGEST

This bill enacts the Ethics Over Aesthetics Act, which prohibits a person from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait, with certain exceptions. The bill makes a violation of this prohibition subject to a civil penalty of not less than $5,000.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

California has a history of enacting legislation to protect animal welfare. An article published in Wired last year detailed how a new startup company was aiming to make genetically engineered “glow-in-the-dark rabbits, hypoallergenic cats and dogs, and possibly, one day, actual unicorns.”^[1] This bill seeks to continue California’s tradition of protecting animal welfare by banning the import and sale in this state of a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait. The bill contains exceptions for where the transgenic trait is for the benefit of the health of the animal or enhances the animals’ interaction with humans, such as promoting hypoallergenic traits. The author and sponsor argue that the bill will ensure that California remains a protector of animal welfare and a leader in responsible science. The supporters of the bill also argue that it will help to ensure that the animal overpopulation crisis in this state is not exacerbated.

This bill is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation and supported by numerous animal welfare organizations. No timely opposition was received by the Committee. This bill passed the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on a vote of 6 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, which regulates the sale of dogs by dog breeders. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 122045 et seq.)
2. Requires, pursuant to the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, every dog breeder to deliver to each purchaser of a dog a specified written disclosure and record of veterinary treatment. (Health & Saf. Code §§122050.)
3. Prohibits a dog breeder from knowingly selling a dog that is diseased, ill or has a condition, which requires hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures. (Health & Saf. Code § 122060.)
4. Authorizes a person who purchased a dog from a breeder regulated by 1) that dies within 15 days of purchase to seek, through a civil action if necessary, a refund from the breeder and entitles the prevailing party to attorney costs and fees. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 122070 & 122090.)
5. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer-Farr Pet Protection Act, which regulates the sale of dogs and cats by pet dealers. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 122125 et seq.)
6. Prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering, brokering, making a referral for, or otherwise facilitating a loan or other financing option for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit. (Health & Saf. Code § 122191.)
7. Prohibits pet dealers from selling a dog unless it has been examined by a California-licensed veterinarian, and requires that the dealer quarantine any sick or diseased animal separate from the healthy animals until a veterinarian determines the dog is free from infection. (Health & Saf. Code § 122210.)
8. Authorizes a person who purchased a dog from a seller regulated by 5) that dies within 15 days of purchase to seek, through a civil action if necessary, a refund from the breeder and entitles the prevailing party to attorney costs and fees. (Health & Saf. Code § 122160.)
9. Prohibits the hatchery production and stocking of transgenic species of salmonids. (Fish & Game C. § 1210.)
10. Prohibits the spawning, incubation, or cultivation of any transgenic fish species in the waters of the Pacific Ocean that are regulated by California. (Fish & Game C. § 15007.)

This bill:

1. Enacts the Ethics Over Aesthetics Act (Act), which prohibits a person from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait.
2. Provides that the prohibition in 1) does not apply to a transgenic pet animal if any of the following apply:
   1. the transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of benefiting the health of the transgenic pet animal, including, but not limited to, making the transgenic pet animal resistant to a disease or condition;
   2. the transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of enhancing the transgenic pet animal’s interaction with humans, including, but not limited to, promoting hypoallergenic traits, and does not alter the natural functions of the transgenic pet animal; or
   3. the transgenic pet animal is of a fish species that satisfies the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 1.92 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
3. Defines the following terms for purposes of the Act.
   1. “Cosmetic transgenic trait” means a transgenic trait that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal’s appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendages.
   2. “Pet animal” means a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, mouse, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish, or other species of animal kept for the purpose of being a household pet.
   3. “Transgenic pet animal” means a pet animal that possesses a transgenic trait, and includes the progeny of a transgenic pet animal.
   4. “Transgenic trait” means a trait that has been deliberately altered, modified, or engineered, through means not possible under natural conditions, by insertion of a foreign gene using genetic engineering methods, including, but not limited to, the introduction of chromosomes containing artificially transferred genetic material from any other organism or a laboratory construct, regardless of whether the original source’s genetic material was altered, modified, or engineered before insertion, or whether the originally transferred genetic material was inherited through normal reproduction.
4. Makes a violation of this prohibition subject to a civil penalty of not less than $5,000.
   1. Each transgenic pet animal imported for profit, sold, or offered for sale in this state in violation of the Act is a separate violation.
   2. Authorizes an action to enforce the Act to be brought by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred or by the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred.
   3. The civil penalty is to be paid to the city or county, as applicable, of the attorney that brings the action.

COMMENTS

1. Stated need for the bill

The author writes:

AB 1382 is a necessary step to ensure California remains a leader in responsible science and animal welfare by prohibiting the sale of genetically modified pets created solely for cosmetic appeal. While genomic technology has important medical and public health applications, this bill draws a clear and reasonable line to prevent its use for novelty purposes that place animals at risk. Allowing the commercialization of “designer” pets prioritizes aesthetics over animal well-being and risks exacerbating California’s already severe pet overpopulation and shelter crisis. AB 1382 expressly preserves legitimate scientific research and health-based genetic advancements, ensuring innovation can continue to thrive. This bill reflects California’s values by promoting ethical stewardship, protecting biodiversity, and preventing unnecessary harm to animals.

1. This bill seeks to ban the sale of a transgenic pet animal in the state

California has long sought to promote strong regulation of the pet breeding and sales industry. The Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act and the Polanco-Lockyer-Farr Pet Protection Act govern the sales of pet animals in California and provide for the regulations on pet dealers and pet stores in the state with the goal of promoting pet health and safety. Last year, the Legislature enacted a package of bills^[2] to further regulate the industry in lieu of an exposé in the Los Angeles Times that illuminated holes in the current legislative scheme regulating pet sales and the breeding industry.^[3]

This bill seeks to address a potential new animal welfare issue – transgenic pets. A transgenic animal is a genetically modified animal that has some foreign genetic material deliberately inserted into their genome to allow for new traits or capabilities, such as the ability to glow. Transgenic animals were originally created for use in medical research. Scientists often use green fluorescent protein, or GFP, in animals to make them glow to track and monitor certain biological processes.^[4] However, new startups are looking to sell transgenic pet animals. One such company is the Los Angeles Project which has “used CRISPR to add a gene to rabbit embryos so they produce green fluorescent protein” and aims to have “glowing baby bunnies” to eventually sell as pets.^[5]

The bill seeks to recognize that some transgenic traits may serve a purpose and provides exceptions for transgenic traits for the sole purpose of benefiting the health of the animal and ones for the sole purpose of enhancing the transgenic pet animal’s interaction with humans (such as hypoallergenic traits). Additionally, the bill allows for certain transgenic fish to continue being sold in the state. For example, GloFish is a patented brand of fluorescent fish that were provided for sale as pets beginning in 2003. They have been sold in this state for many years. Current regulations promulgated by the Department of Fish and Game allow their sale in this state. (14 Cal. Code Reg. § 1.92).^[6] This bill allows for the continued sale of a transgenic pet animal that is a fish that meets the requirements of these regulations, therefore allowing the sale of GloFish to remain legal under the bill. The bill’s prohibitions apply only to pets and not to animals for research or other medical purposes.

The bill makes a violation of its provisions punishable by a $5,000 civil penalty. Each pet sold is to be considered a separate violation. An enforcement action may be brought by a district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred or the city attorney of a city in in which the violation occurred.

1. This bill may implicate the Dormant Commerce Clause

Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution grants the United States Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The converse proposition—that states may not usurp Congress’s express power to regulate interstate commerce—is known as the Dormant Commerce Clause—“the [Commerce] Clause also contains a further, negative command, one effectively forbidding the enforcement of certain state economic regulations even when Congress has failed to legislate on the subject.” ^[7] The United States Supreme Court recently affirmed that the Dormant Commerce Clause generally does not prohibit a state from regulating commerce within its borders, even if the prohibition affects out-of-state sellers, unless the prohibition acts to discriminate against out-of-state interests for the benefit of in-state commerce. ^[8] The Court has held that “[s]tate laws that ‘regulat[e] even-handedly [across all in-state and out-of-state businesses] to effectuate a legitimate local public interest…will be upheld unless the burden imposed upon such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.’”^[9] The bill applies its provisions equally to in-state persons, pet dealers, and businesses as to out-of-state ones, and as such should not conflict with the Dormant Commerce Clause.

1. Stakeholder statements

The sponsor of the bill and a large coalition of animal welfare organizations write in support stating:

Driven by advancements in genetic modification technologies, the intentional genomic alteration of animals has become a frontier for development. While investments have been made to further this endeavor for potentially beneficial medical advancements, some companies have begun the development of genetically modified cats, dogs, and other pets with altered appearances to fulfil consumer demand for "designer" traits, despite unknown long-term health risks. These genetic modifications run the risk of prioritizing aesthetics over the well-being of the animal, as well as drive consumer demand for novelty pets when there already exists a pet overpopulation crisis.

A February 19, 2025, article published by Wired[^[10]] details a startup, the Los Angeles Project, created with the goal of using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and restriction enzyme mediated integration (REMI) technologies to create genetically modified animals, from glow-in-the-dark rabbits to unicorns. The company has already been experimenting on embryos from frogs, fish, hamsters, and rabbits to produce these outcomes for the express purpose of creating fantastical pets for consumer purchase.

As a state with a history of working to protect animal welfare and ensuring scientific development occurs responsibly, it is vital for California to proactively take legislative action to prevent the proliferation of designer pets at the expense of animals, as well as prevent our state’s already burdened animal shelters from taking on more unwanted animals.

SUPPORT

Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)

Angel's Furry Friends Rescue

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Animal Rescue Mission

Animal Rescuers for Change

Animal Wellness Action

Berkeley Animal Rights Center

Better Together Forever

Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption

Compassionate Bay

Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue

Doggy Business Dog Training

Eartheart

Feline Lucky Adventures

Fine Tuning Dog Training

Giantmecha Syndicate

Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative

Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund

Jaimie Brianna's Legacy Fund

Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation

Leaders for Ethics, Animals, and the Planet (LEAP)

Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation

Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals

Los Angeles Rabbit Foundation

Michelson Center for Public Policy

NY 4 Whales

Pet Loss Support Group

Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue

Plant-Based Advocates

Project Minnie

Rabbit Savior

Rabbit.org Foundation

Real Good Rescue

San Diego Companion Rabbit Society

Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue

Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation

START Rescue

Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School

The California Baptist Capitol Ministry

The Canine Condition

The Pet Loss Support Group

The Spayce Project

Underdog Heroes, Inc.

Women United for Animal Welfare (WUFAW)

World Animal Protection
Over 1,100 individuals

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: None known.

Prior Legislation: See Comment 2 above.

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 73, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

Assembly Business and Professions Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)

**************

1. Emily Mullin, Wired, Your Next Pet Could Be a Glowing Rabbit, (Feb. 19, 2025), available at https://www.wired.com/story/your-next-pet-could-be-a-glowing-rabbit-los-angeles-project-gene-editing-crispr/. ↑

2. AB 506 (Bennett, Ch. 477, Stats. 2025); AB 519 (Berman, Ch. 478, Stats. 2025); and SB 312 (Umberg, Ch. 480, Stats. 2025). ↑

3. Alene Tchekmedyian & Melody Gutierrez, Inside California’s brutal underground market for puppies: Neglected dogs, deceived owners, big profits, L.A. Times, (Sept. 12, 2024), available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-12/puppy-mill-pipeline. ↑

4. Emily Mullin, Wired, Your Next Pet Could Be a Glowing Rabbit, (Feb. 19, 2025), available at https://www.wired.com/story/your-next-pet-could-be-a-glowing-rabbit-los-angeles-project-gene-editing-crispr/. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. These regulations exempt a live tropical marine or freshwater animal not utilized for research purposes, human consumption or bait, maintained in a closed-system, for which the presence of the transgenic aquatic animal poses no reasonable risk to native fish, wildlife, or pets from regulation of transgenic aquatic animals in California. ↑

7. National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023) 143 S.Ct. 1142, 1152 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). ↑

8. Id. at pp. 1152-1153. ↑

9. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018) 138 S.Ct. 2080, 2091. ↑

10. Emily Mullin, Wired, Your Next Pet Could Be a Glowing Rabbit, (Feb. 19, 2025), available at https://www.wired.com/story/your-next-pet-could-be-a-glowing-rabbit-los-angeles-project-gene-editing-crispr/. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator Dr. Aisha Wahab, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: June 1, 2026

Subject:

SUMMARY:

Prohibits selling, importing for profit, or offering for sale in California a transgenic pet animal, as defined, subject to certain exceptions.

NOTE:

This bill is double-referred to Committee on Judiciary, second.

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act to regulate the retail sale of dogs and cats, as specified. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 122125 et seq.)
   
2. Prohibits a pet dealer from possessing a dog that is less than eight weeks old. (HSC § 122155(b))
3. Establishes certain requirements, restitution processes, and consumer rights related to the purchase by a pet dealer of a dog that subsequently falls ill within specified timeframes. (HSC §§ 122160-122190)
4. Prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering, brokering, making a referral for, or otherwise facilitating a loan or other financing option for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit. (HSC § 122191(b))
   
5. Prohibits pet dealers from selling a dog unless it has been examined by a California-licensed veterinarian and requires that the dealer quarantine any sick or diseased animal separate from the healthy animals until a veterinarian determines the dog is free from infection. (HSC § 122210)
6. Requires every retail pet dealer to conspicuously post a notice indicating the state where the dog was bred and brokered on the cage of each dog offered for sale. (HSC § 122215)
7. Requires any person, pet dealer, or business selling a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California to provide a written notice that contains information including, but not limited to, the origin and known health records of the animal, as specified. (HSC § 122226)
   
8. Requires every pet dealer receiving dogs or cats from a common carrier to transport, or have dogs and cats transported from the carrier’s premises within four hours after receipt of telephone notification by the carrier of the completion of shipment and arrival of the animal at the carrier’s point of destination. (HSC § 122130)
9. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, which regulates the sale of dogs by dog breeders. (HSC) §§ 122045 et seq.)
   
10. Requires every dog breeder to deliver to each purchaser of a dog a specified written disclosure and record of veterinary treatment. (HSC § 122050)
11. Prohibits a dog breeder from knowingly selling a dog that is diseased, ill or has a condition, which requires hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures. (HSC § 122060)
12. Makes a contract that includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit for the transfer of ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person, pet dealer, or business, while the purchaser is located in California void as against public policy. (HSC § 122227)
13. Prohibits a pet store operator from selling a live dog, cat, or rabbit in a pet store unless the animal was obtained from a public animal control agency or rescue group. (HSC § 122354.5(a))
14. Requires pet store operators to maintain specified minimum standards regarding enclosures. (HSC § 122352)
15. Prohibits a public animal control agency or shelter, an animal rescue group displaying animals at a pet store, or an animal rescue group operating a retail establishment from offering dogs, cats, or rabbits for adoption unless the animals are sterilized, and the adoption fees from being more than $500. (HSC § 122354.5(c))
16. Subjects a pet store operator who violates the prohibition on the sale of retail animals, who failed to correct the first notice of a violation, to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first violation and up to $5,000 for subsequent violations, as specified. (HSC § 122354.5(d)(2))
17. Prohibits “brokers”, as defined, from making available for adoption, selling, or offering for sale a dog under one year of age, a cat, or a rabbit, subject to certain exemptions. (HSC § 122365.1)
18. Prohibits the hatchery production and stocking of transgenic species of salmonids. (Fish and Game Code (FGC) § 1210)
19. Prohibits the spawning, incubation, or cultivation of any transgenic fish species in the water of the Pacific Ocean that are regulated by California. (FGC § 15007)

California Code of Regulations.

1. Defines “transgenic” to mean an animal whose genome has been deliberately altered, modified, or engineered, through means not possible under natural conditions, by insertion of a foreign gene or genes using genetic engineering methods. (Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 1.92(a))
   
2. States that an animal is transgenic if animal is transgenic if its chromosomes contain artificially transferred genetic material from any other organism or a laboratory construct, regardless of whether the original source's genetic material was altered, modified or engineered prior to insertion, or whether the originally transferred genetic material was inherited through normal reproduction. (14, CCR § 1.92(1))
   
3. States that a transgenic aquatic animal is not detrimental, and therefore not subject to regulation, as specified, if it is a live tropical marine or freshwater animal that will not be utilized for research purposes, human consumption, or bait purposes and will be maintained in a closed system and not placed in waters of the state. (14, CCR § 1.92(b)(1))

This bill:

1. Establishes the “Ethics Over Aesthetics Act” (Act).
   
2. Prohibits a person from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale, in this state a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic trait.
   
3. Specifies that the prohibition in 2) above does not apply if any of the following apply:
   
   1. The transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of benefiting the health of the transgenic pet animal resistant to a disease or condition.
      
   2. The transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of enhancing the transgenic pet animal’s interaction with humans, including, but not limited to, promoting hypoallergenic traits, and does not alter the natural functions of the transgenic pet animal.
      
   3. The transgenic pet animal is of a fish species that satisfies the requirements of 14, CCR § 1.92(b)(1)).
      
4. Makes each transgenic pet animal imported for profit, sold, or offered for sale in this state in violation of the provisions of this bill to be considered a separate violation and punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $5,000.
   
5. States that an action to enforce this bill may be brought by the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred or by the city attorney of the city in which the violation occurred.
   
6. Requires a civil penalty to be paid to the city or county, as applicable, of the attorney that brings the action.
   
7. Defines the following for purposes of the Act:
   
   1. “Cosmetic transgenic trait” to mean a transgenic trait that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal’s appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendages.
      
   2. “Pet animal” to mean a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, mouse, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish, or other species of animal kept for the purposes of being a household pet.
      
   3. “Transgenic pet animal” to mean a pet animal that possesses a transgenic trait and includes the progeny of a transgenic pet animal.
      
   4. “Transgenic trait” means a trait that has been deliberately altered, modified, or engineered through means not possible under natural conditions, by insertion of a foreign gene using genetic engineering methods, including but not limited to, the introduction of chromosomes containing artificially transferred genetic material from any other organism or laboratory construct regardless of whether the original source’s genetic material was altered, modified, or engineered before insertion, or whether the originally transferred genetic material was inherited through normal reproduction.
      

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. Social Compassion in Legislation is the sponsor of this bill. According to the Author, “AB 1382 is a necessary step to ensure California remains a leader in responsible science and animal welfare by prohibiting the sale of genetically modified pets created solely for cosmetic appeal. While genomic technology has important medical and public health applications, this bill draws a clear and reasonable line to prevent its use for novelty purposes that place animals at risk. Allowing the commercialization of “designer” pets prioritizes aesthetics over animal well-being and risks exacerbating California’s already severe pet overpopulation and shelter crisis. AB 1382 expressly preserves legitimate scientific research and health-based genetic advancements, ensuring innovation can continue to thrive. This bill reflects California’s values by promoting ethical stewardship, protecting biodiversity, and preventing unnecessary harm to animals.”
2. Background.

Retail Pet Sales and Regulation in California. Recent legislation has aimed to enhance the sale requirements of pets in California in an effort to help address pet overpopulation, discourage a supply of puppy mill and kitten factory animals, ensure humane conditions and treatment for animals that are purchased outside of California, protect consumers from unscrupulous pet breeders and unethical sales tactics, and safeguard California residents from sick or otherwise unhealthy pet animals being sold into this state.

Generally, California regulates the sale of animals through the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act (Warranty Act) and the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act (Protection Act). The Warranty Act is applicable to California breeders, and the Protection Act applies to retail sales in stores. California’s breeder and pet retail sales laws are intended to ensure a consumer has recourse should any problems arise with respect to the health of the animal after the animal is purchased. The Protection Act also includes specific requirements to ensure consumers have information about the pet’s origins and the health and safety of the animals prior to purchase and while in the care of the pet retailer.

California does not license dog breeders in this state. Instead, dog breeders are authorized to operate if they meet the definition of breeder and comply with the requirements specified in the Warranty Act. Under the provisions of the Warranty Act, consumers may receive a refund, or reimbursement should they purchase a sick dog, or a dog found to have a hereditary or congenital condition requiring surgery or hospitalization. Pursuant to provisions within the Warranty Act, dog breeders must provide specific written disclosures, including the breeder’s name, address, information on the dog, and signed statements that the dog has no known diseases or illnesses, as well as a notice of the purchaser’s rights to obtain a refund or reimbursement.

The provisions of the Warranty Act are not applicable to defined shelters or rescue groups or to pet dealers. Pet dealers are regulated and defined under the Protection Act, which ensures that when selling a pet to a consumer, pet dealers must provide purchasers with written information about the animal's health, including any known illnesses or conditions. Additionally, under the Protection Act, before any dog or cat is sold, the dog or cat must be examined by a licensed veterinarian to ensure it is free from contagious diseases and fit for sale. The Protection Act also outlines consumer remedies in the event a purchased animal is found to be ill or affected by a congenital or hereditary condition within 15 days of sale, in which case the consumer may be entitled to a refund, exchange, or reimbursement for veterinary costs. The law also imposes recordkeeping requirements, obligating dealers to retain documentation regarding the source of animals, veterinary treatments, and sales transactions for a specified period. Enforcement of the Protection Act is delegated to local animal control agencies and humane officers, who are authorized to conduct inspections and enforce compliance, and violations of the law may result in civil penalties and administrative actions.

The Pet Store Animal Care Act (Pet Store Act) establishes the minimum care and cleanliness standards for animals housed and sold in retail pet stores in California. The Pet Store Act defines a “pet store” as a retail establishment open to the public that sells or offers for sale animals normally kept as household pets, and outlines detailed requirements for housing, sanitation, feeding, veterinary care, socialization, and enrichment for animals in these stores. Stores must maintain written programs of veterinary care developed in consultation with a licensed veterinarian and specify that an animal showing signs of illness or distress must receive prompt attention. This law also prohibits the sale of animals younger than eight weeks and requires records of animal origin and health status to be kept for specified periods.

Current law prohibits a pet store operator in California from selling a live dog, cat, or rabbit in California unless that animal originates from a public animal control agency or shelter, or animal rescue. With the enactment of AB 485 (O’Donnell, Chapter 740, Statutes of 2017), California became one of the first states in the nation to ban the sale of certain live animals in pet stores and instead promote the rehoming of animals through shelter and rescue organization partnerships with pet supply retailers.

Last year, the Governor signed a trio of bills—AB 506 (Bennett, Chapter 477, Statutes of 2025), AB 519 (Berman, Chapter 478, Statutes of 2025) and SB 312 (Umberg, Chapter 480, Statutes of 2025)—to enhance transparency and accountability related to commercial pet dog, cat, and rabbit sales and transactions in California. Specifically, AB 506 established clear contract laws and disclosure requirements that pet sellers must abide by when selling one of these animals, and a private right of action for any violation of these requirements. AB 519 banned for-profit pet “brokers” in California, subject to certain exceptions, which prohibits the practice of re-selling a dog, cat, or rabbit that is bred by another individual. Finally, SB 312 established clear guidelines and requirements related to certificates of veterinary inspection (CVIs) for commercial dog importation into California and required these CVIs be submitted to the Department of Food and Agriculture. This bill seeks to build upon recent animal welfare laws by prohibiting the sale of pet animals (including a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, mouse, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish, or any other species of animal that is kept for purposes of being a pet) that is a transgenic animal with a cosmetic transgenic trait.

Transgenic Animals. Transgenic animals are those that have been subject to genetic modification, which allows for new traits or capabilities which are not natural to the animal. Transgenic animals may be differentiated from genetically modified animals in that genetically modified animals are modifications of existing genetics within the animal, while transgenic animals have insertions of new genetics into the animal’s makeup. Transgenic animals are not new, however transgenic animals have primarily been utilized in the science and research space. As reported, the first transgenic animals were mice developed in 1794. Since that time, transgenic mice have been used widely in biomedical research.

Genetically modified animals—and genetically modified organisms generally—are regulated federally by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These genetically altered animals are referred by the FDA as “Intentional Genomic Alterations” (IGAs). According to information provided on the FDA’s website, the FDA regulates IGAs in animals through a risk-based approach, from category 1 through 3. Risk is measured based on several factors, such as the risk to the animal or animal species, the potential to harm consumers or food supplies, and possible environmental impacts.

While transgenic animals are primarily used in the fields of science and medicine, there are examples in past decades of transgenic animals being developed for food consumption and purposes of pet sales and companionship. For example, a transgenic salmon was developed in 1989, which was originally intended as a food product. In 2003, after years of research stemming from breakthroughs in adding fluorescent jellyfish proteins into certain fish species for purposes of studying migration patterns, Yorktown Technologies began to market and sell fluorescent fish in the United States. GloFish® are a patented brand of transgenic aquarium fish that exhibit fluorescent colors under certain lights and are sold across the U.S. as pet fish.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) regulate the importation, possession, and transport of a wide variety of mammal and aquatic species, including a specific list of “Restricted Species” that are prohibited from being sold or possessed in the state unless expressly permitted by the Commission. Under these restrictions, “transgenic aquatic animals” are included, and are specified to include “freshwater and marine fishes, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles.”

In 2014, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed AB 504 (Chesbro, Chapter 444, Statutes of 2014), which among other provisions, prohibited the hatchery production, stocking, incubation, or cultivation of any transgenic salmonid in California, but provided a pathway for private entities to apply for a transgenic salmonid research permit, provided it is not employed for commercial production, and there is no chance of those salmon from entering the wild. Current regulations (14, CCR § 1.92) promulgated by the Department of Fish and Game, exempt from regulation of transgenic aquatic animals in California, if specified criteria are met including, it is a live tropical marine or freshwater animal not utilized for research purposes, human consumption or bait, maintained in a closed-system, and the presence of the transgenic aquatic animal poses no reasonable risk to native fish, wildlife, or pets. Recent amendments to this bill allow for the continued sale of a transgenic pet animal that is a fish that meets the requirements pursuant to current regulations (14, CCR § 1.92).

Along with fish for pet use and salmon for human consumption, there are other examples of transgenic animal development through research purpose, including a beagle puppy created in 2009 that glowed under specified light conditions. As provided by the Author of this bill, “Despite the pet overpopulation crisis, some companies are exploring modifying the genes of various animals to create novel traits such as glow-in-the-dark fur. If these animals are created, they will only add to our pet overpopulation crisis when the public impulse buys these animals, which are surely to go “viral,” before they end up filling up our animal shelters and overburdening our animal rescue nonprofits. In addition to the burden these animals would place on the state and nonprofits, it is our contention that modifying the genes of animals simply for the purposes of cosmetics and novelty is unethical. There is no need for these animals to be exploited simply for the “creators” of these animals to make a profit, while the animals and California’s taxpayers foot the bill for the repercussions of the pet overpopulation problem they will exacerbate.”

This bill prohibits the importation or sale of a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait. For example, breeding a dog with a specific hair color. This bill provides a definition of a cosmetic genetic traits to include those that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal’s appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendage”. The bill clarifies that transgenic traits that are for the sole purpose of benefiting the health of the animal or for enhancing the pet animal’s interaction with humans (such as promoting hypoallergenic traits) are exempt from the prohibitions of this bill. This bill is narrow in that it aims to address transgenic traits that might make fur a special color (like a blue bunny) or some other cosmetic enhancement that does not support or benefit the animal or human companion.

1. Related Legislation. AB 506 (Bennett, Chapter 477, Statutes of 2025) specifies information that must be included in a contract between a buyer and pet seller, prohibits such contracts from requiring a nonrefundable deposit, and provides consumer remedies and rights of action for contracts.

AB 519 (Berman, Chapter 478, Statutes of 2025) prohibits “brokers”, as defined, from selling, offering for sale, or making available for adoption any dog, cat, or rabbit, subject to certain exemptions.

SB 312 (Umberg, Chapter 480, Statutes of 2025) expands requirements related to obtaining and submitting a health certificate to the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) when selling or importing dogs into California, and requires the CDFA to retain, and make available upon request, information related to the health certificates.

AB 2380 (Maienschein, Chapter 548, Statutes of 2022) prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering a loan or other financing for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit.

AB 2152 (Gloria & O’Donnell, Chapter 96, Statutes of 2020) prohibits a pet store from selling dogs, cats, or rabbits, but allows a pet store to provide space to display animals for adoption if the animals are displayed by either a shelter or animal rescue group, as defined, and establishes a fee limit, inclusive of the adoption fee, for animals adopted at a pet store.

AB 485 (O’Donnell, Chapter 740, Statutes of 2017) prohibits, beginning January 1, 2019, a pet store operator from selling a live cat, dog, or rabbit in a pet store unless they are offered through a public animal control agency or shelter, specified nonprofit, or animal rescue or adoption organization, as defined.

AB 1491 (Caballero, Chapter 761, Statutes of 2017) declares as void against public policy a contract for the purchase of a dog or cat which is made contingent on making payments over a period of time, or other types of lease-to-own agreements that do not immediately transfer ownership of the animal to the purchaser.

1. Arguments in Support. Humane World for Animals writes in support and notes, “There is no reason to sell pets that have been subject to intentional genetic modification for cosmetic purposes. These alterations may have unknown health implications for the animals and will exacerbate an already overwhelming pet overpopulation crisis.”

A large coalition of supporters writes in support and notes, “As a state with a history of working to protect animal welfare and ensuring scientific development occurs responsibly, it is vital for California to proactively take legislative action to prevent the proliferation of designer pets at the expense of animals, as well as prevent our state’s already burdened animal shelters from taking on more unwanted animals.”

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support:

Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)

Angel's Furry Friends Rescue
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Rescue Mission
Animal Rescuers for Change
Animal Wellness Action
Berkeley Animal Rights Center
Better Together Forever
Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption
Compassionate Bay
Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue
Doggie Business Dog Training
Eartheart
Feline Lucky Adventures
Fine Tuning Dog Training
Giantmecha Syndicate
Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative
Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund
Humane World for Animals
Jaimie Brianna's Legacy Fund
Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation
Leaders for Ethics, Animals, and the Planet (LEAP)
Long Beach Spay and Neuter Foundation
Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals
Los Angeles Rabbit Foundation
Michelson Center for Public Policy
NY 4 Whales
Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue
Plant-based Advocates
Project Minnie
Rabbit Savior
Rabbit.org Foundation
Real Good Rescue
San Diego Companion Rabbit Society
Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue
Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation
Start Rescue
Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School
The Canine Condition
Pet Loss Support Group
The Spayce Project
Underdog Heroes, INC.
Women United for Animal Welfare
World Animal Protection

Numerous individuals

Opposition:

None received as of May 26, 2026

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1382

Author:(Castillo)

As Amended Ver:January 5, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits selling, offering for sale, or importing for profit a transgenic pet animal in California, subject to certain exceptions.

Major Provisions

1. Defines a "cosmetic transgenic trait" as "transgenic trait that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal's appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendages."
2. Defines a "transgenic pet animal" as "a pet animal that possesses a transgenic trait, and includes the progeny of a transgenic pet animal."
3. Defines a "transgenic trait" as "a trait that has been deliberately altered, modified, or engineered, through means not possible under natural conditions, by insertion of a foreign gene using genetic engineering methods, including, but not limited to, the introduction of chromosomes containing artificially transferred genetic material from any other organism or a laboratory construct, regardless of whether the original source's genetic material was altered, modified, or engineered before insertion, or whether the originally transferred genetic material was inherited through normal reproduction."
4. Prohibits a person from selling, offering for sale, or importing for a profit a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait in California.
5. Clarifies that this prohibition is not applicable if:
   1. The transgenic trait is for the sole purposes of benefitting the health of the animal,
   2. The transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of enhancing the transgenic pet animal's interaction with humans, and does not alter the natural functions of the animal,
   3. The transgenic pet animal is an aquatic pet species produced through breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture, and no transgenic organisms are involved.
   4. The transgenic pet animal is an aquatic pet species produced through whole genome ploidy manipulation.
6. Establishes that each transgenic sold, offered or sale, or imported into the state shall be a separate violation, each punishable by a civil penalty of no less than $5,000.
7. Authorizes the district attorney of the county in which a violation occurred to take an action to enforce this bill's provisions.

COMMENTS

Transgenic Animals. Transgenic animals are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have had a foreign gene from another species deliberately inserted into their genome, thus altering their genetic structure and producing a physiological characteristic that does not naturally occur in the organism. Transgenic animals are often used for research or medical purposes; for example, transgenic mice that are modified to can help scientists study the effects of diseases and potential treatments, and recently, the genes of pigs are being modified to develop new solutions for organ transplant. In 2023, scientists at the University of Maryland School of Medicine successfully performed a transplant of a transgenic pig heart into a patient with end-stage cardiovascular disease.

While transgenic animals are primarily used in the fields of science and medicine, there are examples in past decades of transgenic animals being developed for purposes of pet sales and companionship. In 2003, after years of research stemming from breakthroughs in adding fluorescent jellyfish proteins into certain fish species for purposes of studying migration patterns, Yorktown Technologies began to market and sell fluorescent "GloFish" in the United States. Despite early protests from animal rights and consumer watchdog groups, and an initial ban in California, GloFish are sold across the U.S. as ornamental fish and come in many different species: zebrafish, black tetra, rainbow sharks, and more.

Recently, breakthroughs in genomic research and gene editing technology have led to new innovations—and ethical concerns—related to the development of transgenic animals, and particularly transgenic pets. As recently detailed in an article from technology magazine Wired, a new startup called "The Los Angeles Project" is experimenting with genetically engineering cosmetic traits in animals, such as glow-in-the-dark rabbits and horned "unicorn" horses. Specifically, the Los Angeles Project has been using methods such as CRISPR gene editing, and "restriction enzyme mediated integration", or "REMI", to delete or integrate new genes in the embryos of species like frogs, hamsters, and rabbits. While such methods have been used in the past for purposes of scientific and medical research, founders of the Los Angeles Project have expressed clear intent in developing transgenic animals for the consumer pet market.

Another recent example of transgenic animals in the news involves the "revival" of the extinct dire wolf by biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences. Receiving significant media coverage, Colossal analyzed a 13,000-year-old dire wolf tooth and a 72,000-year-old ear bone to modify the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) of gray wolves via CRISPR gene editing to reproduce traits found in the dire wolf samples, such as larger heads, broader shoulders, and a lighter coat. These modified cells were then transferred to denucleated egg cells and implanted into surrogate domesticated dogs. The first "dire wolf" puppies were born in September 2024, and another successfully born in January 2025. Colossal Biosciences has expressed their intent to "de-extinct" other species, such as wooly mammoths, with the eventual goal of reintroducing such species into nature.

Federal and State Regulation of Transgenic Animals. In general, genetically modified animals—and genetically modified organisms generally—are regulated federally by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA has three categories of what it deems "Intentional Genetic Alterations", or (IGAs), measured by the risk associated with the IGA product or animal. Risk is measured based on a number of factors, such as the risk to the animal or animal species, the potential to harm consumers or food supplies, and possible environmental impacts.

Specific to regulating transgenic animals produced solely for the consumer market, the FDA has taken little regulatory action. In fact, in December 2003 the agency expressly permitted the commercial sale of GloFish after the pets first began being sold in the market. In its risk assessment, the FDA stated:

Because tropical aquarium fish are not used for food purposes, they pose no threat to the food supply. There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish.

In California, however, regulators have taken a more careful approach. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), via direction from the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC), regulates the importation, possession, and transport of a wide variety of mammal and aquatic species, including a specific list of "Restricted Species" that are prohibited from being sold or possessed in the state unless expressly permitted by the Commission. Under these restrictions, "Transgenic Aquatic Animals" are included, and are specified to include "freshwater and marine fishes, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles".

Regarding GloFish specifically, the CFGC voted in 2004 to deny permission to sell or possess GloFish in California, despite the FDA's then-recent risk assessment permitting the commercialization of GloFish nationally. Commissioners cited concerns regarding potential impact to state ecosystems, and sided with consumer watchdogs who argued the FDA review process was slapdash. California's ban on the sale of GloFish remained for over a decade, until in January 2016 the CDFW issued a letter to Yorktown Technologies reversing the 2004 decision and expressly permitting the sale and possession of GloFish in California. In its letter to Yorktown Technologies, CDFW wrote: "Based on information provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, including species information, scientific reviews, and risk assessments, CDFW determined that … [GloFish] … are not detrimental to and pose no reasonably foreseeable risk to California's native fish, wildlife, or plants." Since 2016, subsequent CDFW letters and correspondence have affirmed that GloFish are legal to be sold and possessed in the state.

With concern for the ethical and environmental impacts associated with recent transgenic animal innovations, the author and sponsor have put forward this measure to ban the sale and for-profit import of transgenic pet animals that possess a cosmetic genetic trait. "Cosmetic genetic traits" are defined as "a transgenic trait that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal's appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendage". The bill clarifies that transgenic traits that are either "for the sole purpose of benefiting the health of the… animal" or for "enhancing the [animal's] interaction with humans" (such as promoting hypoallergenic traits) are exempt from this prohibition. Further, recognizing the existing market and proven safety of transgenic pet fish like GloFish, the bill exempts such aquatic pets from the prohibition as well. Each violation of a prohibition under this bill would be punishable by a civil penalty of no less than $5,000 per violation, and authorizes the district attorney of the county in which a violation occurred to take an action to enforce this bill's provisions.

In short, the author and sponsor have put forward this measure to ask the Legislature if, while commercial scientists become increasingly occupied with whether cosmetic traits could be added to animals through gene manipulation, whether such traits should be.

According to the Author

"AB 1382 is a necessary response to a troubling trend: the commercialization of gene-edited pets. Gene editing should be reserved for advancing medical research and addressing critical ecological challenges, not for turning animals into living accessories. This reckless commercialization trivializes the ethical implications of genetic modification and exposes animals to unknown health risks. Beyond the potential for unintended genetic consequences, introducing gene-edited pets into the mainstream market could have severe repercussions, including disruptions to ecosystems if these animals were to escape or be released. Additionally, it paves the way for exploitative breeding practices, where profit-driven motives outweigh the well-being of the animals involved. Our shelters are already overflowing with overbred dogs, cats and rabbits. California must draw a clear line: animals are not commodities, and we will not allow genetic consumerism to dictate their future."

Arguments in Support

This bill is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation, who writes: "Driven by advancements in genetic modification technologies, the intentional genomic alteration of animals has become a frontier for development. While investments have been made to further this endeavor for potentially beneficial medical advancements, some companies have begun the development of genetically modified cats, dogs, and other pets with altered appearances to fulfil consumer demand for "designer" traits, despite unknown long-term health risks. These genetic modifications run the risk of prioritizing aesthetics over the well-being of the animal, as well as drive consumer demand for novelty pets when there already exists a pet overpopulation crisis."

Arguments in Opposition

This bill is opposed by Pet Advocacy Network, who writes: "[this bill] would override existing science-based regulatory determinations, disrupt lawful commerce, reduce consumer choice, and set a troubling precedent for banning regulated products based on aesthetics rather than evidence—all without providing any measurable animal-welfare benefit. AB 1382 would open the door to banning regulated products based on aesthetics or perception rather than science."

FISCAL COMMENTS

This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES

ASM BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS: 17-0-1

YES: Berman, Johnson, Ahrens, Alanis, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Caloza, Chen, Elhawary, Hadwick, Haney, Irwin, Jackson, Krell, Macedo, Nguyen, Pellerin

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lowenthal

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Macedo, Pacheco, Papan, Johnson, Stefani, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: January 5, 2026

CONSULTANT: Edward Franco / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0002212

Date of Hearing: January 15, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1382

Author:(Castillo) – As Amended Ver:January 5, 2026

SUBJECT: Ethics Over Aesthetics Act

KEY ISSUE: should the import, sale, or offer for sale of transgenic pet animals be banned in California?

SYNOPSIS

Transgenic animals are a genetically modified animal that has some foreign genetic material from another species deliberately inserted into their genome. Originally transgenic animals were developed to assist in medical research, including growing organs for eventual human transplant. As modern genetic science has improved transgenic animals have also been created to improve their livability with humans, for example some canine species have been slightly modified to make them hypoallergenic, and thus able to live with humans who would otherwise be allergic to dogs. Unfortunately, an emerging industry is now developing transgenic animals that are altered in a purely cosmetic manner. Scientists have developed fish that glow in the dark, dogs with somewhat glowing fur, and horses with unicorn-like horns. Unfortunately, not only is this new industry ethically suspect, but its emergence threatens to undermine California’s strict laws regulating animal breeding that are designed to help control the pet population.

Seeking to get ahead of the cosmetic transgenic animal industry, this bill would ban the selling, offering for sale, or importation of a transgenic animal. The bill recognizes some benefit of transgenic animals and makes clear exceptions for medical needs and those animals with modified genomes that are designed to improve the animal’s health and wellbeing or their ability to cohabitate with humans. This bill imposes a $5,000 per animal civil penalty on persons who are found liable for violating the bill’s prohibitions.

This measure is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation and is supported by dozens of other animal welfare organizations. The proponents of this measure note that the creation of transgenic animals may undermine the animal’s health and will contribute to an out-of-control pet population. As currently in print, this measure has no recorded opposition and will be heard in the Business and Professions Cmte prior to this hearing.

SUMMARY: Prohibits selling, offering for sale, or importing for profit a transgenic pet animal in California. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines the following terms:
   1. “Cosmetic transgenic trait” means a transgenic trait that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal’s appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendages;
   2. “Pet animal” means a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, mouse, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish, or other species of animal kept for the purpose of being a household pet;
   3. “Transgenic pet animal” means a pet animal that possesses a transgenic trait, and includes the progeny of a transgenic pet animal; and
   4. “Transgenic trait” means a trait that has been deliberately altered, modified, or engineered, through means not possible under natural conditions, by insertion of a foreign gene using genetic engineering methods, including, but not limited to, the introduction of chromosomes containing artificially transferred genetic material from any other organism or a laboratory construct, regardless of whether the original source’s genetic material was altered, modified, or engineered before insertion, or whether the originally transferred genetic material was inherited through normal reproduction.
2. Prohibits, notwithstanding any other law, a person from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait.
3. Provides that the prohibition in 2) does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
   1. The transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of benefiting the health of the transgenic pet animal, including, but not limited to, making the transgenic pet animal resistant to a disease or condition;
   2. The transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of enhancing the transgenic pet animal’s interaction with humans, including, but not limited to, promoting hypoallergenic traits, and does not alter the natural functions of the transgenic pet animal;
   3. The transgenic pet animal is of an aquatic pet animal species produced through breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture, and no transgenic organisms are involved; or
   4. The transgenic pet animal is of an aquatic pet animal species produced through whole genome ploidy manipulation.
4. Provides that a person found to have violated 2) is liable for civil penalties of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be enforced through an action brought by a district attorney or city attorney, as specified.
5. Deems each pet animal imported, sold, or offered to be sold, in violation of 2) is a unique violation for the purpose of calculating the penalties specified in 4).

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, which regulates the sale of dogs by dog breeders. (Health and Safety Code Section 122045 et seq.)
2. Requires, pursuant to Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, every dog breeder to deliver to each purchaser of a dog a specified written disclosure and record of veterinary treatment. (Health and Safet Code Section 122050.)
3. Prohibits a dog breeder from knowingly selling a dog that is diseased, ill or has a condition, which requires hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures. (Health and Safety Code Section 122060.)
4. Authorizes a person who purchased a dog from a breeder regulated by 1) that dies within 15 days of purchase to seek, through a civil action if necessary, a refund from the breeder and entitles the prevailing party to attorney costs and fees. (Health and Safety Code Sections 122070 & 122090.)
5. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer-Farr Pet Protection Act, which regulates the sale of dogs and cats by pet dealers. (Health and Safety Code 122125 et seq.)
6. Prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering, brokering, making a referral for, or otherwise facilitating a loan or other financing option for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit. (Health and Safety Code Section 122191.)
7. Prohibits pet dealers from selling a dog unless it has been examined by a California-licensed veterinarian, and requires that the dealer quarantine any sick or diseased animal separate from the healthy animals until a veterinarian determines the dog is free from infection. (Health and Safety Code Section 122210.)
8. Authorizes a person who purchased a dog from a seller regulated by 5) that dies within 15 days of purchase to seek, through a civil action if necessary, a refund from the breeder and entitles the prevailing party to attorney costs and fees. (Health and Safety Code Section 122160.)
9. Prohibits the hatchery production and stocking of transgenic species of salmonids. (Fish and Game Code Fish and Game Section 1210.)
10. Prohibits the spawning, incubation, or cultivation of any transgenic fish species in the water of the Pacific Ocean that are regulated by California. (Fish and Game Code Section 15007.)
11. Provides that specified violations of the Fish and Game Code, including those related to fish hatcheries, are subject to criminal prosecution, as specified. (Fish and Game Code Section 716.4.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: According to the California Department of Public Health, over 150 thousand animals are euthanized in California annually. The author and sponsors of this measure note the vast majority of these deaths can be attributed to unlawful animal breeding, especially in light of the rise of “backyard” breeders during and following the pandemic. The author also notes that it is estimated that state and local government agencies spend over $400 million annually operating shelters to house homeless animals.

Despite the animal overpopulation crisis, with the rise of genetic medicine, some companies are now experimenting on creating and breeding genetically modified pets. While such modifications may be helpful to getting some pets into loving home, for example breeding some dogs or cats to be hypoallergenic so that they can live with humans who would otherwise be allergic to their presence, other modifications are potentially cruel and unnecessary. For example, one company is looking at breeding dogs with glow in the dark fur.

Seeking to ensure that the animal overpopulation crisis is not made worse by the proliferation of genetically modified pets, this bill would ban most pet breeding for transgenic traits in California. In support of the bill the author states:

AB 1382 is a necessary step to ensure California remains a leader in responsible science and animal welfare by prohibiting the sale of genetically modified pets created solely for cosmetic appeal. While genomic technology has important medical and public health applications, this bill draws a clear and reasonable line to prevent its use for novelty purposes that place animals at risk. Allowing the commercialization of “designer” pets prioritizes aesthetics over animal well-being and risks exacerbating California’s already severe pet overpopulation and shelter crisis. AB 1382 expressly preserves legitimate scientific research and health-based genetic advancements, ensuring innovation can continue to thrive. This bill reflects California’s values by promoting ethical stewardship, protecting biodiversity, and preventing unnecessary harm to animals.

Pet sale regulations in California. This state has a long history of promoting strong regulation of the pet breeding and sales industry. The Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act and the Polanco-Lockyer-Farr Pet Protection Act are the primary laws governing the sales, as opposed to adoptions, of pet animals in California. The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act establishes regulations on pet dealers (essentially pet stores) in California designed to promote pet health and safety. Pursuant to the Act, when selling a pet to a consumer, pet dealers must provide purchasers with written information about the animal's health, including any known illnesses or conditions. Additionally, before any dog or cat is sold, it must be examined by a licensed veterinarian to ensure it is free from contagious diseases and fit for sale. The Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act is focused on consumer remedies should a breeder sell a consumer a sick or inquired pet.

Following a series of exposés in the Los Angeles Times highlighting the gaps in the state’s oversight of the pet sales and breeding industry (Alene Tchekmedyian and Melody Gutierrez, Inside California’s brutal underground market for puppies: Neglected dogs, deceived owners, big profits, LA Times (Sept. 12, 2024) available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-12/puppy-mill-pipeline.), last year the Legislature enacted a series of bills to further regulate the industry. This bill was largely part of that package of legislation, however, its original author resigned from the Legislature in April and the current author took over the bill with insufficient time remaining in the legislative process to advance the bill in 2025.

What is a transgenic pet? A transgenic animal is a genetically modified animal that has some foreign genetic material from another species deliberately inserted into their genome. Originally, transgenic animals were created and utilized in medical research. Indeed, in 2023 doctors at the University of Maryland successfully transplanted the heart from a transgenic pig into a human in need of a new heart. Beyond the medical advances, like heart surgery, transgenic animals are sold to help make the animals “better” pets, for example some transgenic dogs have been bred with genetic material from other dogs to make the hybrid dog hypoallergenic and thus able to live in households with humans who would otherwise be allergic to the breed.

However, profit motive and genetic medicine is now producing a troubling new trend in transgenic animals. Beginning in 2003, the company Yorktown Technologies created and began selling “GloFish,” a transgenic glow in the dark fish species. While some fish species do glow naturally, they are typically found in the wild and rarely survive in captivity making them poor candidates for pets. GloFish essentially took the genetic material from the wild fish and cross-bred them into pets. While this may be relatively innocent, and somewhat novel, in fish; modern science has now evolved to enabled specialized traits to be bred into other types of pets. According to the analysis of this measure by the Committee on Business and Professions, “a new startup called ‘The Los Angeles Project’ is experimenting with genetically engineering cosmetic traits in animals, such as glow-in-the-dark rabbits and horned “unicorn” horses. Specifically, the Los Angeles Project has been using methods such as CRISPR gene editing, and “restriction enzyme mediated integration”, or “REMI”, to delete or integrate new genes in the embryos of species like frogs, hamsters, and rabbits. While such methods have been used in the past for purposes of scientific and medical research, founders of the Los Angeles Project have expressed clear intent in developing transgenic animals for the consumer pet market.” (Asm. Com. On Bus. and Prof., Analysis of Asm. Bill No. 1382 (2025-26 Reg. Session) as amended Jan. 5, 2026, p. 5.)

Animal welfare advocates note that the long-term health implications of transgenic animals are still largely unknown. While hypoallergenic animals appear to be otherwise healthy, altering a pet’s dander is a relatively small genetic modification, adding traits like horns to horses requires significant genetic modification and, unlike allergy relief, serves little more than aesthetic benefit. Furthermore, animal rights advocates fear this new industry will further exacerbate society’s existing struggles to control the pet population. Even if Californians diligently spay and neuter their pets this new industry will undermine the state’s decades-long efforts to reign in unethical breeders.

This bill recognizes the dangers posed by the unchecked proliferation of the transgenic pet industry. Accordingly, this bill generally bans the breeding, importation, or sales of transgenic pets. Recognizing that some transgenic animals are beneficial to society, this bill exempts transgenic animals that are bred to improve animal health and to assist the animal’s interactions with humans (essentially the hypoallergenic dog). This bill imposes a $5,000 per animal civil penalty on any person found to have violated the bill. The bill, modeling existing pet breeder as well as fish and game regulations, vests enforcement with city attorneys and district attorneys.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the animal welfare organization, Social Compassion in Legislation, and is supported by dozens of animal rights groups. In support of this bill, Social Compassion in Legislation writes:

Driven by advancements in genetic modification technologies, the intentional genomic alteration of animals has become a frontier for development. While investments have been made to further this endeavor for potentially beneficial medical advancements, some companies have begun the development of genetically modified cats, dogs, and other pets with altered appearances to fulfil consumer demand for "designer" traits, despite unknown long-term health risks. These genetic modifications run the risk of prioritizing aesthetics over the well-being of the animal, as well as drive consumer demand for novelty pets when there already exists a pet overpopulation crisis.

A February 19, 2025, article published by Wired details a startup, the Los Angeles Project, created with the goal of using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and restriction enzyme mediated integration (REMI) technologies to create genetically modified animals, from glow-in-the-dark rabbits to unicorns. The company has already been experimenting on embryos from frogs, fish, hamsters, and rabbits to produce these outcomes for the express purpose of creating fantastical pets for consumer purchase.

As a state with a history of working to protect animal welfare and ensuring scientific development occurs responsibly, it is vital for California to proactively take legislative action to prevent the proliferation of designer pets at the expense of animals, as well as prevent our state’s already burdened animal shelters from taking on more unwanted animals.

In 2016, the last year for which the Department of Public Health collected data on shelter animal outcomes, the state’s shelters euthanized 158,191 dogs and cats combined. That figure doesn’t include the thousands of rabbits and other animals euthanized at shelters. While we lack the latest data, it is accepted in the animal sheltering and rescue communities that the pet overpopulation crisis has only exacerbated since that time. We should not add to the problem by allowing the sale of novelty pets which will certainly end up in our state’s animal shelters after the fun of the novelty wears off and consumers who bought these animals are unwilling to give a lifetime of care to them.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)

Angel's Furry Friends
Angel's Furry Friends Rescue
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Rescuers for Change
Animal Wellness Action
Berkeley Animal Rights Center
Better Together Forever
Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption
Compassionate Bay
Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue
Doggie Business Dog Training
Feline Lucky Adventures
Fine Tuning Dog Training
Giantmecha Syndicate
Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative
Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund
Individuals
Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation
Leaders for Ethics, Animals, and the Planet (LEAP)
Los Angeles County Democrats for the Protection of Animals
Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals
Los Angeles Rabbit Foundation
Michelson Center for Public Policy
NY 4 Whales
Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue
Plant-based Advocates
Project Minnie
Rabbit Savior
Rabbit.org Foundation
Real Good Rescue
San Diego Companion Rabbit Society
Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue
Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation
Start Rescue
Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School
The Animal Rescue Mission
The Canine Condition
The Pet Loss Support Group
The Spayce Project
Underdog Heroes, INC.
Women United for Animal Welfare
World Animal Protection

930 Individuals

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Nicholas Liedtke / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

Date of Hearing: January 13, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

Marc Berman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1382

Author:Castillo – As Amended Ver:January 5, 2026

NOTE: This bill is double referred and if passed by this Committee will be re-referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary.

SUBJECT: Ethics Over Aesthetics Act.

SUMMARY: Prohibits selling, offering for sale, or importing for profit a transgenic pet animal in California, subject to certain exceptions.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, which regulates the sale dogs by dog breeders. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§ 122045 et seq.)
2. Requires every dog breeder to deliver to each purchaser of a dog a specified written disclosure and record of veterinary treatment. (HSC § 122050)
3. Requires dog breeders to maintain a written record on the health, status, and disposition of each dog for a period of not less than one year after disposition of the dog. (HSC § 122055)
4. Prohibits a dog breeder from knowingly selling a dog that is diseased, ill or has a condition, which requires hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures. (HSC § 122060)
5. Requires every breeder who sells a dog to provide the purchaser at the time of sale, and a prospective purchaser upon request, with a written notice of rights, including conditions to return a dog and be eligible to receive a refund for an animal or reimbursement for veterinary fees. (HSC § 122100)
6. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer-Farr Pet Protection Act, which regulates the sale of dogs and cats by pet dealers. (HSC §§ 122125 et seq.)
7. Prohibits a pet dealer from possessing a dog that is less than eight weeks old. (HSC § 122155(b))
8. Establishes certain requirements, restitution processes, and consumer rights related to the purchase of a dog by a pet dealer that subsequently falls ill within specified timeframes. (HSC §§ 122160-122190)
9. Prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering, brokering, making a referral for, or otherwise facilitating a loan or other financing option for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit. (HSC § 122191)
10. Prohibits pet dealers from selling a dog unless it has been examined by a California-licensed veterinarian, and requires that the dealer quarantine any sick or diseased animal separate from the healthy animals until a veterinarian determines the dog is free from infection. (HSC § 122210)
11. Requires every retail pet dealer to conspicuously post a notice indicating the state where the dog was bred and brokered on the cage of each dog offered for sale. (HSC § 122215)
12. Requires any person, dealer, or business selling a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California to provide a written notice that contains information including, but not limited to, the origin and known health records of the animal. (HSC § 122226)
13. Prohibits a pet store operator from selling a live dog, cat, or rabbit in a pet store unless the animal was obtained from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group that is in a cooperative agreement with at least one private or public shelter, as specified. (HSC § 122354.5(a))
14. Requires pet store operators to maintain specified minimum standards regarding enclosures. (HSC § 122352)
15. Prohibits a public animal control agency or shelter, an animal rescue group displaying animals at a pet store, or an animal rescue group operating a retail establishment from offering dogs, cats, or rabbits for adoption unless the animals are sterilized, and the adoption fees from being more than $500. (HSC § 122354.5(c))
16. Subjects a pet store operator who violates the prohibition on the sale of retail animals, who failed to correct the first notice of a violation to a civil penalty of $1,000 and $5,000 for subsequent violations, as specified. (HSC § 122354.5(d)(2))
17. Prohibits “brokers”, as defined, from making available for adoption, selling, or offering for sale a dog under one year of age, a cat, or a rabbit, subject to certain exemptions. (Business and Professions Code § 122365.1)
18. Prohibits the hatchery production and stocking of transgenic species of salmonids. (Fish and Game Code (FGC) § 1210)
19. Prohibits the spawning, incubation, or cultivation of any transgenic fish species in the water of the Pacific Ocean that are regulated by California. (FGC 15007)

THIS BILL:

1. Defines a “cosmetic transgenic trait” as “transgenic trait that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal’s appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendages.”
2. Defines a “transgenic pet animal” as “a pet animal that possesses a transgenic trait, and includes the progeny of a transgenic pet animal.”
3. Defines a “transgenic trait” as “a trait that has been deliberately altered, modified, or engineered, through means not possible under natural conditions, by insertion of a foreign gene using genetic engineering methods, including, but not limited to, the introduction of chromosomes containing artificially transferred genetic material from any other organism or a laboratory construct, regardless of whether the original source’s genetic material was altered, modified, or engineered before insertion, or whether the originally transferred genetic material was inherited through normal reproduction.”
4. Prohibits a person from selling, offering for sale, or importing for a profit a transgenic pet animal that possesses a cosmetic transgenic trait in California.
5. Clarifies that this prohibition is not applicable if:
   1. The transgenic trait is for the sole purposes of benefitting the health of the animal,
   2. The transgenic trait is for the sole purpose of enhancing the transgenic pet animal’s interaction with humans, and does not alter the natural functions of the animal,
   3. The transgenic pet animal is an aquatic pet species produced through breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture, and no transgenic organisms are involved.
   4. The transgenic pet animal is an aquatic pet species produced through whole genome ploidy manipulation.
6. Establishes that each transgenic sold, offered or sale, or imported into the state shall be a separate violation, each punishable by a civil penalty of no less than $5,000.
7. Authorizes the district attorney of the county in which a violation occurred to take an action to enforce this bill’s provisions.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation. According to the author:

AB 1382 is a necessary response to a troubling trend: the commercialization of gene-edited pets. Gene editing should be reserved for advancing medical research and addressing critical ecological challenges, not for turning animals into living accessories. This reckless commercialization trivializes the ethical implications of genetic modification and exposes animals to unknown health risks. Beyond the potential for unintended genetic consequences, introducing gene-edited pets into the mainstream market could have severe repercussions, including disruptions to ecosystems if these animals were to escape or be released. Additionally, it paves the way for exploitative breeding practices, where profit-driven motives outweigh the well-being of the animals involved. Our shelters are already overflowing with overbred dogs, cats and rabbits. California must draw a clear line: animals are not commodities, and we will not allow genetic consumerism to dictate their future.

Background.

State Regulation of Pet Sales. California has a long history of regulating pet sales in the state beyond federal standards, with a number of laws that oversee pet dealers and their businesses, and aim to protect the wellbeing of the animals they sell. The Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act (Pet Protection Act) establishes requirements on pet dealers in California. When selling a pet to a consumer, pet dealers must provide purchasers with written information about the animal's health, including any known illnesses or conditions. Additionally, before any dog or cat is sold, it must be examined by a licensed veterinarian to ensure it is free from contagious diseases and fit for sale. The Pet Protection Act also outlines consumer remedies in the event a purchased animal is found to be ill or affected by a congenital or hereditary condition within 15 days of sale, in which case the consumer may be entitled to a refund, an exchange, or reimbursement for veterinary costs. The law also imposes recordkeeping requirements, obligating dealers to retain documentation regarding the source of animals, veterinary treatments, and sales transactions for a specified period. Enforcement of the Pet Protection Act is delegated to local animal control agencies and humane officers, who are authorized to conduct inspections and enforce compliance, and violations of the law may result in civil penalties and administrative actions.

The Pet Store Animal Care Act, contained in Part 6, Chapter 9 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, establishes minimum care and cleanliness standards for animals housed and sold in retail pet stores. The law defines a “pet store” as a retail establishment open to the public that sells or offers for sale animals normally kept as household pets, and outlines detailed requirements for housing, sanitation, feeding, veterinary care, socialization, and environmental enrichment for animals in these stores. Specifically, the law mandates that animals be provided with adequate food and potable water, daily care by competent staff, and housing that ensures comfort through minimum size standards, ventilation, and enrichment devices (i.e., pet toys). Stores must maintain written programs of veterinary care developed in consultation with a licensed veterinarian, and animals showing signs of illness or distress must receive prompt attention. The law also prohibits the sale of animals younger than eight weeks, and requires records of animal origin and health status to be kept for specified periods.

Beyond pet sales that occur in retail settings, California regulates the sale of dogs by dog breeders through the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act (Warranty Act). Under the Warranty Act, “dog breeders” are defined as a person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association that has sold, transferred, or given away all or part of three or more litters or 20 or more dogs during the preceding 12 months that were bred and reared on the premises of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association. Much like the Pet Protection Act, the Warranty Act allows a consumer to receive a refund or reimbursement should they purchase a sick pet, or a pet that is found to have a hereditary or congenital condition requiring surgery or hospitalization. The Warranty Act further regulates California dog breeders by requiring breeders to provide specific written disclosures, including the breeder’s name, address, information on the dog, and signed statements that the dog has no known diseases or illnesses, as well as a notice of the purchaser’s rights to obtain a refund or reimbursement.

Last year, the Governor signed a trio of bills—AB 506 (Bennett, Chapter 447, Statutes of 2025), AB 519 (Berman, Chapter 478, Statutes of 2025) and SB 312 (Umberg, Chapter 480, Statutes of 2025)—to bring greater transparency and accountability to the commercial dog, cat, and rabbit markets. Specifically, AB 506 established clear contract laws and disclosure requirements that pet sellers’ must abide by when selling one of these animals, and a private right of action for any violation of these requirements. AB 519 banned for-profit pet “brokers” in California, subject to certain exceptions, which prohibits the practice of re-selling a dog, cat, or rabbit that is bred by another individual. Finally, SB 312 established clear guidelines and requirements related to certificates of veterinary inspection (CVIs) for commercial dog importation into California, and required these CVIs be submitted to the Department of Food and Agriculture.

Transgenic Animals. Transgenic animals are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have had a foreign gene from another species deliberately inserted into their genome, thus altering their genetic structure and producing a physiological characteristic that does not naturally occur in the organism. Transgenic animals are often used for research or medical purposes; for example, transgenic mice that are modified to can help scientists study the effects of diseases and potential treatments, and recently, the genes of pigs are being modified to develop new solutions for organ transplant. In 2023, scientists at the University of Maryland School of Medicine successfully performed a transplant of a transgenic pig heart into a patient with end-stage cardiovascular disease.

While transgenic animals are primarily used in the fields of science and medicine, there are examples in past decades of transgenic animals being developed for purposes of pet sales and companionship. In 2003, after years of research stemming from breakthroughs in adding fluorescent jellyfish proteins into certain fish species for purposes of studying migration patterns, Yorktown Technologies began to market and sell fluorescent “GloFish” in the United States. Despite early protests from animal rights and consumer watchdog groups, and an initial ban in California, GloFish are sold across the U.S. as ornamental fish and come in many different species: zebrafish, black tetra, rainbow sharks, and more.

Recently, breakthroughs in genomic research and gene editing technology have led to new innovations—and ethical concerns—related to the development of transgenic animals, and particularly transgenic pets. As recently detailed in an article from technology magazine Wired, a new startup called “The Los Angeles Project” is experimenting with genetically engineering cosmetic traits in animals, such as glow-in-the-dark rabbits and horned “unicorn” horses. Specifically, the Los Angeles Project has been using methods such as CRISPR gene editing, and “restriction enzyme mediated integration”, or “REMI”, to delete or integrate new genes in the embryos of species like frogs, hamsters, and rabbits. While such methods have been used in the past for purposes of scientific and medical research, founders of the Los Angeles Project have expressed clear intent in developing transgenic animals for the consumer pet market.

Another recent example of transgenic animals in the news involves the “revival” of the extinct dire wolf by biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences. Receiving significant media coverage, Colossal analyzed a 13,000-year-old dire wolf tooth and a 72,000-year-old ear bone to modify the DNA of gray wolves via CRISPR gene editing to reproduce traits found in the dire wolf samples, such as larger heads, broader shoulders, and a lighter coat. These modified cells were then transferred to denucleated egg cells and implanted into surrogate domesticated dogs. The first “dire wolf” puppies were born in September 2024, and another successfully born in January 2025. Colossal Biosciences has expressed their intent to “de-extinct” other species, such as wooly mammoths, with the eventual goal of reintroducing such species into nature.

Federal and State Regulation of Transgenic Animals. In general, genetically modified animals—and genetically modified organisms generally—are regulated federally by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has three categories of what it deems “Intentional Genetic Alterations”, or IGAs, measured by the risk associated with the IGA product or animal. Risk is measured based on a number of factors, such as the risk to the animal or animal species, the potential to harm consumers or food supplies, and possible environmental impacts.

Specific to regulating transgenic animals produced solely for the consumer market, the FDA has taken little regulatory action. In fact, in December 2003 the agency expressly permitted the commercial sale of GloFish after the pets first began being sold in the market. In its risk assessment, the FDA stated:

Because tropical aquarium fish are not used for food purposes, they pose no threat to the food supply. There is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebra danio fish pose any more threat to the environment than their unmodified counterparts which have long been widely sold in the United States. In the absence of a clear risk to the public health, the FDA finds no reason to regulate these particular fish.

In California, however, regulators have taken a more careful approach. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), via direction from the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC), regulates the importation, possession, and transport of a wide variety of mammal and aquatic species, including a specific list of “Restricted Species” that are prohibited from being sold or possessed in the state unless expressly permitted by the Commission. Under these restrictions, “Transgenic Aquatic Animals” are included, and are specified to include “freshwater and marine fishes, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles”.

Regarding GloFish specifically, the CFGC voted in 2004 to deny permission to sell or possess GloFish in California, despite the FDA’s then-recent risk assessment permitting the commercialization of GloFish nationally. Commissioners cited concerns regarding potential impact to state ecosystems, and sided with consumer watchdogs who argued the FDA review process was slapdash. California’s ban on the sale of GloFish remained for over a decade, until in January 2016 the CDFW issued a letter to Yorktown Technologies reversing the 2004 decision and expressly permitting the sale and possession of GloFish in California. In its letter to Yorktown Technologies, CDFW wrote: “Based on information provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, including species information, scientific reviews, and risk assessments, CDFW determined that … [GloFish] … are not detrimental to and pose no reasonably foreseeable risk to California’s native fish, wildlife, or plants.” Since 2016, subsequent CDFW letters and correspondence have affirmed that GloFish are legal to be sold and possessed in the state.

With concern for the ethical and environmental impacts associated with recent transgenic animal innovations, the author and sponsor have put forward this measure to ban the sale and for-profit import of transgenic pet animals that possess a cosmetic genetic trait. “Cosmetic genetic traits” are defined as “a transgenic trait that alters, modifies, or engineers a transgenic pet animal’s appearance or natural functions, which may include, but not be limited to, novel fur, skin, feather, or scale coloring, the removal of claws or vocal cords, or the addition or subtraction of appendage”. The bill clarifies that transgenic traits that are either “for the sole purpose of benefiting the health of the… animal” or for “enhancing the [animal’s] interaction with humans” (such as promoting hypoallergenic traits) are exempt from this prohibition. Further, recognizing the existing market and proven safety of transgenic pet fish like GloFish, the bill exempts such aquatic pets from the prohibition as well. Each violation of a prohibition under this bill would be punishable by a civil penalty of no less than $5,000 per violation, and authorizes the district attorney of the county in which a violation occurred to take an action to enforce this bill’s provisions.

In short, the author and sponsor have put forward this measure to ask the Legislature if, while commercial scientists become increasingly occupied with whether cosmetic traits could be added to animals through gene manipulation, whether such traits should be.

Prior Related Legislation. AB 506 (Bennett), Chapter 447, Statutes of 2025 specified information that must be included in a contract between a buyer and pet seller, prohibit such contracts from requiring a nonrefundable deposit, and provide consumer remedies and rights of action for contracts.

AB 519 (Berman), Chapter 478, Statutes of 2025 prohibited “brokers”, as defined, from selling, offering for sale, or making available for adoption any dog, cat, or rabbit, subject to certain exemptions.

SB 312 (Umberg), Chapter 480, Statutes of 2025 expands requirements related to obtaining and submitting a health certificate to the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) when selling or importing dogs into California, and require the CDFA to retain, and make available upon request, information related to the health certificates.

AB 2380 (Maienschein), Chapter 548, Statutes of 2022 prohibited an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering a loan or other financing for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit.

AB 2152 (Gloria & O’Donnell), Chapter 96, Statutes of 2020 prohibited a pet store from selling dogs, cats, or rabbits, but allows a pet store to provide space to display animals for adoption if the animals are displayed by either a shelter or animal rescue group, as defined, and establishes a fee limit, inclusive of the adoption fee, for animals adopted at a pet store.

AB 485 (O’Donnell), Chapter 740, Statutes of 2017 prohibited, beginning January 1, 2019, a pet store operator from selling a live cat, dog, or rabbit in a pet store unless they are offered through a public animal control agency or shelter, specified nonprofit, or animal rescue or adoption organization, as defined.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

This bill is sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation, who writes: “Driven by advancements in genetic modification technologies, the intentional genomic alteration of animals has become a frontier for development. While investments have been made to further this endeavor for potentially beneficial medical advancements, some companies have begun the development of genetically modified cats, dogs, and other pets with altered appearances to fulfil consumer demand for "designer" traits, despite unknown long-term health risks. These genetic modifications run the risk of prioritizing aesthetics over the well-being of the animal, as well as drive consumer demand for novelty pets when there already exists a pet overpopulation crisis.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT:

Social Compassion in Legislation (Sponsor)

Angel’s Furry Friends Rescue

Animal Legal Defense Fund

Animal Rescuers for Change

Animal Wellness Action

Berkeley Animal Rights Center

Better Together Forever

Born Again Animal Rescue and Adoption

Compassionate Bay

Concerned Citizens Animal Rescue

Doggie Business Dog Training

Feline Lucky Adventures

Fine Tuning Dog Training

Giantmecha Syndicate

Greater Los Angeles Animal Spay Neuter Collaborative

Hugs and Kisses Animal Fund

Latino Alliance for Animal Care Foundation

Leaders for Ethics, Animals, and the Planet (LEAP)

Los Angeles County Democrats for the Protection of Animals

Los Angeles Democrats for the Protection of Animals

Los Angeles Rabbit Foundation

Michelson Center for Public Policy

NY 4 Whales

Pibbles N Kibbles Animal Rescue

Plant-based Advocates

Project Minnie

Rabbit Savior

Rabbit.org Foundation

Real Good Rescue

San Diego Companion Rabbit Society

Seeds 4 Change Now Animal Rescue

Seniors Citizens for Humane Education and Legislation

Start Rescue

Students Against Animal Cruelty Club - Hueneme High School

The Animal Rescue Mission

The Canine Condition

The Pet Loss Support Group

The Spayce Project

Underdog Heroes

Women United for Animal Welfare

World Animal Protection

930 Individuals

REGISTERED OPPOSITION:

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Edward Franco / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301