Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires pet dealers, as defined, to disclose at the time of sale of a dog or cat specified information, including, among others, the source of the dog or cat, a record of known diseases or illnesses afflicting the dog or cat, and a record of immunizations or inoculations, worming treatments, veterinarian treatment, or medications received by the dog or cat. Existing law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, requires dog breeders to disclose, among other things, the aforementioned medical information to purchasers. Existing law makes a person who violates these provisions liable for civil penalties, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person, pet dealer, or business, while the purchaser is located in California, is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California to disclose the original source and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize suit against a person, pet dealer, as defined, or business that violates the above-described provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a purchaser affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against the person, pet dealer, or business in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the purchaser within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the purchaser return the contract subject. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by or to a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires pet dealers, as defined, to disclose at the time of sale of a dog or cat specified information, including, among others, the source of the dog or cat, a record of known diseases or illnesses afflicting the dog or cat, and a record of immunizations or inoculations, worming treatments, veterinarian treatment, or medications received by the dog or cat. Existing law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, requires dog breeders to disclose, among other things, the aforementioned medical information to purchasers. Existing law makes a person who violates these provisions liable for civil penalties, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person, pet dealer, or business, while the purchaser is located in California, is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California to disclose the original source and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize suit against a person, pet dealer, as defined, or business that violates the above-described provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a purchaser affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against the person, pet dealer, or business in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the purchaser within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the purchaser return the contract subject. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by or to a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires pet dealers, as defined, to disclose at the time of sale of a dog or cat specified information, including, among others, the source of the dog or cat, a record of known diseases or illnesses afflicting the dog or cat, and a record of immunizations or inoculations, worming treatments, veterinarian treatment, or medications received by the dog or cat. Existing law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, requires dog breeders to disclose, among other things, the aforementioned medical information to purchasers. Existing law makes a person who violates these provisions liable for civil penalties, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person, pet dealer, or business, while the purchaser is located in California, is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California to disclose the original source and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize suit against a person, pet dealer, as defined, or business that violates the above-described provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a purchaser affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against the person, pet dealer, or business in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the purchaser within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the purchaser return the contract subject. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by or to a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires pet dealers, as defined, to disclose at the time of sale of a dog or cat specified information, including, among others, the source of the dog or cat, a record of known diseases or illnesses afflicting the dog or cat, and a record of immunizations or inoculations, worming treatments, veterinarian treatment, or medications received by the dog or cat. Existing law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, requires dog breeders to disclose, among other things, the aforementioned medical information to purchasers. Existing law makes a person who violates these provisions liable for civil penalties, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person person, pet dealer, or business, as defined, while the buyer purchaser is located in California, is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a person person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to disclose the original source and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize suit against a person person, pet dealer, as defined, or business that violates the above-described provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a buyer purchaser affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against the person person, pet dealer, or business in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the buyer purchaser within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the buyer purchaser return the contract subject. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by or to a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

Existing law, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act, requires pet dealers, as defined, to disclose at the time of sale of a dog or cat specified information, including, among others, the source of the dog or cat, a record of known diseases or illnesses afflicting the dog or cat, and a record of immunizations or inoculations, worming treatments, veterinarian treatment, or medications received by the dog or cat. Existing law, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, requires dog breeders to disclose, among other things, the aforementioned medical information to purchasers. Existing law makes a person who violates these provisions liable for civil penalties, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person or business, as defined, while the buyer is located in California, is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a person or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to disclose the original source and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize suit against a person or business that violates the above-described provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a buyer affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against the person in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions on behalf of buyers. in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the buyer return the contract subject. The bill would specify that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a broker, as defined, and where person or business, as defined, while the buyer is located in California, is void as against public policy if specified conditions are met, including that the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, between a broker and a buyer who is located in California to include specified information, including that the broker is required person or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to disclose the original source of the dog or cat involved in the contract. and medical information of the dog, cat, or rabbit, as specified. The bill would authorize any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin a person who offers a contract that contains a term suit against a person or business that violates the above-described provisions. provisions in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate. The bill would authorize a buyer harmed affected by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against any the person in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions on behalf of pet purchasers in a claim brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction. buyers.

The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the buyer return the contract subject. The bill would specify that nothing in its provisions are to be construed to these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a broker, as defined, and where the buyer is located in California, is void as against public policy if specified conditions are met, including that the contract requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, between a broker and a buyer who is located in California to include specified information, including that the broker is required to disclose the original source of the dog or cat involved in the contract. The bill would authorize any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin a person who offers a contract that contains a term that violates the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize a buyer harmed by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against any person in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions on behalf of a pet purchaser. pet purchasers in a claim brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the buyer return the contract subject. The bill would specify that nothing in its provisions are to be construed to limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy.

This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a broker, as defined, and where the buyer is located in California, is void as against public policy if specified conditions are met, including that the contract requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, between a broker and a buyer who is located in California to include specified information, including that the broker is required to disclose the original source of the dog or cat involved in the contract. The bill would authorize any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin a person who offers a contract that contains a term that violates the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize a buyer harmed by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against any person in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorneys fees and costs. The bill would also authorize the Attorney General to enforce these provisions on behalf of a pet purchaser.

The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation that the buyer return the contract subject. The bill would specify that nothing in its provisions are to be construed to limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as specified.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 506

Author:(Bennett)

As Amended Ver:July 10, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits contracts between a purchaser, as defined, and a person, business, or pet dealer, as defined, for the sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit from including a nonrefundable deposit, requires the seller to disclose specified animal health information to the buyer, and provides consumer remedies and rights of action for sales that violate the provisions of this bill.

Senate Amendments

1. Clarify that provisions are additionally applicable to "pet dealers" as defined under Section 122125 of the Health and Safety Code.
2. Clarify that provisions apply to dog, cat, or rabbit purchases made in California.
3. Make other clarifying, non-substantive changes.

COMMENTS

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.

Breeder Operations. There are various types of breeders in the commercial animal market, particularly as federal, state, and local laws evolve to better promote animal welfare in pet sales. Professional breeders are generally recognized as responsible breeding operations who adhere to strict animal health, safety, and breeding standards; maintain active membership in their kennel clubs; and conduct extensive research on breed lineage, health risks, and canine or feline obstetrics. Professional breeders must comply with all existing state laws when selling an animal, and ensure that contracts meet existing requirements on health guarantees such as the ones outlined in the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act.

Conversely, "puppy mills" or "kitten factories" generally refer to commercial, high-volume breeding facilities that mass produce animals for retail sale. As detailed in the Federal Regulations section of this analysis, while commercial breeders are required to abide by the AWA, and some operations are even federally licensed, there is limited oversight and enforcement of the requirements. These commercial-scale breeding facilities are often those most associated with inhumane conditions and sickly animals.

"Backyard breeder" is an informal catch-all term referring to breeders with little experience or knowledge in the practice of animal breeding. While such breeders are not necessarily unethical, breeding without the training, knowledge, or even support of a kennel club can lead to genetic issues and put the health and safety of the animal and their offspring at risk. Untrained breeders may have various reasons for breeding an animal, such as making extra income, or having extra puppies or kittens for their own family. Over the years, local jurisdictions have reported untrained breeders selling sick or injured animals who were raised in inhumane conditions, though it is unclear to what extent these individuals are responsible for other issues relating to animal overcrowding and welfare.

Further Legislative Reforms. Building off existing federal and state laws, the Legislature has made additional reforms in recent years to the sale of animals coming from large-scale animal "mills" and other cruel commercial operations. In an effort to reduce the flow of pets sourced from breeder mills, AB 485 (O'Donnell, Chapter 740, Statutes of 2017) was enacted in 2018 to prohibit pet store operators from selling a live cat, dog, or rabbit unless the animal is offered through a public animal control agency or shelter, specified nonprofit, or animal rescue or adoption organization. Pet store operators who violate these provisions are subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each animal offered for sale.

To address loopholes that resulted from the implementation of AB 485, in which commercial breeders guised their businesses as nonprofit organizations to circumvent prohibitions, further legislation enacted in 2021 (AB 2152, Gloria & O'Donnell, Chapter 96, Statutes of 2020) specifically defined the type of animal rescue organizations that pet stores could source animals from. Additionally, AB 2152 prohibited pet stores from displaying animals except for cases of providing display space for nonprofit partners. In 2023, AB 2380 (Maienschein, Chapter 548, Statutes of 2022) was enacted to further curb the importation of commercially-bred pets into California, and address unscrupulous and predatory lending practices in the pet market by prohibiting online pet retailers from offering or brokering a loan or other financing option for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit.

LA Times Exposé. Despite California's many past efforts to address animal welfare in pet sales broadly, and more specifically, to eliminate large-scale, commercially-bred animals from retail channels, a 2024 investigative report by the Los Angeles Times titled "Inside California's Brutal Underground Market for Puppies" exposed that some breeders and pet sellers were exploiting loopholes that allow them to serve as brokers, reselling or arranging the sale of dogs bred in "puppy mills." Through analysis of more than 88,000 certificates of veterinary inspection—or "travel certificates"—from states throughout the country, the Times identified that more than 71,000 were imported into California. Individual pet dealers and businesses then rebrand and resell these imported dogs as "California-bred" to unknowing consumers. According to the report, many of these pets develop future health problems and consumers are left with little knowledge as to the original source of their pet, nor recourse for the fraudulent sale.

According to the Times investigation, more than 70% of dogs imported into California come from Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Iowa, areas which the report notes have high concentrations of commercial breeding facilities. Among other egregious cases, the report details "photos and videos of… dogs with bleeding open wounds, decaying teeth and crusty infected eyes" documented in the federal inspection reports of a particular Iowa breeder, who was previously suspended by the USDA, that exports puppies to California via brokers. Once in the state, individuals often use fake names and addresses to obfuscate the original source of the dog and "launder" the records to imply it is locally bred and raised. The same Iowa breeding operator, for example, did not list their name directly on the travel certificates of dogs imported into California. Rather, they arranged transfers through a former employee who used a portion of the breeding grounds as a "separate" business. In some cases, puppies may move through multiple brokers before being sold to a final consumer, further complicating the tracking and retention of veterinary health certificates.

In response to this investigative report, the author and sponsors have put forward this measure to reduce fraud in pet sales and provide aggrieved consumers remedies in court.

According to the Author

For good reason, retail pet sales have been banned since 2019. Now, online sales have become a breeding ground for fraud—fake sellers, hidden mass breeders, and unscrupulous brokers using "bait-and-switch" tactics to trick buyers into bad deals. Pet scams are the no. 1 online purchase fraud, costing victims thousands without recourse. AB 506 protects consumers from predatory pet sales and stops the puppy-mill pipeline. This bill voids contracts between consumers and online dog and cat brokers who fail to disclose the original source of the animal and/or require a nonrefundable deposit.

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters including the sponsors of the measure, as well as the California Animal Welfare Association (CalAnimals), Best Friends Animal Society, San Francisco SPCA, and more, write: "At a time when California's shelters are at, and in many cases over, capacity with animals in need of loving homes, it is imperative to eliminate deceptive sales that undermine adoption efforts and perpetuate unethical breeding practices. AB 506 is a necessary step toward encouraging responsible pet acquisition and protecting both animals and consumers."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknown factors, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2023–24, over 4.8 million cases were filed statewide in the superior courts. Filings increased over the past year, driven mostly by misdemeanors and infractions, and civil limited cases. The increase in filings from the previous year is greater than 5% for civil limited and unlimited, appellate division appeals, juvenile delinquency, misdemeanors and infractions, and probate. 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.

VOTES:

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Wicks, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur, Tangipa

ASM BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS: 18-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-2-6

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO: DeMaio, Jeff Gonzalez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Ellis, Gallagher, Hadwick, Lackey, Macedo, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: July 10, 2025

CONSULTANT: Edward Franco / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0001866

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 506

Author: Bennett (D), et al.

Amended: 7/10/25 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/23/25

AYES: Ashby, Archuleta, Arreguín, Grayson, Niello, Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Umberg, Weber Pierson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Choi, Menjivar

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 13-0, 7/8/25

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/29/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-2, 6/2/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pets: sales of dogs, cats, and rabbits

SOURCE: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

San Diego Humane Society

DIGEST:

This bill requires a person, pet dealer, or business, as defined, that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit (animal) to provide a written notice to the purchaser containing specified information about the animal, and prohibits a person, pet dealer, or business from requiring a nonrefundable deposit for the purchase of an animal.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. 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. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 122354.5)
   
2. 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))
3. Requires every breeder of dogs to deliver each purchaser of a dog a written disclosure, as specified. (HSC § 122050(a))
4. Requires a breeder to maintain a written record on the health, status, and disposition of each dog for a period of not less than one year after the disposition of the dog. (HSC § 122055)
   
5. Prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering, brokering or making a referral for a loan or other financing for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit. (HSC § 122191).

This bill:

1. Requires a person, business, or pet dealer that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California, to provide a written notice to the buyer or recipient of the dog, cat, or rabbit that states all of the following:
   
2. The original source of the dog, cat, or rabbit, including, but not limited to the breeder; if applicable, the breeder’s USDA license number; and the state the dog, cat, or rabbit was born in.
   
3. A record of inoculations and worming treatments administered, if any, to the dog, cat or rabbit as of the time of sale, including dates of administration and the type of vaccine or worming treatment.
   
4. A record of any veterinarian treatment or medication received by the dog, cat, or rabbit while in the possession of the person, pet dealer, or business and a statement signed by the person, pet dealer, or business at the time of sale containing specified medical information.
   
5. Makes a contract that is entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer 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 is void against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit. Requires a seller to refund money within 30 days if it is exchanged pursuant to a contract that is voided pursuant to this requirement.
   
6. Prohibits a person, pet dealer, or business from offering a contract that contains a term that violates the provisions above. Authorizes a person, pet dealer, or business who offers a contract that contains a term that violates the provisions of this bill to be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate.
   
7. Permits a purchaser affected by a violation of the prohibitions of this bill, to bring a civil action against the person, pet dealer, or business as specified. Makes a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to the provisions of this bill entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
   
8. States that the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor has the authority to enforce the provisions of this bill in an action brought in the name of this state in any court of competent jurisdiction, and the authority provided to a public prosecutor is not an exclusive remedy and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.
   
9. States that the provisions of this bill do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal to or by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined.
   
10. States that the provisions of this bill do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.
    
11. Clarifies that the provisions of this bill do not amend the requirements of current provisions related to the sale of dogs and cats, as specified.

Background

Retail Pet Sales in California. 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 the 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 specific to dog “breeders” which 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 during the preceding 12 months that were bred and reared on the premises of that person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association.

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, specified nonprofit, or animal rescue or adoption organization, as defined. This bill seeks to place additional standards on retail pet sales that are conducted both online and in person and the provisions of this bill are intended to be applicable to a person or business that sells a dog, cat or rabbit to an individual located in California who purchases the animal. This bill does not differentiate between out-of-state persons or businesses that sell to a purchaser in California and is likely intended to include both in state and out-of-state sellers.

This bill does not limit a consumer’s ability to purchase dogs, cats, or rabbits from online markets, but will require the person, pet dealer, or business engaged in the sale of the dog, cat, or rabbit to provide detailed information to the purchaser about the origin of the animal. As currently drafted, this bill seeks to ensure that consumers are not subject to nonrefundable deposits when purchasing an animal, in the event a consumer determines the purchase is no longer appropriate, or the animal is not what was promised to the consumer.

This bill seeks to strengthen a consumer’s ability to obtain information about the origin of an animal. This bill will require a consumer to receive a notice with specified information about the origin of the dog, including the breeder and USDA license number, if available. Consumers will be able to search USDA/APHIS licensing records for the breeder information and identify any violations. This information aids consumers in recognizing misleading sellers or mass breeders. This bill provides consumers with greater flexibility to cancel a pet purchase if they find the seller to be questionable or other issues arise, as this bill prohibits a non-refundable deposit for a pet purchase.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, this bill will result in 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. The Department of Justice does not anticipate a significant fiscal impact.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/25)

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (co-source)

San Diego Humane Society (co-source)

The Honorable Rob Bonta, California Attorney General

American Kennel Club, INC.
Best Friends Animal Society
CalAnimals
Michelson Center for Public Policy
San Francisco SPCA
Social Compassion in Legislation
Valley Humane Society

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters note generally that this bill will provide greater transparency and information in conducting retail pet transactions.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-2, 6/2/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: DeMaio, Jeff Gonzalez

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ellis, Gallagher, Hadwick, Lackey, Macedo, Ta

Prepared by: Elissa Silva / B., P. & E.D. /

8/29/25 20:38:59

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 506 (Bennett) - Pets: sales of dogs, cats, and rabbits

Bill Summary:

AB 506 requires a person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser in California to provide a written notice to the purchaser containing specified information about the animal, and prohibits a person, pet dealer, or business from requiring a nonrefundable deposit for the purchase of an animal.

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 Department of Justice does not anticipate a significant fiscal impact.

Background:

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 the 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.

Proposed Law:

• Requires a person, pet dealer, or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser in California to provide a written notice to the purchaser that states all of the following:
  • Original source of the dog, cat or rabbit, as specified.
  • A record of inoculations and worming treatments administered, including the date of administration.
  • A record of any veterinarian treatment or medication received by the animal while in the possession of the person, pet dealer, or business at the time of sale.
• Provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026 to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser located in California is void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit.
  • If money is exchanged pursuant to a contract void under the provisions of this bill, requires the seller to refund the purchaser within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation of return of the pet.
• Prohibits a person, pet dealer, or business from offering a contract that contains a term in violation of these provisions.
  • Authorizes a person, pet dealer, or business that offers a contract that contains a term that violates these provisions to be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate.
• Authorizes a purchaser affected by a violation of these provisions to bring a civil action against the person, pet dealer, or business who committed the violation.
• Authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce these provisions in an action brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction
  • Provides that this authority provided to a public prosecutor is not an exclusive remedy and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.
• Provides that these provisions do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal to or by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in Section 54.1 of the Civil Code.
• Provides that these provisions do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

Related Legislation:

AB 519 (Berman, 2025) prohibits pet brokers, as defined, from selling, making available for sale, or adopting out a dog, cat, or rabbit to a consumer in California, subject to specified exemptions. AB 519 is pending on the Senate Floor.

Staff Comments:

The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknown factors, including the number of cases filed and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 in staff in workload. If court days exceed 10, costs to the trial courts could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2023–24, over 4.8 million cases were filed statewide in the superior courts. Filings increased over the past year, driven mostly by misdemeanors and infractions, and civil limited cases. The increase in filings from the previous year is greater than 5% for civil limited and unlimited, appellate division appeals, juvenile delinquency, misdemeanors and infractions, and probate. 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.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator Angelique Ashby, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 506 Hearing Date: June 23, 2025

Subject: Pets: sales of dogs, cats, and rabbits.

SUMMARY:

Requires a person, pet dealer, or business, as defined, that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit (animal) to provide a written notice to the purchaser containing specified information about the animal, and prohibits a person, pet dealer, or business from requiring a nonrefundable deposit for the purchase of an animal.

NOTE:

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

Existing law:

1. 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. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 122354.5)
   
2. 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))
3. 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))
   
4. Requires a pet store operator to be responsible for all of the following:
   
5. Maintaining the entire pet store facility in good repair;
   
6. Restricting the entry of pests from outside, ensuring the containment of animals within the pet store;
   
7. Ensuring the pet store’s interior surfaces, including walls and floors are constructed in a manner that permits them to be readily cleaned and maintained;
   
8. Uniformly distributing light, by natural or artificial means, in a manner that permits routine inspection and cleaning, and the proper care of the animals; and,
   
9. When grooming services are offered by a pet store, separating the grooming area from primary animal enclosures, as specified. (HSC § 122351)
   
10. Requires that primary enclosures comply with specified structural standards including the floor being constructed to prevent injury, are impervious to moisture and be sanitized, provide adequate space for the animal, and include an enrichment device appropriate for the animal, and requires primary enclosures for cats to have an elevated platform and birds to be able to extend their wings. (HSC § 122352)
    
11. Requires each pet store operator to ensure that records of all veterinary visits to the pet store are documented in writing as specified. (HSC § 122355(a))
    
12. Defines an “animal rescue group” as any not-for-profit that has tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is, in whole or part, the rescue and placement of animals into permanent homes, and that does not breed animals, or obtain animals in exchange for payment or compensation from any person that breeds or brokers animals. (HSC § 122354.5(e))
    
13. Requires every breeder of dogs to deliver each purchaser of a dog a written disclosure containing all of the following:
    
14. The breeder’s name and address and the license number if licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA);
    
15. The date of the dog’s birth and the date the breeder received the dog;
    
16. The breed, sex, color, and identifying marks at the time of sale, if any;
    
17. If the dog is being sold as being capable of registration, the names and registration numbers of the sire and dam and litter number, if known;
    
18. A record of inoculations and worming treatments administered, if any, to the dog as of the time of sale, including dates of administration and the type of vaccine or worming treatment;
    
19. A record of any veterinarian treatment or medication received by the dog while in the possession of the breeder and either of the following:
    
20. The dog has no known disease or illness; or,
    
21. The dog has no known congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the dog at the time of sale or that is likely to adversely affect the health of the dog in the future. (HSC § 122050(a))
    
22. Requires a breeder to maintain a written record on the health, status, and disposition of each dog for a period of not less than one year after the disposition of the dog. (HSC § 122055)
    
23. States that it is unlawful for a breeder to fail to do any of the following:
    
24. Maintain facilities where the dogs are kept in a sanitary condition;
    
25. Provide dogs with adequate nutrition and potable water;
    
26. Provide adequate space appropriate to the age, size, weight and breed of dog, as specified;
    
27. Provide dogs with a rest board, floormat, or similar device that can be maintained in a sanitary condition;
    
28. Provide dogs with adequate socialization and exercise;
    
29. Wash hands before and after handling each infectious or contagious disease; and,
    
30. Provide veterinary care without delay when necessary. (HSC § 122065)
    
31. Prohibits an online pet retailer, as defined, from offering, brokering or making a referral for a loan or other financing for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit. (HSC § 122191).

This bill:

1. Defines the following for purposes of this bill:
   
2. “Pet dealer” to mean a person engaging in the business of selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail, and by virtue of the sales of dogs or cats is required to possess a permit pursuant to Section 6066 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
   
3. “Purchaser” to mean a person who purchases a dog or cat from a pet dealer without the intent to resell the animal.
   
4. “Public animal control agency or shelter” as any facility operated by or under contract with any governmental entity for the purpose of impounding or harboring seized, stray, homeless, abandoned, or unwanted dogs, cats, rabbits, or other animals.
   
5. Requires a person, business, or pet dealer that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a purchaser, to provide a written notice to the buyer or recipient of the dog, cat, or rabbit that states all of the following:
   
6. The original source of the dog, cat, or rabbit, including, but not limited to:
   
   • 1. The breeder;
        
     2. If applicable, the breeder’s USDA license number; and,
        
     3. The state the dog, cat, or rabbit was born in.
        
     4. If any of the information above is unknown, the seller must state that the information is unknown and provide any related information known by the seller, seller’s agents, or seller’s employees, along with a statement noting that the information is complete and true to the best of the seller’s knowledge.
        
7. A record of inoculations and worming treatments administered, if any, to the dog, cat or rabbit as of the time of sale, including dates of administration and the type of vaccine or worming treatment.
   
8. A record of any veterinarian treatment or medication received by the dog, cat, or rabbit while in the possession of the person, pet dealer, or business and a statement signed by the person, pet dealer, or business at the time of sale containing the following information:
   
9. A record of any veterinarian treatment or medication received by the dog while in the possession of the breeder and either of the following: 1) A statement, signed by the breeder at the time of sale, that the dog has no known disease or illness or the dog has no known congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the dog at the time of the sale or that is likely to adversely affect the health of the dog in the future. 2) A record of any known disease, illness, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the dog at the time of sale, or that is likely to affect the health of the dog in the future, along with a statement signed by a veterinarian licensed in the State of California that authorizes the sale of the dog, recommends necessary treatment, if any, and verifies that the disease, illness, or condition does not require hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures, nor is it likely to require hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures in the future. A veterinarian statement is not required for intestinal or external parasites unless their presence makes the dog clinically ill or is likely to make the dog clinically ill. The statement shall be valid for seven days following examination of the dog by the veterinarian.
10. Makes a contract that is entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer 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 is void against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit.
    
11. Requires a seller to refund money within 30 days if it is exchanged pursuant to a contract that is voided pursuant to 3) above.
    
12. Prohibits a person, pet dealer, or business from offering a contract that contains a term that violates the provisions above.
    
13. Authorizes a person, pet dealer, or business who offers a contract that contains a term that violates the provisions of this bill to be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and other remedies the court deems appropriate.
    
14. Permits a purchaser affected by a violation of the prohibitions of this bill, to bring a civil action against the person, pet dealer, or business as specified.
    
15. Makes a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to the provisions of this bill entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
    
16. States that the Attorney General, a county counsel, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor has the authority to enforce the provisions of this bill in an action brought in the name of this state in any court of competent jurisdiction, and the authority provided to a public prosecutor is not an exclusive remedy and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.
    
17. States that the provisions of this bill do not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal to or by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined.
    
18. States that the provisions of this bill do not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.
    
19. Clarifies that the provisions of this bill do not amend the requirements of current provisions related to the sale of dogs and cats, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT:

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, this bill will result in possible costs to the Department of Justice (DOJ) of an unknown amount. Actual costs will depend on whether the Attorney General pursues enforcement actions, and, if so, the level of additional staffing DOJ needs to handle the related workload. The bill will also result in cost pressures of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate cases resulting from this bill.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the San Diego Humane Society are the sponsors of this bill. According to the Author, “For good reason, retail pet sales have been banned since 2019. Now, online sales have become a breeding ground for fraud—fake sellers, hidden mass breeders, and unscrupulous brokers using “bait-and-switch” tactics to trick buyers into bad deals. Pet scams are the #1 online purchase fraud, costing victims thousands without recourse. AB 506 protects consumers from predatory pet sales and stops the puppy-mill pipeline. This bill voids contracts between consumers and pet sellers who fail to disclose the original source of the animal, include veterinary records, and/or require a nonrefundable deposit.”
2. Background.

Retail Pet Sales in California. 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 the 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 specific to dog “breeders” which 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 during the preceding 12 months that were bred and reared on the premises of that person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other association.

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 Pet Protection Act, and those laws ensure 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 Pet 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 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 (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 specifies that an animal 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. 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, specified nonprofit, or animal rescue or adoption organization, as defined. 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. AB 485 specifically prohibits the sale of dogs, cats, or rabbits in a retail pet store unless the animal was obtained from a public animal control agency or shelter or rescue group as defined. The aim of AB 485 was to help address the “puppy mill and kitten factory” pipelines into retail sales in California. While AB 485 addressed retail sales in this state at the brick and mortar pet stores, it did not address the online animal marketplace or California-based breeders that sell privately. This bill aims to help place additional standards on those retail pet sales that are conducted both online and in person and the provisions of this bill are intended to be applicable to a person or business that sells a dog, cat or rabbit to an individual located in California who purchases the animal. This bill does not differentiate between out-of-state persons or businesses that sell to California residents and is likely intended to include both in state and out-of-state sellers.

This bill does not limit a consumer’s ability to purchase dogs, cats, or rabbits from online markets, but will require the person, pet dealer, or business engaged in the sale of the dog, cat, or rabbit to provide detailed information to the purchaser about the origin of the animal. As currently drafted, this bill seeks to ensure that consumers are not subject to nonrefundable deposits when purchasing an animal, in the event a consumer determines the purchase is no longer appropriate, or the animal is not what was promised to the consumer. In 2022, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law, AB 2380 (Maienschein, Chapter, Statutes of 2022), which specifically prohibited, under the Pet Protection Act, an online pet retailer from offering a loan or other financing for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit. Under the Pet Protection Act, an online pet retailer is defined as a person engaged in the business of selling dogs, cats, and rabbits at retail, online through and internet website.

As noted by the author and sponsor, “…pet brokers also operate virtual storefronts selling dogs (and in some cases, cats and rabbits) from out-of-state commercial breeders. These sites display bright photos and provide minimal information, typically limited to a puppy’s age and breed, notably excluding the source of a puppy. As with pet stores, these sellers are offering puppies from commercial breeders. Before the broker will provide any additional information on a specific puppy or provide contract terms detailing the responsibility of the seller, potential buyers are required to pay in full, or place a deposit on a puppy to “reserve” it. The name and access to the commercial breeder is typically restricted until after the sale is complete. “

Federal Animal Welfare Laws. The federal Animal Welfare Act, passed by Congress in 1966, establishes minimum standards for the care and treatment of animals bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the public, used in biomedical research or commercial transport. According to information from the USDA, businesses that buy or sell warm-blooded animals, exhibit to the public, transport animals commercially, or use the animals for research, teaching, testing, or experiments must be licensed and/or registered under the jurisdiction of the USDA. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), under the USDA is responsible for overseeing the commercial dog breeding industry. Breeders who sell to a pet store or consumers over the Internet are required to hold a license. There are exemptions to the USDA/APHIS licensure requirements including pet retail stores, working dog dealers (unless wholesale), direct sales, hobby breeders, among a few specified others. Licenses issued by the USDA/APHIS are valid for three-years and license holders may increase the number of animals under that license in increments of 50 at any time during the three-year license period without obtaining permission or a new license. As noted by various animal welfare organizations, federal laws provide a minimal level of specificity for animal care and violations are often found in many commercial breeding organizations, while others operate underground making enforcement of the laws difficult and challenging. In data posted by the USDA from 2023, it notes that it oversees more than 16,000 licensees including animal breeders. In an audit report released in February 2025, from the USDA, Office of Inspector General, the internal audit, among other issues, found that 80% of the dog breeders visited for audit purposes had not corrected AWA non-compliances and additionally that APHIS did not timely address complaints received. According to a report from the ASPCA, The USDA’s Failure to Protect Vulnerable Dogs, it found that less than one-third of the USDA’s registered facilities were inspected in 2024, and for those that were inspected there were over 4,000 violations. Further, the report noted more than 800 documented instances where licensed dog dealers failed to meet the minimum care standards.

This bill aims to strengthen a consumer’s ability to obtain information about the origin of an animal. This bill will require a consumer to receive a notice with specified information about the origin of the dog, including the breeder and USDA license number, if available. Consumers will be able to search USDA/APHIS licensing records for the breeder information and identify any violations. This information aids consumers in recognizing misleading sellers or mass breeders. This bill provides consumers with greater flexibility to cancel a pet purchase if they find the seller to be questionable or other issues arise, as this bill prohibits a non-refundable deposit for a pet purchase.

This bill is one of several bills this legislative year intended to address issues raised in a September 12, 2024, Los Angeles Times article which highlighted the underground puppy and dog market in California. The article noted that often time buyers purchase animals online from what they believe to be a breeder in California, when in reality the animal is from another state where puppy mills are rampant, and offered for sale through a California broker with little knowledge from the prospective buyer, that the dog was not actually bred in California. There were instances in the article that noted that some of those animals were sick or otherwise unhealthy. The Los Angeles Times investigation reported that since 2019, after reviewing a number of the HCs, it found that more than 71,000 animals were shipped into California.

1. Related Legislation. SB 312 (Umberg of 2025) revises and recasts the requirements for the submission of health certificates (HC) for dogs imported into California; requires additional information be included on a HC and that it be submitted to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) instead of the county in which the dog is imported into, requires the CDFA to make the information available on its website; requires the HC to be submitted electronically; and, makes a HC received by the CDFA a public record, as specified.. (Status: This bill is pending in the Assembly Committee on Business, Professions)

AB 519 (Berman of 2025) Prohibits pet brokers, as defined, from selling, making available for sale, or adopting out a dog, cat, or rabbit to a consumer in California, subject to specified exemptions. (Status: This bill is pending in this Committee)

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 2445 (O’Donnell, Chapter 145, Statutes of 2018) requires a pet store operator to maintain records to document the health, status, and disposition of each animal it sells for a period of not less than two years, and provide to the prospective purchaser of any animal the veterinary medical records, as specified, and the pet store return policy including the circumstances, if any, under which the pet store will provide follow-up veterinary care for the animal in the event of illness. This bill also requires that an animal shelter, as specified, or a rescue group that supplies an animal to the pet store provide, if requested by the pet store operator, the terms under which the animal is being transferred to the pet store, including certain specified information.

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 were obtained from a public animal control agency or shelter, specified nonprofit, or animal rescue or adoption organization, as defined; permits a public or private shelter to enter into cooperative agreement with animal rescue or adoption organizations regarding rabbits; requires dogs or cats sold in a retail pet store to comply with current spay and neuter laws; provides specified exemptions to the pet warranty law; and permits an animal control officer, a humane officer, or a peace officer to enforce the pet store prohibition.

AB 1491 (Caballero, Chapter 731, 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 of 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. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Best Friends Animal Society, CalAnimals, Michelson Center for Public Policy, San Diego Humane Society, San Francisco SPCA, and Valley Humane Society write in support and note, “At a time when California’s shelters are at, and in many cases over, capacity with animals in need of loving homes, it is imperative to eliminate deceptive sales that undermine adoption efforts and perpetuate unethical breeding practices. AB 506 is a necessary step toward encouraging responsible pet acquisition and protecting both animals and consumers.”

The American Kennel Club writes in support and notes, “Assembly Bill 506 would both strengthen the market for companion animals by bringing transparency and options for recourse if a buyer is harmed while also improving animal welfare.”

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support:

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (co-sponsor)
San Diego Humane Society Best Friends Animal Society (co-sponsor)

Best Friends Animal Society
CalAnimals
American Kennel Club, Inc.

Michelson Center for Public Policy
San Francisco SPCA
Valley Humane Society

Opposition:

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 506

Author:(Bennett)

As Amended Ver:April 23, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits contracts between a buyer, as defined, and a person or business, as defined, for the sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit from including a nonrefundable deposit, requires the seller to disclose specified animal health information to the buyer, and provides consumer remedies and rights of action for sales that violate the provisions of this bill.

Major Provisions

1. Defines "buyer" as an individual who purchases a dog, cat, or rabbit while located in California.
2. Specifies "person or business" to include a breeder or third-party seller.
3. Requires a person or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a buyer to provide a written notice to the buyer or recipient of the dog, cat, or rabbit that includes information related to the original source of the animal, and specified health documentation.
4. Establishes that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a person or business and where the buyer is located in California is void as against public policy if` the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit.
5. Requires that, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a voided contract, the seller shall refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation of return of the contract subject (i.e., the animal).
6. Establishes that a person or business who offers a contract that contains a term in violation of the above requirements may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction.
7. Establishes that a buyer harmed by a violation of the above requirements may bring a civil action against any person or business in violation.
8. Establishes that a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to the bill shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
9. Grants the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor the authority to enforce the provisions contained in the bill on behalf of pet purchasers in a claim brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.
10. Establishes that the authorities provided to public prosecutors under the bill is not an exclusive remedy and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.
11. Exempts public animal control agencies and shelters, contracts for the transfer of ownership of an animal by a governmental agency, or contracts for the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog as defined in Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, from requirements under the bill.

COMMENTS

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.

Breeder Operations. There are various types of breeders in the commercial animal market, particularly as federal, state, and local laws evolve to better promote animal welfare in pet sales. Professional breeders are generally recognized as responsible breeding operations who adhere to strict animal health, safety, and breeding standards; maintain active membership in their kennel clubs; and conduct extensive research on breed lineage, health risks, and canine or feline obstetrics. Professional breeders must comply with all existing state laws when selling an animal, and ensure that contracts meet existing requirements on health guarantees such as the ones outlined in the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act.

Conversely, "puppy mills" or "kitten factories" generally refer to commercial, high-volume breeding facilities that mass produce animals for retail sale. As detailed in the Federal Regulations section of this analysis, while commercial breeders are required to abide by the AWA, and some operations are even federally licensed, there is limited oversight and enforcement of the requirements. These commercial-scale breeding facilities are often those most associated with inhumane conditions and sickly animals.

"Backyard breeder" is an informal catch-all term referring to breeders with little experience or knowledge in the practice of animal breeding. While such breeders are not necessarily unethical, breeding without the training, knowledge, or even support of a kennel club can lead to genetic issues and put the health and safety of the animal and their offspring at risk. Untrained breeders may have various reasons for breeding an animal, such as making extra income, or having extra puppies or kittens for their own family. Over the years, local jurisdictions have reported untrained breeders selling sick or injured animals who were raised in inhumane conditions, though it is unclear to what extent these individuals are responsible for other issues relating to animal overcrowding and welfare.

Further Legislative Reforms. Building off existing federal and state laws, the Legislature has made additional reforms in recent years to the sale of animals coming from large-scale animal "mills" and other cruel commercial operations. In an effort to reduce the flow of pets sourced from breeder mills, AB 485 (O'Donnell, Chapter 740, Statutes of 2017) was enacted in 2018 to prohibit pet store operators from selling a live cat, dog, or rabbit unless the animal is offered through a public animal control agency or shelter, specified nonprofit, or animal rescue or adoption organization. Pet store operators who violate these provisions are subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each animal offered for sale.

To address loopholes that resulted from the implementation of AB 485, in which commercial breeders guised their businesses as nonprofit organizations to circumvent prohibitions, further legislation enacted in 2021 AB 2152, (Gloria & O'Donnell), Chapter 96, Statutes of 2020 specifically defined the type of animal rescue organizations that pet stores could source animals from. Additionally, AB 2152 prohibited pet stores from displaying animals except for cases of providing display space for nonprofit partners. In 2023, AB 2380 (Maienschein), Chapter 548, Statutes of 2022 was enacted to further curb the importation of commercially-bred pets into California, and address unscrupulous and predatory lending practices in the pet market by prohibiting online pet retailers from offering or brokering a loan or other financing option for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit.

LA Times Exposé. Despite California's many past efforts to address animal welfare in pet sales broadly, and more specifically, to eliminate large-scale, commercially-bred animals from retail channels, a 2024 investigative report by the Los Angeles Times titled "Inside California's Brutal Underground Market for Puppies" exposed that some breeders and pet sellers were exploiting loopholes that allow them to serve as brokers, reselling or arranging the sale of dogs bred in "puppy mills." Through analysis of more than 88,000 certificates of veterinary inspection—or "travel certificates"—from states throughout the country, the Times identified that more than 71,000 were imported into California. Individual pet dealers and businesses then rebrand and resell these imported dogs as "California-bred" to unknowing consumers. According to the report, many of these pets develop future health problems and consumers are left with little knowledge as to the original source of their pet, nor recourse for the fraudulent sale.

According to the Times investigation, more than 70% of dogs imported into California come from Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Iowa, areas which the report notes have high concentrations of commercial breeding facilities. Among other egregious cases, the report details "photos and videos of… dogs with bleeding open wounds, decaying teeth and crusty infected eyes" documented in the federal inspection reports of a particular Iowa breeder, who was previously suspended by the USDA, that exports puppies to California via brokers. Once in the state, individuals often use fake names and addresses to obfuscate the original source of the dog and "launder" the records to imply it is locally bred and raised. The same Iowa breeding operator, for example, did not list their name directly on the travel certificates of dogs imported into California. Rather, they arranged transfers through a former employee who used a portion of the breeding grounds as a "separate" business. In some cases, puppies may move through multiple brokers before being sold to a final consumer, further complicating the tracking and retention of veterinary health certificates.

In response to this investigative report, the author and sponsors have put forward this measure to reduce fraud in pet sales and provide aggrieved consumers remedies in court.

According to the Author

For good reason, retail pet sales have been banned since 2019. Now, online sales have become a breeding ground for fraud—fake sellers, hidden mass breeders, and unscrupulous brokers using "bait-and-switch" tactics to trick buyers into bad deals. Pet scams are the #1 online purchase fraud, costing victims thousands without recourse. AB 506 protects consumers from predatory pet sales and stops the puppy-mill pipeline. This bill voids contracts between consumers and online dog and cat brokers who fail to disclose the original source of the animal and/or require a nonrefundable deposit.

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters including the sponsors of the measure, as well as the California Animal Welfare Association (CalAnimals), Best Friends Animal Society, San Francisco SPCA, and more, write: "At a time when California's shelters are at, and in many cases over, capacity with animals in need of loving homes, it is imperative to eliminate deceptive sales that undermine adoption efforts and perpetuate unethical breeding practices. AB 506 is a necessary step toward encouraging responsible pet acquisition and protecting both animals and consumers."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Possible costs (General Fund, special funds) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) of an unknown amount. Actual costs will depend on whether the Attorney General pursues enforcement actions, and, if so, the level of additional staffing DOJ needs to handle the related workload. If DOJ hires staff to handle enforcement actions authorized by this bill, the department would incur significant costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually at a minimum. If DOJ does not pursue enforcement as authorized by this bill, the department would likely not incur any costs.
2. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate cases resulting from this bill. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The fiscal year 2024-25 state budget provides $37.3 million ongoing General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Wicks, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur, Tangipa

ASM BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS: 18-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-0-4

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 23, 2025

CONSULTANT: Edward Franco / B. & P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0000506

Date of Hearing: May 7, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 506

Author:(Bennett) – As Amended Ver:April 23, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill specifies information that must be included in a contract between a pet broker and a buyer and prohibits such a contract from including a nonrefundable deposit.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Possible costs (General Fund, special funds) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) of an unknown amount.  Actual costs will depend on whether the Attorney General pursues enforcement actions, and, if so, the level of additional staffing DOJ needs to handle the related workload.  If DOJ hires staff to handle enforcement actions authorized by this bill, the department would incur significant costs, likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually at a minimum.  If DOJ does not pursue enforcement as authorized by this bill, the department would likely not incur any costs.
2. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the courts to adjudicate cases resulting from this bill. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The fiscal year 2024-25 state budget provides $37.3 million ongoing General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. In 2024, the Los Angeles Times released an investigative series that reported serious, ongoing problems with out-of-state commercial pet breeders operating in California. Although commercial pet breeding is unlawful in this state, pet brokers in California resell or arrange the sale of animals bred in out-of-state “puppy-mills” and other large-scale commercial operations. As detailed in the policy committee analyses of this bill, these operations result in injuries and long-term health problems for animals and leave consumers unaware of the origin and needs of their pets.

This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the San Diego Human Society. According to the author:

For good reason, retail pet sales have been banned since 2019. Now, online sales have become a breeding ground for fraud—fake sellers, hidden mass breeders, and unscrupulous brokers using “bait-and-switch” tactics to trick buyers into bad deals. Pet scams are the #1 online purchase fraud, costing victims thousands without recourse. AB 506 protects consumers from predatory pet sales and stops the puppy-mill pipeline.

The bill requires a contract for sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit to contain certain elements, including the original source of the animal, a record of vaccines and worming treatments administered to the animal, a record of any veterinary treatment or medication given to the animal. Such a contract may not include a nonrefundable deposit from the buyer. A contract that fails to meet these requirements is void. The bill allows civil enforcement of violations by specified public prosecutors, and allows a buyer who was affected by a violation of the bill’s requirements to file a civil action in court.

1. Related Legislation. AB 519 (Berman) prohibits a pet broker from selling, offering for sale, or making available for adoption a dog, cat, or rabbit, with specified exceptions. AB 519 is pending on the Assembly Floor.
2. Prior Legislation. AB 2248 (Maienschein), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, was substantially the same as this bill. AB 2248 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

Marc Berman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 506

Author:(Bennett) – As Amended Ver:April 1, 2025

NOTE: This bill was double referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, where is passed on a 12-0-0 vote.

SUBJECT: Contracts: sales of dogs and cats.

SUMMARY: Specifies information that must be included in a contract between a buyer and pet broker, as defined, prohibits such contracts from including a nonrefundable deposit, and provides consumer remedies and rights of action for contracts that violate the provisions of this bill.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes that a contract or a contract term is void if the subject of the contract or contract term is unlawful, performance is impossible, or so vague it cannot be determined. (Civil Code (CIV) § 1598)
2. Prohibits the following provisions to be contained within contracts:
   1. Those contrary to a provision of law;
   2. Those contrary to the express policy of existing law, even if not expressly prohibited; and
   3. Those otherwise contrary to good morals.

(CIV § 1667)

1. Provides that contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for their own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law. (CIV § 1668)
2. Provides that if a court finds, as a matter of law, a contract or any clause of a contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. (CIV § 1670.5)
3. Provides that a provision in a contract liquidating the damages for the breach of the contract is valid unless the party seeking to invalidate the provision establishes that the provision was unreasonable under the circumstances existing at the time the contract was made. (CIV § 1671 (b))
4. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, which regulates the sale dogs by dog breeders. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§ 122045 et seq.)
5. Requires every dog breeder to deliver to each purchaser of a dog a specified written disclosure and record of veterinary treatment. (HSC § 122050)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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 veterinarian fees. (HSC § 122100)
9. Establishes the Polanco-Lockyer-Farr Pet Protection Act, which regulates the sale of dogs and cats by pet dealers. (HSC §§ 122125 et seq.)
10. Requires that every pet dealer receiving a dog or cat from a common carrier shall transport, or have transported, dogs and cats 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)
11. Requires that all dogs or cats received by a retail dealer shall, prior to being placed with other dogs or cats, be examined for sickness, and that any dog or cat found to be afflicted with a contagious disease shall be kept caged separately from healthy animals. (HSC § 122135)
12. Requires pet dealers to provide consumers with similar written disclosures as those contained in the Lockyer-Polanco Pet Breeder Warranty Act, and requires similar recordkeeping requirements. (HSC §§ 122140–122145)
13. Requires that a pet dealer must:
14. Maintain facilities where the dogs are kept in a sanitary condition;
15. Provide dogs with adequate nutrition and potable water;
16. Provide adequate space appropriate to the age, size, weight, and breed of dog. Adequate space means sufficient space for the dog to stand up, sit down, and turn about freely using normal body movements, without the head touching the top of the cage, and to lie in a natural position;
17. Provide dogs housed on wire flooring with a rest board, floormat, or similar device that can be maintained in a sanitary condition;
18. Provide dogs with adequate socialization and exercise. For the purpose of this article “socialization” means physical contact with other dogs or with human beings;
19. Wash hands before and after handling each infectious or contagious dog;
20. Maintain either a fire alarm system that is connected to a central reporting station that alerts the local fire department, or maintain a fire suppression sprinkler system; and
21. Provide veterinary care without delay when necessary.
22. (HSC § 122155(a))
23. Prohibits a pet dealer from possessing a dog that is less than eight weeks old. (HSC § 122155(b))
24. 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)
25. 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)
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. 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))
29. Requires pet store operators to maintain specified minimum standards regarding enclosures. (HSC § 122352)
30. 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))
31. 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))

THIS BILL:

1. Defines “broker” as a person or business that (1) sells, (2) arranges, negotiates, or processes the sale of, or (3) facilitates the transfer of, dogs or cats bred by another for profit.
2. Establishes that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a broker and where the buyer is located in California is void as against public policy if any of the following circumstances apply:
3. The contract requires a nonrefundable deposit;
4. The contract does not identify the original source of the dog or cat, including, but not limited to, the breeder.
5. Requires that, in a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, between a broker and a buyer who is located in California:
6. The broker must disclose the original source of the dog or cat involved in the contract; and
7. The broker shall not require a nonrefundable deposit.
8. Requires that, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a voided contract, the seller shall refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void without expectation of return of the contract subject (i.e., the dog or cat).
9. Prohibits a person from offering a contract that contains terms in violation of the above requirements.
10. Establishes that a person who offers a contract that contains a term in violation of the above requirements may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction.
11. Establishes that a buyer harmed by a violation of the above requirements may bring a civil action against any person in violation.
12. Establishes that a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to the bill shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
13. Grants the Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor the authority to enforce the provisions contained in the bill on behalf of pet purchasers in a claim brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction.
14. Establishes that the authorities provided to public prosecutors under the bill is not an exclusive remedy and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.
15. Exempts contracts for the transfer of ownership of an animal by a governmental agency, or contracts for the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog as defined in Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, from requirements under the bill.
16. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown; this bill is keyed fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill is co-sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and San Diego Humane Society (SDHS). According to the author:

For good reason, retail pet sales have been banned since 2019. Now, online sales have become a breeding ground for fraud—fake sellers, hidden mass breeders, and unscrupulous brokers using “bait-and-switch” tactics to trick buyers into bad deals. Pet scams are the #1 online purchase fraud, costing victims thousands without recourse. AB 506 protects consumers from predatory pet sales and stops the puppy-mill pipeline. This bill voids contracts between consumers and online dog and cat brokers who fail to disclose the original source of the animal and/or require a nonrefundable deposit.

Background.

Federal Regulation. National animal welfare and pet sale standards are largely regulated pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), passed by Congress in 1966. The AWA is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which requires certain entities that breed, sell, exhibit, transport, or conduct other relevant animal business activities to obtain a license or registration. APHIS licensees are required to abide by minimum health, safety, and care standards as required by the AWA, and are subject to inspection and enforcement by the APHIS’s Animal Care (AC) Unit. As it pertains to animal breeding specifically, individuals and businesses that own more than four breeding females, sell more than 25 dogs or cats each year, or make more than $500 in gross sales of bred animals must be licensed by the APHIS. According to USDA data provided by the bill sponsors, there are over 2,000 federal licensed dog breeders across the nation, with most concentrated in the Midwest.

While the AWA stipulates certain requirements that licensees and registrants must abide by, many large-scale commercial breeding facilities—often dubbed “puppy mills” or “kitten factories”—have a documented history of noncompliance and have demonstrated continued violations of the law. In February of this year, the USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit report regarding the AC Unit’s oversight of dog breeder operations. The audit report demonstrated numerous, repeated cases of dogs kept in squalid and unsanitary conditions that fall far below standards set forth under the AWA. According to the audit, over 80% of facilities inspected failed to correct past AWA violations, and 57% of inspections conducted by the AC Unit were deemed incomplete. The OIG audit shows that oversight and enforcement of federal animal laws pursuant to the AWA are minimal and sporadic.

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.

Breeder Operations. There are various types of breeders in the commercial animal market, particularly as federal, state, and local laws evolve to better promote animal welfare in pet sales. Professional breeders are generally recognized as responsible breeding operations who adhere to strict animal health, safety, and breeding standards; maintain active membership in their kennel clubs; and conduct extensive research on breed lineage, health risks, and canine or feline obstetrics. Professional breeders must comply with all existing state laws when selling an animal, and ensure that contracts meet existing requirements on health guarantees such as the ones outlined in the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act.

Conversely, “puppy mills” or “kitten factories” generally refer to commercial, high-volume breeding facilities that mass produce animals for retail sale. As detailed in the Federal Regulations section of this analysis, while commercial breeders are required to abide by the AWA, and some operations are even federally licensed, there is limited oversight and enforcement of the requirements. These commercial-scale breeding facilities are often those most associated with inhumane conditions and sickly animals.

“Backyard breeder” is an informal catch-all term referring to breeders with little experience or knowledge in the practice of animal breeding. While such breeders are not necessarily unethical, breeding without the training, knowledge, or even support of a kennel club can lead to genetic issues and put the health and safety of the animal and their offspring at risk. Untrained breeders may have various reasons for breeding an animal, such as making extra income, or having extra puppies or kittens for their own family. Over the years, local jurisdictions have reported untrained breeders selling sick or injured animals who were raised in inhumane conditions, though it is unclear to what extent these individuals are responsible for other issues relating to animal overcrowding and welfare.

Further Legislative Reforms. Building off existing federal and state laws, the Legislature has made additional reforms in recent years to the sale of animals coming from large-scale animal “mills” and other cruel commercial operations. In an effort to reduce the flow of pets sourced from breeder mills, AB 485 (O’Donnell, Chapter 740, Statutes of 2017) was enacted in 2018 to prohibit pet store operators from selling a live cat, dog, or rabbit unless the animal is offered through a public animal control agency or shelter, specified nonprofit, or animal rescue or adoption organization. Pet store operators who violate these provisions are subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 for each animal offered for sale.

To address loopholes that resulted from the implementation of AB 485, in which commercial breeders guised their businesses as nonprofit organizations to circumvent prohibitions, further legislation enacted in 2021 (AB 2152, Gloria & O’Donnell, Chapter 96, Statutes of 2020) specifically defined the type of animal rescue organizations that pet stores could source animals from. Additionally, AB 2152 prohibited pet stores from displaying animals except for cases of providing display space for nonprofit partners. In 2023, AB 2380 (Maienschein, Chapter 548, Statutes of 2022) was enacted to further curb the importation of commercially-bred pets into California, and address unscrupulous and predatory lending practices in the pet market by prohibiting online pet retailers from offering or brokering a loan or other financing option for the adoption or sale of a dog, cat, or rabbit.

LA Times Exposé. Despite California’s many past efforts to address animal welfare in pet sales broadly, and more specifically, to eliminate large-scale, commercially-bred animals from retail channels, a 2024 investigative report by the Los Angeles Times titled “Inside California’s Brutal Underground Market for Puppies” exposed that some breeders and pet sellers were exploiting loopholes that allow them to serve as brokers, reselling or arranging the sale of dogs bred in “puppy mills.” Through analysis of more than 88,000 certificates of veterinary inspection—or “travel certificates”—from states throughout the country, the Times identified that more than 71,000 were imported into California. Individual pet dealers and businesses then rebrand and resell these imported dogs as “California-bred” to unknowing consumers. According to the report, many of these pets develop future health problems and consumers are left with little knowledge as to the original source of their pet, nor recourse for the fraudulent sale.

According to the Times investigation, more than 70% of dogs imported into California come from Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Iowa, areas which the report notes have high concentrations of commercial breeding facilities. Among other egregious cases, the report details “photos and videos of… dogs with bleeding open wounds, decaying teeth and crusty infected eyes” documented in the federal inspection reports of a particular Iowa breeder, who was previously suspended by the USDA, that exports puppies to California via brokers. Once in the state, individuals often use fake names and addresses to obfuscate the original source of the dog and “launder” the records to imply it is locally bred and raised. The same Iowa breeding operator, for example, did not list their name directly on the travel certificates of dogs imported into California. Rather, they arranged transfers through a former employee who used a portion of the breeding grounds as a “separate” business. In some cases, puppies may move through multiple brokers before being sold to a final consumer, further complicating the tracking and retention of veterinary health certificates.

In response to this investigative report, the author and sponsors have put forward this measure to reduce fraud in dog and cat sales, and provide consumers who may have unknowingly purchased an animal brokered from an out-of-state breeder remedies in court. Specifically, this bill defines a “broker” as a person or business that “sells, arranges, negotiates, or processes” the sale of a dog or cat that was bred by another person or business in exchange for a profit. This would also include facilitating the transfer of one of these animals for a profit. The bill establishes that any contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, between a broker and buyer is void as against public policy if the contract requires a nonrefundable deposit, or if the contract does not identify the original source of the animal. Additionally, the bill expressly requires that contracts must disclose the original source of the animal, and prohibits nonrefundable deposits. It requires that brokers refund buyers within 30 days for any contract that is voided, and makes clear that the buyer can still keep their pet. Finally, the bill contains enforcement provisions that reiterate the buyer’s right to sue the broker, and that would allow a public prosecutor—such as the Attorney General—to bring forward a claim on behalf of pet purchasers.

Notably, this bill is part of a wider “Close the Puppy Mill Pipeline” legislative package put forward by the sponsors to address issues raised in the Times investigation. In addition to this bill which clarifies contract law related to pet sales by brokers, the package also contains AB 519 (Berman), which expressly bans pet brokers, and SB 312 (Umberg), which would require the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to retain and make available information related to certificates of veterinary inspection. AB 519 is also under consideration by this Committee, while SB 312 passed the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee on April 7th with a vote of 10-0-1, and is currently under consideration by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Current Related Legislation. AB 519 (Berman) would prohibit brokers from selling, offering for sale, or making available for adoption a dog, cat, or rabbit, subject to specified exemptions. This bill is pending consideration in this Committee.

SB 312 (Umberg) would expand 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 to the public, information related to the health certificates. This bill is pending consideration in the Senate Agriculture Committee. It passed the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee with a vote of 10-0-1.

Prior Related Legislation. AB 2248 (Maienschein) of 2024 was substantially similar to this bill, and passed the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously. This bill was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

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.

SB 639 (Mitchell), Chapter 856, Statutes of 2019 established various limits on the use of third-party financial products in healthcare settings, including prohibiting the arranging for or establishing of an open-end credit or loan application that contains a deferred interest provision, except as specified.

AB 2445 (O’Donnell), Chapter 145, Statutes of 2018 required a pet store operator to maintain records to document the health, status, and disposition of each animal it sells for a period of not less than two years, and provide to the prospective purchaser of any animal the veterinary medical records, as specified, and the pet store return policy including the circumstances, if any, under which the pet store will provide follow-up veterinary care for the animal in the event of illness.

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; permits a public or private shelter to enter into a cooperative agreement with animal rescue or adoption organizations regarding rabbits; requires dogs or cats sold in a retail pet store to comply with current spay and neuter laws; provides specified exemptions to the pet warranty law; and permits an animal control officer, a humane officer, or a peace officer to enforce the pet store prohibition.

AB 1491 (Caballero), Chapter 731, 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 of 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.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

A coalition of supporters including the sponsors of the measure, as well as the California Animal Welfare Association (CalAnimals), Best Friends Animal Society, San Francisco SPCA, and more, write: “At a time when California’s shelters are at, and in many cases over, capacity with animals in need of loving homes, it is imperative to eliminate deceptive sales that undermine adoption efforts and perpetuate unethical breeding practices. AB 506 is a necessary step toward encouraging responsible pet acquisition and protecting both animals and consumers.”

The American Kennel Club (AKC) submitted a “Support, if amended” position to the Committee, stating that “AKC thinks the intent of Assembly Bill 506 can be achieved with greater impact by strengthening contract law and expanding consumer protection rights for Californians when buying/acquiring companion animals from all sources, not just “brokers.”.

POLICY ISSUE(S) FOR CONSIDERATION:

Parity with other pet disclosure standards. In response to the Los Angeles Times investigation, the author and sponsors have put forward this measure in an effort to increase transparency and accountability in brokered pet sales. Under both the Lockyer-Polanco Farr Pet Protection Act and the Breeder Warranty Act, pet retailers and breeders are required to provide consumers with a host of important information regarding the animal upon purchase, including the date the animal was birthed, the animal’s USDA license number if applicable, a record of any inoculations, vaccinations, and veterinary treatments, a statement that the animal does not have any known disease or illness, and more. The Committee has received correspondence from stakeholders involved in breeder sales, such as the American Kennel Club, reasonably arguing that similar disclosures in broker sales would promote greater consumer transparency and better address the state’s goals regarding humane pet sales. As such, the author and sponsors may wish to amend the bill to include disclosure requirements similar to those in current law pertaining to breeders and pet retailers.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES:

Use of the term “broker” Currently, the bill’s provisions are limited to contracts between pet buyers and brokers, and adds a definition of a “broker” under the Civil Code that means “a person or business that (1) sells, (2) arranges, negotiates, or processes the sale of, or (3) facilitates the transfer of dogs or cats bred by another for profit.” This definition is substantially similar to that contained in AB 519 (Berman), which is also under consideration in this Committee, and both measures are co-authored as part of a wider “bill package.” Authors of both measures have conveyed that, in practice, the bills are intended to work in tandem with one another, with AB 519 banning broker businesses in pet sales and this bill providing the consumer restitution pathways and enforcement if an individual is wronged by a broker. As written, however, the bills conflict with one another by each defining and using the term “broker” in two different ways. In other words, this Committee is currently considering a bill that bans brokers, and paradoxically considering another that clarifies how brokers are allowed to do business in California.

The Committee has heard from stakeholders involved in animal welfare and consumer protection that the bill could be more practically used if it applied to all forms of pet sales in California, as opposed to just those brokered by individuals on behalf of another. As such, the author and sponsors may wish to expand requirements in the bill to all contracts between pet sellers and buyers.

AMENDMENTS:

In response to implementation issues raised by the Committee and stakeholders, to make current breeder sale disclosure requirements applicable to pet sales pursuant to this bill, and to streamline statutory language, amend the bill as follows in a new article of the Health and Safety Code:

On page 2, before line 1:

SECTION 1. Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 122225) is added to Chapter 5 of Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

Article 2.5. Sale of Dogs, Cats, and Rabbits

122225. For purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:

(a) “Buyer” means an individual who purchases a dog, cat, or rabbit while located in California.

(b) “Person or business” includes a breeder or third-party seller.

(c) “Public animal control agency or shelter” has the same meaning as defined in Section 122354.5.

122226. A person or business that sells a dog, cat, or rabbit to a buyer shall provide a written notice to the buyer or recipient of the dog, cat, or rabbit that states all of the following:

(a) The original source of the dog, cat, or rabbit, including, but not limited to:

(1) The breeder.

(2) If applicable, the United States Department of Agriculture license number associated with the breeder.

(3) The state that the dog, cat, or rabbit was born in.

(4) If any of this information is unknown, the seller shall state that this information is unknown and shall provide any related information known by the seller, seller’s agents, or seller’s employees. The record shall contain a statement that the information is complete and true to the best of the seller’s knowledge.

(b) A record of inoculations and worming treatments administered, if any, to the dog, cat, or rabbit as of the time of sale, including dates of administration and the type of vaccine or worming treatment.

(c) A record of any veterinarian treatment or medication received by the dog, cat, or rabbit while in the possession of the person or business and either of the following:

(1) A statement, signed by the person or business at the time of sale, containing both of the following:

(A) The dog, cat, or rabbit has no known disease or illness.

(B) The dog, cat, or rabbit has no known congenital or hereditary condition that

adversely affects the health of the dog, cat, or rabbit at the time of the sale or that is likely to adversely affect the health of the dog, cat, or rabbit in the future.

(2) A record of any known disease, illness, or congenital or hereditary condition

that adversely affects the health of the dog, cat, or rabbit at the time of sale, or is likely to adversely affect the health of the dog, cat, or rabbit in the future.

122227. (a) A contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer

ownership of a dog, cat, or rabbit to a buyer that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or

otherwise arranged by a person or business while the buyer is located in California is

void as against public policy if the contract includes or requires a nonrefundable deposit.

(b) If money is exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to this

section, the seller shall refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving

notice that the contract is void pursuant to this section without expectation of return

of the contract subject.

122228. (a) A person or business shall not offer a contract that contains a term

that violates Section 122226 or Section 122227.

(b) A person or business who offers a contract that contains a term that violates

Section 122226 or Section 122227 may be sued in any court of competent jurisdiction

for the recovery of money exchanged pursuant to that contract, injunctive relief, and

other remedies the court deems appropriate.

(1) A buyer affected by a violation of Section 122226 or Section 122227 may

bring a civil action pursuant to this subdivision against the person or business in

violation of those sections.

(2) A prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this subdivision shall

be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

(c) The Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor

shall have the authority to enforce this article on behalf of a buyer in a claim brought

in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent

jurisdiction. The authority provided to a public prosecutor by this subdivision is not

an exclusive remedy and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.

122229. This article does not limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of

an animal by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal,

or service dog, as defined in Section 54.1 of the Civil Code.

122230. This article does not apply to a public animal control agency or shelter.

SECTION 1. Section 1670.13 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

1670.13. (a) For purposes of this section, “broker” means a person or business that (1) sells, (2) arranges, negotiates, or processes the sale of, or (3) facilitates the transfer of dogs or cats bred by another for profit.

(b) A contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a broker and where the buyer is located in California is void as against public policy if any of the following circumstances apply:

(1) The contract requires a nonrefundable deposit.

(2) The contract does not identify the original source of the dog or cat, including, but not limited to, the breeder.

(c) A contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, between a broker and a buyer who is located in California shall include the following information:

(1) The broker is required to disclose the original source of the dog or cat involved in the contract.

(2) The broker is prohibited from requiring a nonrefundable deposit.

(d) If money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to this section, the seller shall refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void pursuant to this section without expectation of return of the contract subject.

(e) A person shall not offer a contract that contains a term that violates subdivision (b) or (c).

(f) A person who offers a contract that contains a term that violates subdivision (b) or (c) may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction.

(1) A buyer harmed by a violation may bring a civil action pursuant to this subdivision against any person in violation.

(2) A prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this subdivision shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

(g) The Attorney General, a county counsel, a city attorney, or a city prosecutor shall have the authority to enforce this section on behalf of pet purchasers in a claim brought in the name of the people of the State of California in any court of competent jurisdiction. The authority provided to the public prosecutor by this section is not an exclusive remedy and does not affect any other relief or remedy provided by law.

(h) This section shall not be construed to limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal by a governmental agency or the transfer of ownership of a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in Section 54.1.

REGISTERED SUPPORT:

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) (Co-Sponsor)
San Diego Humane Society (Co-Sponsor)
Best Friends Animal Society
California Animal Welfare Association
Michelson Center for Public Policy
San Francisco SPCA
Valley Humane Society

REGISTERED OPPOSITION:

None on file.

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

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 506

Author:(Bennett) – As Amended Ver:April 1, 2025

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: Contracts: sales of dogs and cats

KEY ISSUE: should contracts for the purchase of a dog or cat be deemed against public policy if the contract requires a non-refundable deposit and omits specified information about the dog or cat?

SYNOPSIS

California has a longstanding history of enacting anti-animal cruelty legislation. Last fall, the Los Angeles Times released an extensive investigative report detailing how out-of-state animal breeders are taking advantage of poor state-level recordkeeping and using straw “breeders” to avoid complying with California’s anti-puppy mill laws. Seeking to address some of the issues raised in the report, this bill represents the latest effort in curbing the proliferation of unethical animal breeders. By making any contract for the sale of a dog or cat void if it requires a nonrefundable deposit and does not identify the source of the animal, the bill would theoretically frustrate attempts by unethical breeders and distributors of dogs and cats. Last year, the Legislature considered AB 2248 (Maienschein) which was practically identical to the current measure and that bill was passed out of this Committee on a vote of 10-0 before ultimately stalling in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the San Diego Human Society (SDHS). It is further supported by Social Compassion in Legislation. Should this bill pass out of this Committee, it will be heard next by the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.

SUMMARY: Prohibits contracts for the sale of dogs and cats that require non-refundable deposits and do not identify information about the prospective pet and breeder. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines “broker” as a person or business that 1) sells, 2) arranges, negotiates, or processes the sale of, or 3) facilitates the transfer of dogs or cats bred by another for profit.
2. Makes a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a broker and where the buyer is located in California void against public policy if any of the following circumstances apply:
   1. The contract requires a nonrefundable deposit;
   2. The contract does not identify the original source of the dog or cat, including, but not limited to, the breeder.
3. Requires a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2026, between a broker and a buyer who is located in California to include the following information:
   1. The broker is required to disclose the original source of the dog or cat involved in the contract;
   2. The broker is prohibited from requiring a nonrefundable deposit.
4. Requires a seller, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to 2), to refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void pursuant to 2) without expectation of return of the contract animal.
5. Prohibits a person from offering a contract that contains a term that violates 2) or 3).
6. Specifies that a person who offers a contract that contains a term that violates 2) or 3) may be enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
7. Authorizes a person harmed by a violation of 2) or 3) to bring a civil action against any person in violation, and entitles a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
8. Authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, city attorney, or a city prosecutor to enforce the bill’s provisions on behalf of pet purchasers.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes that a contract or a contract term is void if the subject of the contract or contract term is unlawful, performance is impossible, or so vague it cannot be determined. (Civil Code Section 1598.)
2. Prohibits the following provisions to be contained within contracts:
   1. Those contrary to a provision of law;
   2. Those contrary to the express policy of existing law, even if not expressly prohibited; and
   3. Those otherwise contrary to good morals. (Civil Code Section 1667.)
3. Provides that contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from responsibility for their own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law. (Civil Code Section 1668.)
4. Provides that if a court finds, as a matter of law, a contract or any clause of a contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. (Civil Code Section 1670.5.)
5. Provides that a provision in a contract liquidating the damages for the breach of the contract is valid unless the party seeking to invalidate the provision establishes that the provision was unreasonable under the circumstances existing at the time the contract was made. (Civil Code Section 1671 (b).)
6. Prohibits a pet store from adopting out, selling, or offering for sale a dog, cat, or rabbit unless the animals are displayed by either a public animal control agency or shelter, or animal rescue group. (Health and Safety Code Section 122354.5 (a)-(b).)
7. Provides that a violation of 6) may be enforced by a district attorney or city attorney and may result in the awarding of injunctive relief. (Health and Safety Code Section 122354.4 (g).)
8. 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.)

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

COMMENTS: California has a longstanding history of attempting to curb animal cruelty and promote the ethical care of animals. In particular, these efforts have focused on steering would-be pet owners towards adoption and away from retail pet purchases using tag lines like “adopt don’t shop.” According to the author:

For good reason, retail pet sales have been banned since 2019. Now, online sales have become a breeding ground for fraud – fake sellers, hidden mass breeders, and unscrupulous brokers using ‘bait-and-switch’ tactics to trick buyers into bad deals. Pet scams are the #1 online purchase fraud, costing victims thousands without recourse. AB 506 protects consumers from predatory pet sales and stops the puppy-mill pipeline. This bill voids contracts between consumers and online dog and cat brokers who fail to disclose the original source of the animal and/or require a nonrefundable deposit.

California has been a national leader in the “Adopt Don’t Shop” movement to ensure shelter pets find loving homes. Given that many of California animal shelters are frequently filled to capacity, a Los Angeles-based non-profit called Last Chance for Animals created the “Adopt Don’t Shop” movement to promote the adoption of shelter pets over the purchase of animals from pet stores and large-scale breeders. (https://wagabonding.com/why-i-stopped-saying-adopt-dont-shop/.) The Legislature subsequently adopted policies to promote the adoption of animals, including by prohibiting the sale of animals in pet stores, unless the animals were from an animal shelter. (AB 485 (O’Donnell) Chap. 740, Stats. 2017.) As a result of these actions, several online retailers developed platforms seeking to bypass the prohibitions of AB 485. Amid the pet buying frenzy spurred by pandemic-era stay-at-home orders, several of these retailers developed complex financing mechanisms to prey on consumers seeking to buy purebred puppies. Seeking to better protect consumers from these predatory schemes, the Legislature enacted AB 2380 (Maienschein) Chap. 548, Stats. 2022, prohibiting online pet retailers from offering consumer loans for the purchase of a dog or cat. Despite these protections, online pet retailers continue to seek to undermine California’s efforts to promote pet adoption. In 2024, the Legislature considered AB 2248 (Maienschein), which was substantially similar to the present measure. AB 2248 was held in Senate Appropriations.

As a result of California’s efforts to promote pet adoption, unsavory online breeders have started to enter the California market. This largely unregulated market has caused significant problems for California consumers. According to the proponents of this measure, online sellers frequently post generic pictures of a dog or cat and try to pass it off as the animal for adoption. Based on consumer reviews shared with the Committee, these websites also frequently do not share specific information about an animal until a non-refundable deposit is given, and even then, consumers are not provided information about the dog’s or cat’s medical condition, family lineage, or the specific breeder of the pet. Consumer complaints about these websites also include poor customer service and their refusal to refund deposits when a pet purchase is cancelled as a result of the seller’s actions. Exacerbating the issue, according to the Los Angeles Times, is the Department of Food and Agriculture’s practice of deleting many records related to animals bred out-of-state that are submitted to the Department pursuant to other state’s laws. (Melody Gutierrez & Alene Tchekmedyian, California purging thousands of puppy import records, Los Angeles Times (Sept. 12, 2024) available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-12/california-purging-puppy-import-records.) As a result of these practices, California consumers are at risk of paying thousands of dollars to unscrupulous actors with little recourse should the transaction go awry.

This bill makes any contract for the sale of a dog or cat entered into on or after January 1, 2026 unlawful and void against public policy if it requires a nonrefundable deposit.

The bill has two enforcement mechanisms. The primary enforcement mechanism would be a traditional contracts remedy. In the event a buyer unwittingly signed a contract that requires a nonrefundable deposit, for example, they would be able to bring a claim in civil court to void the contract, and the court would be able to order the seller to refund the deposit and address any further contract claims. Subdivision (f) of the proposed Civil Code Section 1670.13 clearly establishes that a court may enjoin any individual who offers a contract that runs afoul of the bill’s prohibitions. Arguably, this language is redundant as the traditional enforcement mechanism for contract disputes is precisely this form of civil claim. While redundant, the language does not seem to create any unintended consequences or harm. Notably, this version of the bill authorizes enforcement by public prosecutors, a suggestion noted in this Committee’s analysis of AB 2248. As stated then, it seems unlikely that an individual consumer would take on the financial burden of trying to enjoin unlawful conduct on the behalf of all Californians. Thus, expanding enforcement to include public prosecutors, who have greater resources to enforce its provisions on a greater scale, seems a reasonable approach.

Because of the market dynamics for pets in California, this bill does not discriminate against out-of-state breeders and should not implicate the Dormant Commerce Clause. As a result of California banning the sale of dogs and cats many pet breeding operations in California have shut down. Accordingly, this bill would primarily impact out-of-state pet sellers and may implicate the dormant commerce clause prohibition of discriminating against out-of-state businesses. (see, e.g. West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy (1994) 512 U.S. 186.) However, this bill is likely to withstand scrutiny, notwithstanding its disproportionate impact on out-of-state businesses. For example, while many California breeders no longer operate, any breeding is not per se banned in California. Indeed, many farms and ranches have small breeding operations ancillary to their primary business. This bill would apply equally to those operations, as well as out-of-state breeders. Additionally, this bill would also apply to non-breeders. Should a family pet unexpectedly have puppies or kittens and that family sought to sell the pets, they could not seek a non-refundable deposit. Accordingly, while this bill may impact more non-California businesses due to the state’s efforts to promote pet adoption, it does not treat those businesses any differently than in-state actors and thus should not run afoul of the dormant commerce clause.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the San Diego Human Society (SDHS). It is further supported by Social Compassion in Legislation. The sponsors submit the following in support of this bill:

Despite California’s existing ban on retail pet sales, investigations have revealed that online platforms serve as an unchecked marketplace for commercial breeders, misleading consumers and perpetuating inhumane breeding operations. Online sellers are employing deceptive tactics, such as withholding breeder information and requiring non-refundable deposits, up to $1,000, before providing essential details, trapping consumers in unfavorable contracts that facilitate exploitative practices and maintain the puppy mill pipeline into California.

[…]

Overall, the inspection reports from the USDA detail over 800 violations by commercial dog dealers across the country, yet only two dog dealers who violated the law in 2024 lost their USDA license, and only two others who violated the law in 2024 paid any sort of fine. Most notably, not a single dog was removed from these facilities. 30% of the violations were for veterinary care issues.

Through the cloak of sanitized imagery and obfuscated information, animals bred in these types of facilities are still reaching unsuspecting California families not through direct sales, but via brokers.

These third-party sellers are operating virtual storefronts featuring hundreds of puppies available to be shipped to customers in California, displaying bright, eye-catching photos while providing minimal information. The information included is typically limited to a puppy’s age and breed, notably excluding the actual source of the puppy. As with pet stores, these sellers are offering puppies from commercial breeders.

[…]

At a time when California’s shelters are at, and in many cases over, capacity with animals in need of loving homes, it is imperative to eliminate deceptive sales that undermine adoption efforts and perpetuate unethical breeding practices. AB 506 is a necessary step toward encouraging responsible pet acquisition and protecting both animals and consumers.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Society for The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) (cosponsor)

San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) (cosponsor)

Best Friends Animal Society

CalAnimals

California Animal Welfare Association

Michelson Center for Public Policy

San Diego Humane Society

San Francisco SPCA

SF SPCA

Social Compassion in Legislation

Valley Humane Society

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334