Existing law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, requires the State Department of Public Health, among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC).

This bill would define information pertaining to SOGISC to mean information pertaining to a persons sexual orientation identity, gender identity, identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a persons sex assigned at birth.

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as defined. Under existing law, a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Existing law establishes the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requests the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district to allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect specified demographic data and to report that data, as provided.

This bill would prohibit information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, or collected by public postsecondary education institutions in accordance with the above paragraph, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state or local government, or an authorized agency thereof, subject to specified exceptions, and would require information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

The bill would require state entities under these provisions, after notifying the Legislature that the entity has the necessary automation capabilities, to share information pertaining to SOGISC in accordance with specified requirements when state and federal programs share systems or intake processes and that information is required for federal program participation. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to comply with these provisions as early as possible following the notification set forth above, but no later than January 1, 2028.

The bill would provide that these provisions also apply to information that could reasonably be used to infer a persons transgender or intersex status, as specified, and a that violation of these provisions is subject to penalties described in the Information Practices Act of 1977. By expanding the scope of a crime in the Information Practices Act of 1977, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state and local agency, as defined, to make its records open to public inspection at all times during office hours, except as specifically exempted from disclosure by law.

This bill would provide, subject to specified exceptions, that information pertaining to SOGISC is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure by specified state entities under the California Public Records Act, unless the information pertaining to SOGISC is deidentified, or disclosed in accordance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, requires the State Department of Public Health, among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC).

This bill would define information pertaining to SOGISC to mean information pertaining to a persons sexual orientation identity, gender identity, identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a persons sex assigned at birth.

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as defined. Under existing law, a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Existing law establishes the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requests the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district to allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect specified demographic data and to report that data, as provided.

This bill would prohibit information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, or collected by public postsecondary education institutions in accordance with the above paragraph, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state or local government, or an authorized agency thereof, subject to specified exceptions, and would require information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

The bill would require state entities under these provisions, after notifying the Legislature that the entity has the necessary automation capabilities, to share information pertaining to SOGISC in accordance with specified requirements when state and federal programs share systems or intake processes and that information is required for federal program participation. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to comply with these provisions as early as possible following the notification set forth above, but no later than January 1, 2028.

The bill would provide that these provisions also apply to information that could reasonably be used to infer a persons transgender or intersex status, as specified, and a that violation of these provisions is subject to penalties described in the Information Practices Act of 1977. By expanding the scope of a crime in the Information Practices Act of 1977, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state and local agency, as defined, to make its records open to public inspection at all times during office hours, except as specifically exempted from disclosure by law.

This bill would provide, subject to specified exceptions, that information pertaining to SOGISC is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure by specified state entities under the California Public Records Act, unless the information pertaining to SOGISC is deidentified, or disclosed in accordance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, requires the State Department of Public Health, among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC).

This bill would define information pertaining to SOGISC to mean information pertaining to a persons sexual orientation identity, gender identity, identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a persons sex assigned at birth.

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as defined. Under existing law, a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Existing law establishes the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requests the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district to allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect specified demographic data and to report that data, as provided.

This bill would prohibit information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, within specified records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, or collected by public postsecondary education institutions in accordance with the above paragraph, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state or local government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government, an authorized agency thereof, subject to specified exceptions, and would require information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977. The

The bill would require state entities under these provisions, after notifying the Legislature that the entity has the necessary automation capabilities, to share information pertaining to SOGISC in accordance with specified requirements when state and federal programs share systems or intake processes and that information is required for federal program participation. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to comply with these provisions as early as possible following the notification set forth above, but no later than January 1, 2028.

The bill would provide that these provisions also apply to information that could reasonably be used to infer a persons transgender or intersex status, as specified, and a that violation of these provisions is subject to penalties described in the Information Practices Act of 1977. By expanding the scope of a crime in the Information Practices Act of 1977, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state and local agency, as defined, to make its records open to public inspection at all times during office hours, except as specifically exempted from disclosure by law.

This bill would provide provide, subject to specified exceptions, that information pertaining to SOGISC is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure by specified state entities under the California Public Records Act, unless the information pertaining to SOGISC is deidentified. deidentified, or disclosed in accordance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, requires the State Department of Public Health, among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC).

This bill would define information pertaining to SOGISC to mean information pertaining to a persons sexual orientation identity, gender identity, identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a persons sex assigned at birth.

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as defined. Under existing law, a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Existing law requires all records of the Department of Motor Vehicles relating to the registration of vehicles, other information contained on an application for a drivers license, abstracts of convictions, and certain abstracts of accident reports to be open to public inspection during office hours, except when a specific provision of law prohibits the disclosure of records or information or provides for confidentiality.

Existing law establishes the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requests the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district to allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect specified demographic data and to report that data, as provided.

This bill would prohibit information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, within specified records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, or collected by public postsecondary education institutions in accordance with the above paragraph, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government, subject to specified exceptions, and would require information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977. The bill would provide that these provisions also apply to information that could reasonably be used to infer a persons transgender or intersex status, as specified, and a violation of these provisions is subject to penalties described in the Information Practices Act of 1977. By expanding the scope of a crime in the Information Practices Act of 1977, this the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state and local agency, as defined, to make its records open to public inspection at all times during office hours, except as specifically exempted from disclosure by law.

This bill would provide that information pertaining to SOGISC is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, unless the information pertaining to SOGISC is deidentified.

This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, requires the State Department of Public Health, among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC).

This bill would define information pertaining to SOGISC to mean information pertaining to a persons sexual orientation identity, gender identity or gender expression, identity, identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a persons sex assigned at birth.

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as defined. Under existing law, a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Existing law establishes the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requests the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district to allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect specified demographic data and to report that data, as provided.

This bill would prohibit information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, within specified records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, or collected by public postsecondary education institutions in accordance with the above paragraph, from being disclosed in personally identifiable form a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government, subject to specified exceptions, and would require information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977. The bill would provide that these provisions also apply to information that could reasonably be used to infer a persons transgender or intersex status, as specified, and a violation of these provisions is subject to penalties described in the Information Practices Act of 1977. By expanding the scope of a crime in the Information Practices Act of 1977, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, requires the State Department of Public Health, among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC).

This bill would define information pertaining to SOGISC to mean information pertaining to a persons sexual orientation identity, gender identity or gender expression, identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a persons sex assigned at birth.

Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as defined. Under existing law, a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Existing law establishes the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in the state. Existing law requests the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district to allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect specified demographic data and to report that data, as provided.

This bill would prohibit information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, or collected by public postsecondary education institutions in accordance with the above paragraph, from being disclosed in personally identifiable form to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government, subject to specified exceptions, and would require information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977. The bill would provide that these provisions also apply to information that could reasonably be used to infer a persons transgender or intersex status, as specified, and a violation of these provisions is subject to penalties described in the Information Practices Act of 1977. By expanding the scope of a crime in the Information Practices Act of 1977, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would provide that its provisions are severable.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1114

Author: Cabaldon (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/26

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 11-0, 3/24/26

AYES: Rubio, Valladares, Archuleta, Blakespear, Cervantes, Hurtado, Padilla, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wahab, Weber Pierson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Dahle, Ochoa Bogh

SENATE PRIV., DIGITAL TECH. & CONS. PROT. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/6/26

AYES: Cabaldon, Gonzalez, McNerney, Padilla, Reyes, Umberg, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones, Ochoa Bogh

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 30-0, 5/26/26

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Gonzalez, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 60-14, 8/25/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status: disclosure

SOURCE: Equality California

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) collected by state entities, as specified, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state, subject to certain exceptions, as specified.

Assembly Amendments

remove previous references and applicability to the California Department of Motor Vehicle, as specified, specify how state entities under this bill are to share information pertaining to SOGISC when state and federal programs share systems or intake processes and that information is required for federal participation, and require the State Department of Social Services (DSS) to comply with this bill as early as possible, but no later than January 1, 2028.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Disparities Reduction Act, the State Department of Public Health (DPH), among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to SOGISC, as specified.
2. Prescribes, pursuant to the Information Practices Act of 1977, a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as specified.
3. Provides that a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill:

1. Prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to existing law from being disclosed by state entities in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state or local government, or an authorized agent thereof, as specified.
2. Limits the information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977, as specified.
3. Provides that any person who commits a violation of this bill shall be subject to existing penalties established by the Information Practices Act of 1977, as specified.
4. Provides that information collected by the UC, CSU, or CCCs pursuant to existing law is subject to the disclosure restrictions established by this bill and existing penalties, as specified.
5. Provides that when state and federal programs share systems or intake processes and information pertaining to SOGISC is required for federal participation, that information shall not be disclosed unless permitted by this bill, as specified, and shall be separated from data that is not required or permitted to be shared, and shall be shared only to the minimal extent required for federal program participation.
6. Requires DSS to comply with this bill as early as possible following the operative date, but no later than January 1, 2028.
7. Provides that this bill does not apply to the Civil Rights Department, as specified.
8. Defines “information pertaining to SOGISC,” as specified.
9. Provides that information pertaining to SOGISC is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), as specified.
10. Provides that the provisions of this bill are severable. If any provision of this bill or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for highly sensitive data related to [SOGISC]. The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.”

Further, “inclusive data collection helps California state agencies better serve diverse communities. But as hostility from the federal government toward communities of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people has grown, so has the need to ensure sensitive information cannot be misused. Federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. While many recent examples involve requests for immigration or health data, they underscore why clear guardrails on data sharing are essential. Similar to other sensitive information the state collects, SOGISC data should be protected with strong limitations on when and how it can be shared outside of California state government, especially given the demonstrated hostility of the Trump administration toward LGBTQ+ communities.”

The LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act. Established by AB 959 (Chiu, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015), the LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act (Act) was intended to reduce health and well-being disparities for LGBTI communities be ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity data is collected on a statewide basis by key government agencies that deal with health and human services.

According to the Senate Floor analysis of that bill at the time, “[s]tate government agencies routinely collect demographic data on race, ethnicity, gender, and disability on a wide variety of state forms and surveys. The purpose of this data is to help better understand disparities in underserved communities. Current law only requires any state agency, board, or commission that directly, or by contract, collects demographic data to separate the collection of this data by major Asian groups. The law is silent on demographic data collection based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Since 2015, the Act has been amended to, among other things, expand the list of state entities required to collect voluntary self-identification information on SOGISC to include various education and employment-related agencies; expand the list of state entities to include the Department of State Hospitals (DHS), the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), he Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the Department of Community Services and Development (DCSD); and to require, rather than permit, DPH to collect demographic data, including SOGISC data from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, as specified. As noted in previous Senate analyses on the topic, LGBTI communities face disproportionately high rates of poverty, suicide, homelessness, isolation, substance abuse, and violence, and low rates of health insurance. These issues are more prevalent for youth and seniors, communities of color, and transgender and undocumented communities. Supporters state that collecting voluntary data on sexual orientation and gender identity is a necessary first step to understand the extent to which LGBTI communities are experiencing disparities and whether government programs are effectively reaching LGBTI individuals in need of care and assistance.

Rapidly Changing Data Landscape. According to the State Health Access Data Assistance Center, sex (i.e., male, female) has been collected on various types of surveys for many years, dating back to the first iteration of the census in 1790. However, collection of detailed sexual orientation and gender identity data is a relatively new endeavor for many federal and state agencies. The Center further notes that, “[s]ince the beginning of 2025, the landscape of [SOGISC] data collection has shifted again, marking a departure from previous federal policy. Following the recission of the Biden Administration’s EO 14075, which had previously expanded [SOGISC] data collection efforts, a new Executive Order No 14168 (2025), titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, redefines how federal agencies approach sex and gender identity data.”

The Center states that nearly 14 million adults in the United States identify as part of the LGBT community – more than the entire population of Pennsylvania. While research is limited, studies continually find that LGBT people are more likely to experience health, economic, and social disparities than non-LGBT peers.

Additionally, the author of this bill argues that federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. The author’s office states that, for example, “the U.S. Department of Agriculture has sought unprecedented access to detailed data, including information about immigration status, from state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) systems and their contractors, while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has shared immigration information about Medicaid enrollees with the Department of Homeland Security.”

Further compounding the emerging data sharing problem, recent news reports have identified instances of government data handled by the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being compromised and potentially disseminated. A March 11, 2026 article in the Washington Post titled “Whistleblower claims ex-DOGE member says he took Social Security data to new job,” the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) internal watchdog is investigating a complaint alleging “a former U.S. DOGE Service employee claimed he had access to two highly sensitive agency databases and planned to share the information with his private employer – a claim that, if true, would constitute an unprecedented breach of security protocols at an agency that services more than 70 million Americans.”

In response to this, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, recently expanded an investigation of DOGE-related data leaks at the SSA after reporting indicated “a former employee of Elon Musk’s [DOGE] remains in possession of Americans’ personally identifiable Social Security information on a personal device and may also have the ability to remotely manipulate millions oof Americans’ Social Security data.”

Access to data as artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly improving is becoming increasingly valuable. Coined by the British mathematician Clive Humby in 2006, the phrase “data is the new oil” is intended to signify that raw data, like crude oil, is immensely valuable but useless until refined, processed, and analyzed. Today, the federal government has broad access to and utilization of some of the most advanced technology ever created. Examples include Palantir Technologies, a Silicon Valley data-analytics company that builds software used by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. Reporting shows that the federal government has explored using Palantir’s Foundry platform to combine data from multiple agencies such as Health and Human Services, Social Security, and the Internal Revenue Service. Centralized “data fusion” makes it easier to track individuals across different government systems, while AI can quickly automate the process of identifying patterns and behaviors.

History of Government Targeting the LGBTQI Community. The “Lavender Scare” of the 1940s-1960s was a time of intentional and malicious targeting of the LGBTQI community by the federal government under the premise that queer individuals posed a security threat to the country because they could be blackmailed by foreign governments. In 1953, Executive Order 104450 formally barred “sexual perversion” (the term used at the time to describe the LGBTQI community) from federal employment. Federal agencies were tasked with actively investigating employees’ private lives to identify gay people and as a result thousands of federal workers were fired, forced to resign, or publicly outed. Investigations often involved interrogations, surveillance, and pressure to reveal others who might also be gay.

During the mid-20^th century, federal law enforcement agencies also surveilled LGBTQ organizations including monitory groups such as the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay rights organizations, and collecting intelligence files on individuals suspected of homosexuality or “sexual deviance.” The purpose of this monitoring was often political in nature or to intimidate an individual or the LGBTQ community, rather than criminal investigations.

Complicating things further, a 2018 report from the Stanford Graduate School of Business titled “Deep Neural Networks Are More Accurate than Humans at Detecting Sexual Orientation from Facial Images,” claimed that AI could distinguish between gay and heterosexual men with about 81% accuracy from a single photo and about 74% for women. The system used facial features extracted by a deep neural network from over 35,000 images. The study triggered major controversy from critics warning such technology could be dangerous if used for surveillance or discrimination. Many scientists disputed the conclusions and methodology while multiple LGBTQ groups argued it relied on stereotypes rather than biological signals.

Information Practices Act of 1977 Penalties. Among other things, when the Legislature established the Information Practices Act of 1977, it declared that the “right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right to privacy in information pertaining to them.” Further, the Legislature made the following findings, “(a) The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies. (b) The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information. (c) In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits.”

The Information Practices Act of 1977 provides for penalties for the intentional violation of any provision of this specific law or of any rules or regulations adopted thereunder, by an officer or employee of any agency shall constitute a cause for discipline, including termination of employment. Additionally, the Information Practices Act of 1977 states that any person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned more than one year, or both.

Finally, the Information Practices Act of 1997 provides that except for disclosures which are otherwise required or permitted by law, the intentional disclosure of medical, psychiatric, or psychological information in violation of the disclosure provisions of that law is punishable as a misdemeanor if the wrongful disclosure results in economic loss or personal injury to the individual to whom the information pertains. This bill specifies that a violation of this bill is subject to the penalties described under Article 10 (commencing with Section 1798.55) of Chapter 1 of Title 1.8 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Information Practices Act of 1977 described above.

Protecting Personally Identifiable SOGISC Data. This bill restricts information pertaining to SOGISC data collected pursuant to the LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state. Additionally, this bill requires information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form, be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

In support of the bill, the author’s office notes that in 2025, “CMS instructed hospitals participating in federally funded programs to provide data on transgender health care, and subsequently, the Department of Justice issued subpoenas for personally identifiable information of transgender patients to at least 20 hospitals, many of them public. In practice, these requests can expose sensitive information about individuals and their families and create risks that data collected to administer benefits or provide services could be used for unrelated purposes, such as immigration enforcement or surveillance.”

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 957 (Wiener, Chapter 868, Statutes of 2024) required, rather than permit, DPH to collect demographic data, including SOGISC, and intersexuality data, from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, unless prohibited by federal or state law, as specified. Added SOGISC to the information reported for the purpose of statewide or local immunization information systems, as specified and requires DPH to prepare an annual report concerning SOGISC data, as specified.

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

According to the Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of approximately $470,000 in 2027-28 and $464,000 in 2028-29 and ongoing (General Fund) to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) for two permanent attorney positions to review data and documentation pertaining to SOGISC information, interpret privacy laws and contractual and data sharing agreements, and ensure compliance with the requirements of this bill. CRD anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount, potentially significant, arising from the following sources:
   1. CRD shares case and complaint information containing identifiable SOGISC elements with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under federal worksharing agreements, and reports that the bill′s exception for reporting is restrictive relative to how those agreements operate.
   2. Complaints filed with CRD are generally disclosable under the California Public Records Act once closed. Because this bill exempts SOGISC information unless deidentified, CRD would need to review each closed complaint and redact SOGISC elements before release rather than disclosing the file as a whole. CRD reports this would be difficult to implement and notes the large volume of Public Records Act requests the department receives.
   3. CRD discloses identifiable SOGISC data outside state government when prosecuting civil rights violations involving SOGISC elements, including in lawsuits filed in state and federal court, and reports that the bill is ambiguous as to whether disclosure in that context is permitted.
2. Minor and absorbable implementation costs to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). DHCS reports that future reporting, monitoring, or form development requirements may require additional staffing resources, and that system change costs are unknown pending guidance on how SOGISC data is to be collected and reported.
3. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially significant in the aggregate, across the remaining state entities subject to the Act, including the Departments of Public Health, Social Services, and Education and the Employment Development Department, to review and modify data sharing agreements, identify SOGISC data elements within existing systems, restrict or redact personally identifiable information from external disclosures, and ensure minimal-necessary disclosure where an exception applies (General Fund and various special funds). Costs to each entity will depend on the entity′s existing data-sharing arrangements with entities outside state government and the extent to which compliance workload and information technology changes can be absorbed.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/25/2026)

Equality California (Source)
Access Reproductive Justice
Advocates for Trans Equality
Alliance for TransYouth Liberation
California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus
California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network
California Medical Association (CMA)
California Primary Care Association
Casita Feliz Latine LGBTQ+ Center
CFT – a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO
Courage California
El/La Para Translatinas
Gender Affirming Professionals
Health Access California
Health Officers Association of California
LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Visibility, and Empowerment (LIVE)
Oakland Privacy
PFLAG Sacramento
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Rainbow Families Action Bay Area
San Francisco Aids Foundation
Somos Familia Valle
The San Diego LGBT Community Center

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/25/2026)

California Family Council
Cause: Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law
Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender
Our Duty

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, Equality California writes that, “[c]omprehensive data collection is critical to improving services, advancing health equity, and directing resources where they are most needed. As LGBTQ+ populations continue to grow, collecting SOGISC data is critical to ensuring policies and programs effectively meet the needs of these communities and do not leave them behind.

“Over the past decade, California has taken important steps to improve data collection on LGBTQ+ communities. In 2015, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act required several state agencies to collect voluntary self-identification data on sexual orientation and gender identity when gathering demographic information. Subsequent legislation expanded these requirements to additional agencies and incorporated data collection on variations in sex characteristics, further strengthening the state’s ability to identify and address disparities affecting LGBTQ+ Californians.”

And finally, “[u]nder the current federal administration, there are growing concerns about how sensitive data may be used outside its original purpose. Federal agencies have increasingly sought access to state-held data, including immigration status information, raising serious risks that data collected to administer services could be used for immigration enforcement or surveillance.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, the California Family Council writes that, “SB 1114 prohibits state entities, including public educational institutions, from disclosing sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status (SOGISC) data in personally identifiable form to any entity outside the California state government. While framed as a privacy protection, this bill creates serious concerns for parental rights, transparency, and constitutional governance.

“Parental authority is undermined. By restricting the disclosure of SOGISC data, this bill can prevent parents from learning information about their own minor children collected by public schools. Parents have a fundamental constitutional right, recognized in Troxel v. Granville and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Shielding school-collected data from parents directly conflicts with that right.”

And finally, “[i]t prioritizes ideological confidentiality over child welfare. When schools collect sensitive identity data from minors and then restrict parental access under this bill's framework, children may be socially transitioned or affirmed in school settings without parental knowledge, a practice with serious documented psychological risks. Broad non-disclosure rules limit the ability of the public, researchers, and oversight bodies to evaluate how government agencies collect and use sensitive data on California's children and residents.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 60-14, 8/25/26

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

NOES: Castillo, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Johnson, Lackey, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Tangipa

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alanis, Chen, Flora, Hoover, McKinnor

Prepared by: Brian Duke / G.O. / (916) 651-1530

9/22/26 12:09:35

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1114

Author: Cabaldon (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/26

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 11-0, 3/24/26

AYES: Rubio, Valladares, Archuleta, Blakespear, Cervantes, Hurtado, Padilla, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wahab, Weber Pierson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Dahle, Ochoa Bogh

SENATE PRIV., DIGITAL TECH. & CONS. PROT. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/6/26

AYES: Cabaldon, Gonzalez, McNerney, Padilla, Reyes, Umberg, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones, Ochoa Bogh

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 30-0, 5/26/26

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Gonzalez, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Passed, 8/25/26

SUBJECT: Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status: disclosure

SOURCE: Equality California

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) collected by state entities, as specified, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state, subject to certain exceptions, as specified.

Assembly Amendments

remove previous references and applicability to the California Department of Motor Vehicle, as specified, specify how state entities under this bill are to share information pertaining to SOGISC when state and federal programs share systems or intake processes and that information is required for federal participation, and require the State Department of Social Services (DSS) to comply with this bill as early as possible, but no later than January 1, 2028.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Disparities Reduction Act, the State Department of Public Health (DPH), among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to SOGISC, as specified.
2. Prescribes, pursuant to the Information Practices Act of 1977, a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as specified.
3. Provides that a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill:

1. Prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to existing law from being disclosed by state entities in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state or local government, or an authorized agent thereof, as specified.
2. Limits the information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977, as specified.
3. Provides that any person who commits a violation of this bill shall be subject to existing penalties established by the Information Practices Act of 1977, as specified.
4. Provides that information collected by the UC, CSU, or CCCs pursuant to existing law is subject to the disclosure restrictions established by this bill and existing penalties, as specified.
5. Provides that when state and federal programs share systems or intake processes and information pertaining to SOGISC is required for federal participation, that information shall not be disclosed unless permitted by this bill, as specified, and shall be separated from data that is not required or permitted to be shared, and shall be shared only to the minimal extent required for federal program participation.
6. Requires DSS to comply with this bill as early as possible following the operative date, but no later than January 1, 2028.
7. Provides that this bill does not apply to the Civil Rights Department, as specified.
8. Defines “information pertaining to SOGISC,” as specified.
9. Provides that information pertaining to SOGISC is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), as specified.
10. Provides that the provisions of this bill are severable. If any provision of this bill or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for highly sensitive data related to [SOGISC]. The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.”

Further, “inclusive data collection helps California state agencies better serve diverse communities. But as hostility from the federal government toward communities of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people has grown, so has the need to ensure sensitive information cannot be misused. Federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. While many recent examples involve requests for immigration or health data, they underscore why clear guardrails on data sharing are essential. Similar to other sensitive information the state collects, SOGISC data should be protected with strong limitations on when and how it can be shared outside of California state government, especially given the demonstrated hostility of the Trump administration toward LGBTQ+ communities.”

The LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act. Established by AB 959 (Chiu, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015), the LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act (Act) was intended to reduce health and well-being disparities for LGBTI communities be ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity data is collected on a statewide basis by key government agencies that deal with health and human services.

According to the Senate Floor analysis of that bill at the time, “[s]tate government agencies routinely collect demographic data on race, ethnicity, gender, and disability on a wide variety of state forms and surveys. The purpose of this data is to help better understand disparities in underserved communities. Current law only requires any state agency, board, or commission that directly, or by contract, collects demographic data to separate the collection of this data by major Asian groups. The law is silent on demographic data collection based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Since 2015, the Act has been amended to, among other things, expand the list of state entities required to collect voluntary self-identification information on SOGISC to include various education and employment-related agencies; expand the list of state entities to include the Department of State Hospitals (DHS), the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), he Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the Department of Community Services and Development (DCSD); and to require, rather than permit, DPH to collect demographic data, including SOGISC data from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, as specified. As noted in previous Senate analyses on the topic, LGBTI communities face disproportionately high rates of poverty, suicide, homelessness, isolation, substance abuse, and violence, and low rates of health insurance. These issues are more prevalent for youth and seniors, communities of color, and transgender and undocumented communities. Supporters state that collecting voluntary data on sexual orientation and gender identity is a necessary first step to understand the extent to which LGBTI communities are experiencing disparities and whether government programs are effectively reaching LGBTI individuals in need of care and assistance.

Rapidly Changing Data Landscape. According to the State Health Access Data Assistance Center, sex (i.e., male, female) has been collected on various types of surveys for many years, dating back to the first iteration of the census in 1790. However, collection of detailed sexual orientation and gender identity data is a relatively new endeavor for many federal and state agencies. The Center further notes that, “[s]ince the beginning of 2025, the landscape of [SOGISC] data collection has shifted again, marking a departure from previous federal policy. Following the recission of the Biden Administration’s EO 14075, which had previously expanded [SOGISC] data collection efforts, a new Executive Order No 14168 (2025), titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, redefines how federal agencies approach sex and gender identity data.”

The Center states that nearly 14 million adults in the United States identify as part of the LGBT community – more than the entire population of Pennsylvania. While research is limited, studies continually find that LGBT people are more likely to experience health, economic, and social disparities than non-LGBT peers.

Additionally, the author of this bill argues that federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. The author’s office states that, for example, “the U.S. Department of Agriculture has sought unprecedented access to detailed data, including information about immigration status, from state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) systems and their contractors, while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has shared immigration information about Medicaid enrollees with the Department of Homeland Security.”

Further compounding the emerging data sharing problem, recent news reports have identified instances of government data handled by the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being compromised and potentially disseminated. A March 11, 2026 article in the Washington Post titled “Whistleblower claims ex-DOGE member says he took Social Security data to new job,” the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) internal watchdog is investigating a complaint alleging “a former U.S. DOGE Service employee claimed he had access to two highly sensitive agency databases and planned to share the information with his private employer – a claim that, if true, would constitute an unprecedented breach of security protocols at an agency that services more than 70 million Americans.”

In response to this, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, recently expanded an investigation of DOGE-related data leaks at the SSA after reporting indicated “a former employee of Elon Musk’s [DOGE] remains in possession of Americans’ personally identifiable Social Security information on a personal device and may also have the ability to remotely manipulate millions oof Americans’ Social Security data.”

Access to data as artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly improving is becoming increasingly valuable. Coined by the British mathematician Clive Humby in 2006, the phrase “data is the new oil” is intended to signify that raw data, like crude oil, is immensely valuable but useless until refined, processed, and analyzed. Today, the federal government has broad access to and utilization of some of the most advanced technology ever created. Examples include Palantir Technologies, a Silicon Valley data-analytics company that builds software used by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. Reporting shows that the federal government has explored using Palantir’s Foundry platform to combine data from multiple agencies such as Health and Human Services, Social Security, and the Internal Revenue Service. Centralized “data fusion” makes it easier to track individuals across different government systems, while AI can quickly automate the process of identifying patterns and behaviors.

History of Government Targeting the LGBTQI Community. The “Lavender Scare” of the 1940s-1960s was a time of intentional and malicious targeting of the LGBTQI community by the federal government under the premise that queer individuals posed a security threat to the country because they could be blackmailed by foreign governments. In 1953, Executive Order 104450 formally barred “sexual perversion” (the term used at the time to describe the LGBTQI community) from federal employment. Federal agencies were tasked with actively investigating employees’ private lives to identify gay people and as a result thousands of federal workers were fired, forced to resign, or publicly outed. Investigations often involved interrogations, surveillance, and pressure to reveal others who might also be gay.

During the mid-20^th century, federal law enforcement agencies also surveilled LGBTQ organizations including monitory groups such as the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay rights organizations, and collecting intelligence files on individuals suspected of homosexuality or “sexual deviance.” The purpose of this monitoring was often political in nature or to intimidate an individual or the LGBTQ community, rather than criminal investigations.

Complicating things further, a 2018 report from the Stanford Graduate School of Business titled “Deep Neural Networks Are More Accurate than Humans at Detecting Sexual Orientation from Facial Images,” claimed that AI could distinguish between gay and heterosexual men with about 81% accuracy from a single photo and about 74% for women. The system used facial features extracted by a deep neural network from over 35,000 images. The study triggered major controversy from critics warning such technology could be dangerous if used for surveillance or discrimination. Many scientists disputed the conclusions and methodology while multiple LGBTQ groups argued it relied on stereotypes rather than biological signals.

Information Practices Act of 1977 Penalties. Among other things, when the Legislature established the Information Practices Act of 1977, it declared that the “right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right to privacy in information pertaining to them.” Further, the Legislature made the following findings, “(a) The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies. (b) The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information. (c) In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits.”

The Information Practices Act of 1977 provides for penalties for the intentional violation of any provision of this specific law or of any rules or regulations adopted thereunder, by an officer or employee of any agency shall constitute a cause for discipline, including termination of employment. Additionally, the Information Practices Act of 1977 states that any person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned more than one year, or both.

Finally, the Information Practices Act of 1997 provides that except for disclosures which are otherwise required or permitted by law, the intentional disclosure of medical, psychiatric, or psychological information in violation of the disclosure provisions of that law is punishable as a misdemeanor if the wrongful disclosure results in economic loss or personal injury to the individual to whom the information pertains. This bill specifies that a violation of this bill is subject to the penalties described under Article 10 (commencing with Section 1798.55) of Chapter 1 of Title 1.8 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Information Practices Act of 1977 described above.

Protecting Personally Identifiable SOGISC Data. This bill restricts information pertaining to SOGISC data collected pursuant to the LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state. Additionally, this bill requires information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form, be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

In support of the bill, the author’s office notes that in 2025, “CMS instructed hospitals participating in federally funded programs to provide data on transgender health care, and subsequently, the Department of Justice issued subpoenas for personally identifiable information of transgender patients to at least 20 hospitals, many of them public. In practice, these requests can expose sensitive information about individuals and their families and create risks that data collected to administer benefits or provide services could be used for unrelated purposes, such as immigration enforcement or surveillance.”

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 957 (Wiener, Chapter 868, Statutes of 2024) required, rather than permit, DPH to collect demographic data, including SOGISC, and intersexuality data, from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, unless prohibited by federal or state law, as specified. Added SOGISC to the information reported for the purpose of statewide or local immunization information systems, as specified and requires DPH to prepare an annual report concerning SOGISC data, as specified.

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

According to the Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of approximately $470,000 in 2027-28 and $464,000 in 2028-29 and ongoing (General Fund) to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) for two permanent attorney positions to review data and documentation pertaining to SOGISC information, interpret privacy laws and contractual and data sharing agreements, and ensure compliance with the requirements of this bill. CRD anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount, potentially significant, arising from the following sources:
   1. CRD shares case and complaint information containing identifiable SOGISC elements with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under federal worksharing agreements, and reports that the bill′s exception for reporting is restrictive relative to how those agreements operate.
   2. Complaints filed with CRD are generally disclosable under the California Public Records Act once closed. Because this bill exempts SOGISC information unless deidentified, CRD would need to review each closed complaint and redact SOGISC elements before release rather than disclosing the file as a whole. CRD reports this would be difficult to implement and notes the large volume of Public Records Act requests the department receives.
   3. CRD discloses identifiable SOGISC data outside state government when prosecuting civil rights violations involving SOGISC elements, including in lawsuits filed in state and federal court, and reports that the bill is ambiguous as to whether disclosure in that context is permitted.
2. Minor and absorbable implementation costs to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). DHCS reports that future reporting, monitoring, or form development requirements may require additional staffing resources, and that system change costs are unknown pending guidance on how SOGISC data is to be collected and reported.
3. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially significant in the aggregate, across the remaining state entities subject to the Act, including the Departments of Public Health, Social Services, and Education and the Employment Development Department, to review and modify data sharing agreements, identify SOGISC data elements within existing systems, restrict or redact personally identifiable information from external disclosures, and ensure minimal-necessary disclosure where an exception applies (General Fund and various special funds). Costs to each entity will depend on the entity′s existing data-sharing arrangements with entities outside state government and the extent to which compliance workload and information technology changes can be absorbed.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/25/2026)

Equality California (Source)
Access Reproductive Justice
Advocates for Trans Equality
Alliance for TransYouth Liberation
California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus
California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network
California Medical Association (CMA)
California Primary Care Association
Casita Feliz Latine LGBTQ+ Center
CFT – a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO
Courage California
El/La Para Translatinas
Gender Affirming Professionals
Health Access California
Health Officers Association of California
LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Visibility, and Empowerment (LIVE)
Oakland Privacy
PFLAG Sacramento
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Rainbow Families Action Bay Area
San Francisco Aids Foundation
Somos Familia Valle
The San Diego LGBT Community Center

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/25/2026)

California Family Council
Cause: Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law
Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender
Our Duty

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, Equality California writes that, “[c]omprehensive data collection is critical to improving services, advancing health equity, and directing resources where they are most needed. As LGBTQ+ populations continue to grow, collecting SOGISC data is critical to ensuring policies and programs effectively meet the needs of these communities and do not leave them behind.

“Over the past decade, California has taken important steps to improve data collection on LGBTQ+ communities. In 2015, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act required several state agencies to collect voluntary self-identification data on sexual orientation and gender identity when gathering demographic information. Subsequent legislation expanded these requirements to additional agencies and incorporated data collection on variations in sex characteristics, further strengthening the state’s ability to identify and address disparities affecting LGBTQ+ Californians.”

And finally, “[u]nder the current federal administration, there are growing concerns about how sensitive data may be used outside its original purpose. Federal agencies have increasingly sought access to state-held data, including immigration status information, raising serious risks that data collected to administer services could be used for immigration enforcement or surveillance.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, the California Family Council writes that, “SB 1114 prohibits state entities, including public educational institutions, from disclosing sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status (SOGISC) data in personally identifiable form to any entity outside the California state government. While framed as a privacy protection, this bill creates serious concerns for parental rights, transparency, and constitutional governance.

“Parental authority is undermined. By restricting the disclosure of SOGISC data, this bill can prevent parents from learning information about their own minor children collected by public schools. Parents have a fundamental constitutional right, recognized in Troxel v. Granville and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Shielding school-collected data from parents directly conflicts with that right.”

And finally, “[i]t prioritizes ideological confidentiality over child welfare. When schools collect sensitive identity data from minors and then restrict parental access under this bill's framework, children may be socially transitioned or affirmed in school settings without parental knowledge, a practice with serious documented psychological risks. Broad non-disclosure rules limit the ability of the public, researchers, and oversight bodies to evaluate how government agencies collect and use sensitive data on California's children and residents.”

Prepared by: Brian Duke / G.O. / (916) 651-1530

8/25/26 13:01:39

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1114

Author:(Cabaldon)

As Amended Ver:August 13, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

This bill restricts personally identifiable information related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) data collected by state agencies from being disclosed to any entity outside of the California state government or contracted vendors.

Major Provisions

1. Defines ″information pertaining to SOGISC″ to mean information pertaining to any of the following:
   1. A person′s sexual orientation identity.
   2. A person′s gender identity.
   3. A person′s identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person′s sex assigned at birth.
   4. Information pertaining to SOGISC that could reasonably be used to infer a person′s transgender or intersex status, including:
      1. A person′s self-identification as transgender, nonbinary, or a gender other than man/male or woman/female.
      2. Information about a person′s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth that is stored or disclosed in a manner that may result in a person being classified as transgender or intersex.
      3. Administrative records of gender marker change or documentation submitted in conjunction with a request for gender marker change.
      4. Medical information related to transgender or intersex status not otherwise protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).
2. Prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC collected for the Act from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government, except if either of the following apply:
   1. Pursuant to a contract or data sharing agreement where the reporting of SOGISC elements is an explicit and mandatory condition for participation in a federal or interstate program or survey.
   2. Pursuant to a warrant or court order that is valid and enforceable in California.
3. Requires that information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the application exception in compliance with the IPA, unless the information pertaining to SOGISC is deidentified.
4. Provides that a violation of this bill is subject to the penalties described under the IPA.
5. Exempts information pertaining to SOGISC from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, unless the information is deidentified.
6. Applies these same restrictions and penalties to information collected by specified educational institutions.

COMMENTS

The need to collect SOGISC data. Historically, data surrounding LGBTQ+ individuals has been sparse. Indeed, more than five in six LGBT adults cannot be identified by existing questions in nonexperimental surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.^[1] The lack of accurate information on LGBTQ+ individuals can facilitate prejudice and bias, especially against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals who often struggle to receive appropriate health care and governmental services. To counteract discrimination and misinformation about underrepresented populations such as LGBTQ+ populations, researchers and LGBTQ+ advocates call for more accurate and thoughtful data collection practices. According to the Center for American Progress:

Data collection is an indispensable tool to understand and address challenges facing LGBTQI+ and other sexual and gender-diverse communities. Although strides have been made in recent years, a persistent lack of routine data collection on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGISC) is still a substantial roadblock for policymakers, researchers, service providers, and advocates seeking to improve the health and well-being of LGBTQI+ people. More comprehensive and accurate point-in-time and longitudinal demographic data on SOGISC are crucial to:

1. Advance research agendas
2. Evaluate population trends
3. Identify community-based needs
4. Provide high-quality services
5. Track and address discrimination
6. Equitably distribute funding and other resources
7. Shape evidence-based policy solutions to promote equity and reduce disparities faced by LGBTQI+ populations

As the size and diversity of LGBTQI+ populations in the United States continue to expand, particularly among youth and young adults, the importance of collecting data on these communities only continues to grow. Failing to collect these data can create harms by hindering the ability of researchers, policymakers, service providers, and advocates to understand the experiences of LGBTQI+ communities, identify disparities, generate policies that promote equity, and evaluate the effectiveness of those policies.^[2]

Concerns surrounding federal anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. In recent years, anti-LGBTQ+ legislation has drastically increased, with a record number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills being introduced across the nation, many of which are aimed directly at LGBTQ+ youth, particularly transgender youth and gender-expansive youth. These bills seek to roll back nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, bar youth from accessing gender-affirming health care, prohibit access to facilities and activities aligning with their gender, and forcibly out LGBTQ+ youth, to name a few examples.^[3]

Fear of the federal government seeking access to state-held data related to SOGISC is therefore not unfounded. The federal government has already sought to collect detailed personal information, including immigration status, from state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) systems.^[4] In 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that perform gender affirming care procedures for transgender minors, seeking personal information on those patients and on the clinicians providing the care.^[5] Originally, the DOJ issued administrative subpoenas, many of which were dismissed in court. The DOJ then pivoted to issuing criminal subpoenas, referring to gender affirming care as ″sex-rejecting procedures″ in the documents that were sent to multiple hospitals, including NYU Langone Medical Center.^[6] In the subpoena sent to the NYU Langone Medical Center, the DOJ requested, amongst other things ″[d]ocuments sufficient to identify each patient who underwent Sex-Rejecting Procedures,″ and, for each identified patient:

[D]ocuments relating to the clinical indications, diagnoses, or assessments that formed the basis for providing Sex-Rejecting Procedures, including the prescribing of puberty blockers or hormones, and all documents relating to the Sex-Rejecting Procedures care provided to each patient identified.^[7]

In California, a federal judge temporarily blocked hospitals from providing any documents related to the criminal subpoenas, but the implications if the federal government succeeds in seizing medical records of minors are vast.^[8]

According to the Author

SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for data related to sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, intersex status, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGISC). The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.

Inclusive data collection helps California state agencies better serve diverse communities. But as hostility from the federal government toward communities of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people has grown, so has the need to ensure personal information cannot be misused. Federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. While many recent examples involve requests for immigration or health data, they underscore why clear guardrails on data sharing are essential. Similar to other personal information the state collects, SOGISC data should be protected with strong limitations on when and how it can be shared outside of California state government, especially given the demonstrated hostility of the Trump administration toward LGBTQ+ communities.

Arguments in Support

Equality California, co-sponsors of the bill, write in support:

Comprehensive data collection is essential to improving services, advancing health equity, and directing resources where they are most needed. As LGBTQ+ populations continue to grow, failing to collect SOGISC data risks rendering these communities invisible and undermining efforts to develop policies that promote equity and improve health outcomes.

[…]

SB 1114 establishes clear guardrails to ensure SOGISC data cannot be disclosed outside of California state government except in limited circumstances—when explicitly required for participation in a federal or interstate program, or in response to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California. The bill also defines SOGISC to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics, and clarifies that information that could reasonably be used to infer transgender or intersex status is also protected. Finally, SB 1114 extends these protections to SOGISC data collected by public postsecondary education institutions and makes violations subject to existing penalties under the Information Practices Act.

At a time when LGBTQ+ Californians are increasingly being targeted, SB 1114 ensures that data collected to support our communities cannot later be repurposed to harm them. The bill strikes an important balance—allowing the state to continue collecting important data to address disparities while putting in place strong safeguards to protect individual privacy and safety.

The California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, write in support:

California agencies collect voluntary demographic data, including information related to SOGISC, in order to better understand disparities and improve services for LGBTQ+ Californians. However, as hostility toward LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and other marginalized communities has intensified at the federal level, there is growing concern that sensitive personal data held by the state could be requested or utilized for enforcement, surveillance, or other unrelated purposes. In recent years, federal agencies have sought expanded access to state program data, including information related to health care and public benefits, raising serious privacy and safety concerns for vulnerable communities.

SB 1114 establishes necessary guardrails by restricting the disclosure of personally identifiable SOGISC data collected under the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act. The bill allows disclosure only when explicitly required for participation in a federal or interstate program where reporting is mandatory, or in response to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California. It also requires that any disclosed data be limited to the minimum amount necessary and extends these protections to similar data collected by public postsecondary institutions.

At a time when sensitive personal information is increasingly vulnerable to misuse, SB 1114 ensures California can continue collecting critical demographic data to improve public services while protecting the privacy and safety of LGBTQ+ individuals and other vulnerable populations.

Arguments in Opposition

In opposition to the bill, California Family Council argues:

SB 1114 prohibits state entities, including public educational institutions, from disclosing sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status (SOGISC) data in personally identifiable form to any entity outside the California state government. While framed as a privacy protection, this bill creates serious concerns for parental rights, transparency, and constitutional governance.

Parental authority is undermined. By restricting the disclosure of SOGISC data, this bill can prevent parents from learning information about their own minor children collected by public schools. Parents have a fundamental constitutional right, recognized in Troxel v. Granville and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Shielding school-collected data from parents directly conflicts with that right.

It prioritizes ideological confidentiality over child welfare. When schools collect sensitive identity data from minors and then restrict parental access under this bill′s framework, children may be socially transitioned or affirmed in school settings without parental knowledge, a practice with serious documented psychological risks.

Broad non-disclosure rules limit the ability of the public, researchers, and oversight bodies to evaluate how government agencies collect and use sensitive data on California′s children and residents.

SB 1114 does not protect children; it protects bureaucratic secrecy at the expense of parents and families. California families deserve transparency, not legislation that further insulates government decisions from the parents most affected.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of approximately $470,000 in 2027-28 and $464,000 in 2028-29 and ongoing (General Fund) to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) for two permanent attorney positions to review data and documentation pertaining to SOGISC information, interpret privacy laws and contractual and data sharing agreements, and ensure compliance with the requirements of this bill. CRD anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount, potentially significant, arising from the following sources:
   1. CRD shares case and complaint information containing identifiable SOGISC elements with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under federal worksharing agreements, and reports that the bill′s exception for reporting is restrictive relative to how those agreements operate.
   2. Complaints filed with CRD are generally disclosable under the California Public Records Act once closed. Because this bill exempts SOGISC information unless deidentified, CRD would need to review each closed complaint and redact SOGISC elements before release rather than disclosing the file as a whole. CRD reports this would be difficult to implement and notes the large volume of Public Records Act requests the department receives.
   3. CRD discloses identifiable SOGISC data outside state government when prosecuting civil rights violations involving SOGISC elements, including in lawsuits filed in state and federal court, and reports that the bill is ambiguous as to whether disclosure in that context is permitted.
2. Minor and absorbable implementation costs to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). DHCS reports that future reporting, monitoring, or form development requirements may require additional staffing resources, and that system change costs are unknown pending guidance on how SOGISC data is to be collected and reported.
3. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially significant in the aggregate, across the remaining state entities subject to the Act, including the Departments of Public Health, Social Services, and Education and the Employment Development Department, to review and modify data sharing agreements, identify SOGISC data elements within existing systems, restrict or redact personally identifiable information from external disclosures, and ensure minimal-necessary disclosure where an exception applies (General Fund and various special funds). Costs to each entity will depend on the entity′s existing data-sharing arrangements with entities outside state government and the extent to which compliance workload and information technology changes can be absorbed.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 30-0-10

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Gonzalez, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland

ASM PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: 11-2-2

YES: Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Irwin, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Ortega, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Ward, Wicks, Wilson

NO: DeMaio, Patterson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Macedo, Hoover

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-3-0

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

NO: Macedo, Dixon, Sanchez

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-3-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache

NO: Dixon, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hoover

UPDATED

VERSION: August 13, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kate Davis / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0003697

1. Caroline Medina and L. Mahowald, Collecting Data About LGBTQI+ and Other Sexual and Gender-Diverse Communities (May 24, 2022) Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/collecting-data-about-lgbtqi-and-other-sexual-and-gender-diverse-communities/. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Cullen Peele, “Weekly Roundup of Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation Advancing In States Across the Country,” Human Rights Campaign, (May 16, 2023), https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/weekly-roundup-of-anti-lgbtq-legislation-advancing-in-states-across-the-country-5. ↑

4. Jude Joffe-Block and S. Fowler, “USDA, DOGE demand states hand over personal data about food stamp recipients,” NPR, (May 9, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/05/09/nx-s1-5389952/usda-snap-doge-data-immigration. ↑

5. “Department of Justice Subpoenas Doctors and Clinics Involved in Performing Transgender Medical Procedures on Children,” Office of Public Affairs U.S. Department of Justice, (July 9, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-subpoenas-doctors-and-clinics-involved-performing-transgender-medical. ↑

6. Selena Simmons-Duffin, “Trump’s DOJ can’t get names and medical files of trans youth in California, for now,” NPR, (June 12, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/06/12/nx-s1-5855728/transgender-youth-healthcare-trump-subpoena. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1114

Author:(Cabaldon) – As Amended Ver:May 14, 2026

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

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC), collected by the 15 state entities subject to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside California state government or a contracted vendor, except pursuant to (a) a contract or data sharing agreement where reporting of SOGISC elements is an explicit and mandatory condition of participation in a federal or interstate program or survey, or (b) a warrant or court order valid and enforceable in California.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs of approximately $470,000 in 2027-28 and $464,000 in 2028-29 and ongoing (General Fund) to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) for two permanent attorney positions to review data and documentation pertaining to SOGISC information, interpret privacy laws and contractual and data sharing agreements, and ensure compliance with the requirements of this bill. CRD anticipates additional costs of an unknown amount, potentially significant, arising from the following sources:
   1. CRD shares case and complaint information containing identifiable SOGISC elements with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under federal worksharing agreements, and reports that the bill’s exception for reporting is restrictive relative to how those agreements operate.
   2. Complaints filed with CRD are generally disclosable under the California Public Records Act once closed. Because this bill exempts SOGISC information unless deidentified, CRD would need to review each closed complaint and redact SOGISC elements before release rather than disclosing the file as a whole. CRD reports this would be difficult to implement and notes the large volume of Public Records Act requests the department receives.
   3. CRD discloses identifiable SOGISC data outside state government when prosecuting civil rights violations involving SOGISC elements, including in lawsuits filed in state and federal court, and reports that the bill is ambiguous as to whether disclosure in that context is permitted.
2. Minor and absorbable implementation costs to the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). DHCS reports that future reporting, monitoring, or form development requirements may require additional staffing resources, and that system change costs are unknown pending guidance on how SOGISC data is to be collected and reported.
3. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially significant in the aggregate, across the remaining state entities subject to the Act, including the Departments of Public Health, Social Services, and Education and the Employment Development Department, to review and modify data sharing agreements, identify SOGISC data elements within existing systems, restrict or redact personally identifiable information from external disclosures, and ensure minimal-necessary disclosure where an exception applies (General Fund and various special funds). Costs to each entity will depend on the entity’s existing data-sharing arrangements with entities outside state government and the extent to which compliance workload and information technology changes can be absorbed.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for data related to sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, intersex status, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGISC). The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.

1. Background. AB 959 (Chiu), Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015, established the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act, requiring specified state entities to collect voluntary self-identification information on sexual orientation and gender identity when collecting other demographic data. The Act has since been expanded to 15 state entities and to include intersex status. Existing law already deems personal identifying information collected under the Act confidential, prohibits reporting data that would permit identification of individuals, and limits permissible uses to demographic analysis, care coordination, quality improvement, approved research, reporting, and guiding policy or funding decisions. This bill adds an express prohibition on identifiable external disclosure, narrow exceptions for mandatory federal or interstate reporting and valid warrants or court orders, a Public Records Act exemption, and penalties under the Information Practices Act of 1977 applicable to agency officers and employees who violate the disclosure provisions.
2. Support and Opposition. This bill is co-sponsored by Equality California and the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, and supported by civil rights, health care, and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations, including the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, who contend the bill ensures data collected to serve LGBTQ+ communities cannot be repurposed to harm the individuals who provided the data. This bill is opposed by the California Family Council, CAUSE: Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law, and Our Duty, who contend the bill interferes with parental rights, limits public oversight of state data practices, and creates an overly broad Public Records Act exemption.

Analysis Prepared by: Shiran Zohar / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1114

Author:(Cabaldon) – As Amended Ver:May 14, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 30-0

SUBJECT: Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status: disclosure

SYNOPSIS

In order to ensure that California government was using adequate and complete data when making important decisions, in 2015, the Legislature enacted AB 959 (Chiu) Chap. 656, Stats. 2015, to collect voluntary self-identification information on sexual orientation and gender identity when collecting other demographic information. That data has helped the state develop critical services for the LGBTQ+ community, especially services for LGBTQ+ persons who are elderly or have a disability. However, as the federal government is turning more hostile toward the existence of LGBTQ+ persons, protecting this data from needless disclosure is imperative.

This bill would limit the disclosure of specified information on sexual orientation and gender identity, referred to as SOGISC characteristics in the bill. The bill provides that the information is not subject to the California Public Records Act and imposes the same penalties utilized in the Information Practices Act of 1977 to unauthorized disclosures of the information in violation of this bill. The bill makes several clarifying exemptions to the disclosure provisions, particularly for Department of Motor Vehicle driver’s license records and valid court-ordered subpoenas.

This measure is co-sponsored by Equality California and the LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network who contend that data protection for individuals within the LGBTQ+ community is imperative as the federal government seeks to target this population. This bill is opposed by several organizations that deny the existence of transgender individuals. They contend that the bill interferes with parental rights (even if many of the agencies subject to the bill do not deal with minors), opens the door for alleged corruption in grants, and provides an overly broad exemption to the California Public Rights Act. It should be noted that the bill makes all appropriate findings for a Public Records Act exemption and none of the groups that typically weigh in on Public Records Act related legislation have a position on this measure. This bill was previously heard and approved by the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection by a vote of 11 to 2.

SUMMARY: Limits the disclosure of information to entities outside of the state government regarding information pertaining to a party’s SOGISC characteristics, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Defines “information pertaining to SOGISC” to mean information pertaining to any of the following:
   1. A person’s sexual orientation identity;
   2. A person’s gender identity; and
   3. A person’s identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person’s sex assigned at birth;
   4. For the purposes of disclosure under 2) the following:
      1. A person’s self-identification as transgender, nonbinary, or a gender other than man/male or woman/female;
      2. Information about a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth that is stored or disclosed in a manner that may result in a person being classified as transgender or intersex;
      3. Administrative records of gender marker change or documentation submitted in conjunction with a request for gender marker change; and
      4. Medical information related to transgender or intersex status not otherwise protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
2. Prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to this bill and existing law from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government, except if either of the following apply:
   1. Pursuant to a contract or data sharing agreement where the reporting of SOGISC elements is an explicit and mandatory condition for participation in a federal or interstate program or survey; or
   2. Pursuant to a warrant or court order that is valid and enforceable in California.
3. Provides that information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form is to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.
4. Provides that a violation of this bill is subject to the same civil penalties as those provided in the Information Practices Act of 1977.
5. Exempts information deemed SOGISC from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
6. Prohibits the Department of Motor Vehicles from sharing personally identifiable SOGISC, except for the purpose of providing a person’s gender marker on a Department-issued drivers license or state identification card.
7. Makes various findings and declarations regarding information confidentiality and exemptions to the Public Records Act.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act, which requires fifteen different specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to also collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersexuality. (Government Code Section 8310.8.)
2. Establishes the Information Practices Act of 1977 and declares that the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right of privacy in information pertaining to them. (Civil Code Section 1798.1.)
3. Defines “personal information” for the purposes of the Information Practices Act of 1977 as any information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history, as specified. (Civil Code Section 1798.3 (a).)
4. Prohibits an agency from disclosing any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed as specified. (Civil Code Section 1798.24.)
5. Provides that an agency that fails to comply with any provisions of the Information Practices Act of 1977 may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction, and, as specified, the agency may be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of actual damages sustained by the individual, including damages for mental suffering, and the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court. (Civil Code Sections 1798.46-1798.48.)
6. Provides that the intentional violation of any provision of the Information Practices Act of 1977, or any rules or regulations adopted thereunder, by an officer or employee of an agency shall constitute a cause for discipline, including termination of employment; and further specifies that the intentional disclosure of medical, psychiatric, or psychological information in violation of the disclosure provisions of the Act is punishable as a misdemeanor if the wrongful disclosure results in economic loss or personal injury to the individual to whom the information pertains. (Civil Code Section 1798.55, 1798.57.)
7. Authorizes a civil action for the invasion of privacy against any person, other than an employee of the state or of a local government agency acting solely in his or her official capacity, who intentionally discloses information, not otherwise public, which they know or should reasonably know was obtained from personal information maintained by a state agency or from “records” within a “system of records,” as specified. (Civil Code Section 1898.53.)
8. Provides that in any successful action brought to enforce 7), the complainant, in addition to any special or general damages awarded, shall be awarded a minimum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) in exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in the suit. (Ibid.)
9. Provides that the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district are requested to, in collecting data relative to gender, race, ethnicity, or other demographics, from faculty, staff, or students, allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect that demographic data, as specified. (Education Code Section 66027.)

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

COMMENTS: The extensive, and inclusive, set of data collected by dozens of California state agencies is designed to help the state provide services to California’s diverse population. This data helps identify potential trends in the provision of medical serves, education, even on incarcerated individuals. However, as the federal administration demonizes and demonstrates ongoing hostilities to the LGBTQ+ community, proponents of this measure fear that state data may be weaponized against the very people it aims to help. To that end, this bill would add additional protections on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status data, hereinafter SOGISC, collected by state agencies. In support of the bill the author states:

SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for data related to sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, intersex status, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGISC). The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.

Inclusive data collection helps California state agencies better serve diverse communities. But as hostility from the federal government toward communities of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people has grown, so has the need to ensure personal information cannot be misused. Federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. While many recent examples involve requests for immigration or health data, they underscore why clear guardrails on data sharing are essential. Similar to other personal information the state collects, SOGISC data should be protected with strong limitations on when and how it can be shared outside of California state government, especially given the demonstrated hostility of the Trump administration toward LGBTQ+ communities.

The need to collect SOGISC data. In 2015, recognizing that the state was not adequately collecting data regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, the Legislature enacted the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act. (AB 959 (Chiu) Chap. 656, Stats. 2015.) That bill required state departments to collect voluntary self-identification information on sexual orientation and gender identity when collecting other demographic information. In the intervening years, the bill has been expanded to require data now be collected by 15 distinct state agencies and for agencies to solicit information regarding intersexuality.

Once collected, the designated departments are required to report on the SOGISC data collected and the method used to collect that data to the Legislature. Additionally, the departments must make the aggregated version of the data available to the public in accordance with state and federal privacy laws. The information collected by the state departments must be offered on a voluntary basis and utilized primarily for specified purposes, including but not limited to, demographic analysis, coordination of care, quality improvement of its services, conducting approved research, fulfilling reporting requirements, and guiding policy or funding decisions.

The Information Practices Act of 1977. The Information Practices Act of 1977 was one of the state’s first comprehensive privacy law. The Act governs the protection of sensitive personal data collected by the government as a part of providing public services. At a high level, the act prohibits the disclosure of “personal information” which is defined as, “any information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history,” unless that information is anonymized or the individual consents to its release.

The Information Practices Act of 1977 also provides an extensive list of remedies for persons whose personal data is improperly shared. These penalties include injunctive relief against the state and the payment of actual damages by the state to the aggrieved party. Should a person, acting outside their official scope of state job duties, release such information they would be subject to an invasion of privacy claim and may be liable for not only any special or general damages awarded, but a minimum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) in exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in the suit.

This bill seeks to protect SOGISC data collected by state agencies. While still maintaining the state’s robust, and necessary collection of SOGISC data, this bill enhances the protections provided to that data. The bill provides that SOGISC data, defined as pertaining to sexual orientation identity, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status, may not be released in a manner permitting personal identification. The bill would apply to SOGISC data collected by the 15 state agencies tasked with collecting the data under the existing law as well as the California State University System, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district should they collect such data. The bill clarifies that such SOGISC data is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The bill provides for a narrow exemption to these provisions to clarify in the Vehicle Code that the Department of Motor Vehicles is still to disclose one’s preferred sex or gender marker for the purposes of listing such information on a Department-issued driver’s license or state identification card. The bill also adopts narrow exceptions for the compliance with a valid law enforcement subpoena and for the purpose of participation in a mandatory interstate or federal program.

The bill would make a violation of the above-described disclosure requirements a violation of the Information Practices Act of 1977, thereby adopting the civil enforcement provisions of that Act to violations of this bill. The bill makes numerous technical cross-reference updates to various code sections implicated by the bill and adopts the findings necessary to expand an exemption to the Public Records Act.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is co-sponsored by Equality California and the LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network. The bill enjoys support from numerous other civil rights and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. In support of the bill, Equality California writes:

Comprehensive data collection is essential to improving services, advancing health equity, and directing resources where they are most needed. As LGBTQ+ populations continue to grow, failing to collect SOGISC data risks rendering these communities invisible and undermining efforts to develop policies that promote equity and improve health outcomes.

In 2015, California enacted the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act (Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015). This law requires several state agencies—including the Departments of Health Care Services, Public Health, Social Services, and the Department of Aging—to collect voluntary selfidentification data on sexual orientation and gender identity when gathering demographic information. In 2023, AB 1163 (Chapter 832, Statutes of 2023) expanded these requirements to additional agencies, further strengthening the state’s ability to understand and address disparities affecting LGBTQ+ communities.

LGBTQ+ Californians share personal information with state programs because they need essential services—such as food assistance or health coverage—and trust that their data will be used only to administer those programs. However, federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

SB 1114 establishes clear guardrails to ensure SOGISC data cannot be disclosed outside of California state government except in limited circumstances—when explicitly required for participation in a federal or interstate program, or in response to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California. The bill also defines SOGISC to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics, and clarifies that information that could reasonably be used to infer transgender or intersex status is also protected. Finally, SB 1114 extends these protections to SOGISC data collected by public postsecondary education institutions and makes violations subject to existing penalties under the Information Practices Act.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The bill is opposed by the California Family Council and CAUSE: Californians United for Sex-Based Evidence in Policy and Law on the grounds that the bill interferes with parental rights, despite the fact that the majority of the agencies implicated by the bill do not work with minors (see, e.g. Department of Aging). Nonetheless, CAUSE writes in opposition to this measure:

SB 1114 is part of the decade + long attempt by California to mandate collection of

voluntarily revealed information about sexual orientation and about how a person self-identifies in particular areas of their lives. But SB 1114 goes much further, over reaching to hide the fact of a person’s true sex from the public even in circumstances beyond information gleaned from surveys.

The Legislature from the start has cautioned that the personal identifying information of any individual who gives information about their identity as part of this mandated data collection effort must be protected. Language to this effect is in every one of the previous bills. What SB 1114 does is not meant to hide a person’s self-declared identity. It attempts to hide the fact of a person’s sex in any circumstances. This impacts public safety and public right to know.

Fraud in healthcare and insurance and in publicly funded assistance programs is real. Socalled (sic) “gender affirming care” is being scrutinized by legitimate authority not only across the US but around the world over concerns about fraud and malpractice. It is remiss of any government – Local, Federal, or State, to refuse to protect taxpayers and citizens by assisting in investigations in areas where fraud or medical malpractice may be occurring. Yes, the federal government subpoenaed hospitals - those suspected of harming children with experimental drugs and procedures! It was not to find out the names of individual patients in order to publicize or penalize them, it was to discover if harm was being caused to patients and taxpayers by the hospitals! Who is SB 1114 trying to protect?

A person’s actual sex is a matter of fact, no matter how they identify. Yet SB 1114 disallows release of public records that may lead to the discovery of this information, whether or not the person ever claimed any “gender identity” on a questionnaire or whether or not that information is the intent of the inquiry! This is outrageous governmental over-reach with the sole purpose of misleading the public about reality.

We urge the committee to rethink the state’s entire approach to data collection in this area, rather than continuing down the road of widening the scope of such data collection and overreach of identity protection.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network (co-sponsor)

Equality California (co-sponsor)

Access Reproductive Justice
Advocates for Trans Equality
Alliance for Transyouth Liberation
California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus
California Medical Association
California Primary Care Association
Casita Feliz Latine LGBTQ+ Center
CFT – a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO
Courage California
El/la Para Translatinas
Gender Affirming Professionals
Health Access California
Health Officers Association of California
LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Visibility, and Empowerment
Oakland Privacy
Pflag Sacramento
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Rainbow Families Action Bay Area
San Francisco Aids Foundation
Somos Familia Valle
The San Diego LGBT Community Center

Opposition

California Family Council
CAUSE: Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law

Our Duty

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

Date of Hearing: June 23, 2026

Fiscal:

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1114

Author:(Cabaldon) – As Amended Ver:May 14, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 30-0

SUBJECT: Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status: disclosure

SYNOPSIS

Demographic information is collected by state and federal entities to improve public services to distinct populations. Historically, LGBTQ+ communities have faced exclusion and prejudice, resulting in sparse and inaccurate data about these populations. In response, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act was passed in 2015, which directed state agencies to collect voluntary self-identification information related to sexual orientation and gender identity, subject to certain privacy-protective safeguards.

Given the increasingly hostile federal response to LGBTQ+ rights, this bill restricts personally identifiable information related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) data collected by state agencies from being disclosed to any entity outside of the California state government or contracted vendors. Additionally, this bill directs that any collected information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception and exempts information related to SOGISC from disclosure under the California Public Records Act unless the information is deidentified. These protections are further applied to data collected by certain educational institutions.

The bill is co-sponsored by Equality California and California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network. The bill is supported by a number of organizations, including Alliance for Transyouth Liberation, California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Health Access California, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

The bill is opposed by Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law and California Family Council.

If passed by this Committee, this bill will next be heard by the Judiciary Committee.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 1.)
2. Establishes the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act (Act), which requires specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to also collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersexuality. The law provides various methods by which this requirement can be carried out. (Gov. Code § 8310.8.)
3. Establishes the Information Practices Act of 1977 (IPA), which declares that the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right of privacy in information pertaining to them. It further states the following legislative findings:
   1. The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies;
   2. The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information; and
   3. In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits. (Civ. Code § 1798 et seq.)
4. Defines “personal information” for purposes of the IPA as any information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. It includes statements made by, or attributed to, the individual. (Civ. Code § 1798.3(a).)
5. Prohibits an agency from disclosing any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed as specified. (Civ. Code § 1798.24.)
6. Provides that an agency that fails to comply with any provisions of the IPA may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction, and, as specified, the agency may be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of actual damages sustained by the individual, including damages for mental suffering, and the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court. (Civ. Code §§ 1798.46-1798.48.)
7. Provides that the intentional violation of any provision of the IPA, or any rules or regulations adopted thereunder, by an officer or employee of an agency shall constitute a cause for discipline, including termination of employment; and further specifies that the intentional disclosure of medical, psychiatric, or psychological information in violation of the disclosure provisions of the IPA is punishable as a misdemeanor if the wrongful disclosure results in economic loss or personal injury to the individual to whom the information pertains. (Civ. Code §§ 1798.55, 1798.57.)
8. Provides that the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district are requested to, in collecting data relative to gender, race, ethnicity, or other demographics, from faculty, staff, or students, allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect that demographic data, as appropriate. (Ed. Code § 66027.)

THIS BILL:

1. Defines “information pertaining to SOGISC” to mean information pertaining to any of the following:
   1. A person’s sexual orientation identity.
   2. A person’s gender identity.
   3. A person’s identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person’s sex assigned at birth.
   4. Information pertaining to SOGISC that could reasonably be used to infer a person’s transgender or intersex status, including:
      1. A person’s self-identification as transgender, nonbinary, or a gender other than man/male or woman/female.
      2. Information about a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth that is stored or disclosed in a manner that may result in a person being classified as transgender or intersex.
      3. Administrative records of gender marker change or documentation submitted in conjunction with a request for gender marker change.
      4. Medical information related to transgender or intersex status not otherwise protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).
2. Prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC collected for the Act from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government, except if either of the following apply:
   1. Pursuant to a contract or data sharing agreement where the reporting of SOGISC elements is an explicit and mandatory condition for participation in a federal or interstate program or survey.
   2. Pursuant to a warrant or court order that is valid and enforceable in California.
3. Requires that information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the application exception in compliance with the IPA, unless the information pertaining to SOGISC is deidentified.
4. Provides that a violation of this bill is subject to the penalties described under the IPA.
5. Exempts information pertaining to SOGISC from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, unless the information is deidentified.
6. Prohibits the Department of Motor Vehicles from making available or disclosing personally identifiable information pertaining to SOGISC. Exempts the sex marker or gender category displayed on a driver’s license or as displayed on an identification card.
7. Applies these same restrictions and penalties to information collected by specified educational institutions.
8. Contains a severability clause.

COMMENTS:

1) Author’s statement. According to the author:

SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for data related to sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, intersex status, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGISC). The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.

Inclusive data collection helps California state agencies better serve diverse communities. But as hostility from the federal government toward communities of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people has grown, so has the need to ensure personal information cannot be misused. Federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. While many recent examples involve requests for immigration or health data, they underscore why clear guardrails on data sharing are essential. Similar to other personal information the state collects, SOGISC data should be protected with strong limitations on when and how it can be shared outside of California state government, especially given the demonstrated hostility of the Trump administration toward LGBTQ+ communities.

2) The need to collect SOGISC data. Historically, data surrounding LGBTQ+ individuals has been sparse. Indeed, more than five in six LGBT adults cannot be identified by existing questions in nonexperimental surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.^[1] The lack of accurate information on LGBTQ+ individuals can facilitate prejudice and bias, especially against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals who often struggle to receive appropriate health care and governmental services. To counteract discrimination and misinformation about underrepresented populations such as LGBTQ+ populations, researchers and LGBTQ+ advocates call for more accurate and thoughtful data collection practices. According to the Center for American Progress:

Data collection is an indispensable tool to understand and address challenges facing LGBTQI+ and other sexual and gender-diverse communities. Although strides have been made in recent years, a persistent lack of routine data collection on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGISC) is still a substantial roadblock for policymakers, researchers, service providers, and advocates seeking to improve the health and well-being of LGBTQI+ people. More comprehensive and accurate point-in-time and longitudinal demographic data on SOGISC are crucial to:

• Advance research agendas
• Evaluate population trends
• Identify community-based needs
• Provide high-quality services
• Track and address discrimination
• Equitably distribute funding and other resources
• Shape evidence-based policy solutions to promote equity and reduce disparities faced by LGBTQI+ populations

As the size and diversity of LGBTQI+ populations in the United States continue to expand, particularly among youth and young adults, the importance of collecting data on these communities only continues to grow. Failing to collect these data can create harms by hindering the ability of researchers, policymakers, service providers, and advocates to understand the experiences of LGBTQI+ communities, identify disparities, generate policies that promote equity, and evaluate the effectiveness of those policies.^[2]

3) Addressing the lack of SOGISC Data. To counteract the apparent dearth in data collected by the state regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, AB 959 (Chiu, Ch. 565, Stats. 2015) enacted the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act. This Act required state departments to collect voluntary self-identification information on sexual orientation and gender identity when collecting other demographic information. Originally limited to just four state departments, the Act has since been expanded to include 15 departments and to include questions surrounding intersexuality.

The departments tasked with collecting voluntary SOGISC data are required to report the data collected and the method used to collect that data to the Legislature. Additionally, the departments must make the data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law. The Act prohibits departments from disclosing personal identifying information of the surveyed individuals to protect their privacy and further directs the departments to aggregate demographic reports on data collected to prevent identification of individuals.

To provide an additional layer of privacy protection, the state departments are only authorized to use information voluntarily provided about sexual orientation and gender identity for certain purposes, namely demographic analysis, coordination of care, quality improvement of its services, conducting approved research, fulfilling reporting requirements, and guiding policy or funding decisions.

4) Concerns surrounding federal anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. In recent years, anti-LGBTQ+ legislation has drastically increased, with a record number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills being introduced across the nation, many of which are aimed directly at LGBTQ+ youth, particularly transgender youth and gender-expansive youth. These bills seek to roll back nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, bar youth from accessing gender-affirming health care, prohibit access to facilities and activities aligning with their gender, and forcibly out LGBTQ+ youth, to name a few examples.^[3]

Fear of the federal government seeking access to state-held data related to SOGISC is therefore not unfounded. The federal government has already sought to collect detailed personal information, including immigration status, from state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) systems.^[4] In 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that perform gender affirming care procedures for transgender minors, seeking personal information on those patients and on the clinicians providing the care.^[5] Originally, the DOJ issued administrative subpoenas, many of which were dismissed in court. The DOJ then pivoted to issuing criminal subpoenas, referring to gender affirming care as “sex-rejecting procedures” in the documents that were sent to multiple hospitals, including NYU Langone Medical Center.^[6] In the subpoena sent to the NYU Langone Medical Center, the DOJ requested, amongst other things “[d]ocuments sufficient to identify each patient who underwent Sex-Rejecting Procedures,” and, for each identified patient:

[D]ocuments relating to the clinical indications, diagnoses, or assessments that formed the basis for providing Sex-Rejecting Procedures, including the prescribing of puberty blockers or hormones, and all documents relating to the Sex-Rejecting Procedures care provided to each patient identified.^[7]

In California, a federal judge temporarily blocked hospitals from providing any documents related to the criminal subpoenas, but the implications if the federal government succeeds in seizing medical records of minors are vast.^[8]

5) What this bill would do. In response to the growing tide of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation from the federal government, this bill would prohibit state agencies from transferring SOGISC data voluntarily collected under the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act to agencies outside of the California state government, or contracted vendors who provide services to the state, unless there is a contract or sharing agreement where reporting SOGISC data is a mandatory condition for participation in a federal or interstate program, or if there is a valid and enforceable warrant or court order. Additionally, this bill requires that information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the IPA. This bill also prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC from being disclosed under the California Public Records Act unless the information is first deidentified. These provisions are also applied to such data collected by educational institutions such as the California State University, the University of California, and California community colleges. Violations are punishable under existing enforcement provisions of the IPA.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Equality California, co-sponsors of the bill, write in support:

Comprehensive data collection is essential to improving services, advancing health equity, and directing resources where they are most needed. As LGBTQ+ populations continue to grow, failing to collect SOGISC data risks rendering these communities invisible and undermining efforts to develop policies that promote equity and improve health outcomes.

[…]

SB 1114 establishes clear guardrails to ensure SOGISC data cannot be disclosed outside of California state government except in limited circumstances—when explicitly required for participation in a federal or interstate program, or in response to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California. The bill also defines SOGISC to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics, and clarifies that information that could reasonably be used to infer transgender or intersex status is also protected. Finally, SB 1114 extends these protections to SOGISC data collected by public postsecondary education institutions and makes violations subject to existing penalties under the Information Practices Act.

At a time when LGBTQ+ Californians are increasingly being targeted, SB 1114 ensures that data collected to support our communities cannot later be repurposed to harm them. The bill strikes an important balance—allowing the state to continue collecting important data to address disparities while putting in place strong safeguards to protect individual privacy and safety.

The California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, write in support:

California agencies collect voluntary demographic data, including information related to SOGISC, in order to better understand disparities and improve services for LGBTQ+ Californians. However, as hostility toward LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and other marginalized communities has intensified at the federal level, there is growing concern that sensitive personal data held by the state could be requested or utilized for enforcement, surveillance, or other unrelated purposes. In recent years, federal agencies have sought expanded access to state program data, including information related to health care and public benefits, raising serious privacy and safety concerns for vulnerable communities.

SB 1114 establishes necessary guardrails by restricting the disclosure of personally identifiable SOGISC data collected under the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act. The bill allows disclosure only when explicitly required for participation in a federal or interstate program where reporting is mandatory, or in response to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California. It also requires that any disclosed data be limited to the minimum amount necessary and extends these protections to similar data collected by public postsecondary institutions.

At a time when sensitive personal information is increasingly vulnerable to misuse, SB 1114 ensures California can continue collecting critical demographic data to improve public services while protecting the privacy and safety of LGBTQ+ individuals and other vulnerable populations.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, California Family Council argues:

SB 1114 prohibits state entities, including public educational institutions, from disclosing sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status (SOGISC) data in personally identifiable form to any entity outside the California state government. While framed as a privacy protection, this bill creates serious concerns for parental rights, transparency, and constitutional governance.

Parental authority is undermined. By restricting the disclosure of SOGISC data, this bill can prevent parents from learning information about their own minor children collected by public schools. Parents have a fundamental constitutional right, recognized in Troxel v. Granville and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Shielding school-collected data from parents directly conflicts with that right.

It prioritizes ideological confidentiality over child welfare. When schools collect sensitive identity data from minors and then restrict parental access under this bill's framework, children may be socially transitioned or affirmed in school settings without parental knowledge, a practice with serious documented psychological risks.

Broad non-disclosure rules limit the ability of the public, researchers, and oversight bodies to evaluate how government agencies collect and use sensitive data on California's children and residents.

SB 1114 does not protect children; it protects bureaucratic secrecy at the expense of parents and families. California families deserve transparency, not legislation that further insulates government decisions from the parents most affected.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Lgbtq Health and Human Services Network (Co-Sponsor)
Equality California (Co-Sponsor)
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Primary Care Association
Health Access California
Health Officers Association of California
Lgbtq+ Inclusivity, Visibility, and Empowerment (LIVE)
Oakland Privacy
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

Opposition

Cause: Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law

Analysis Prepared by: Kate Davis / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

1. Caroline Medina and L. Mahowald, Collecting Data About LGBTQI+ and Other Sexual and Gender-Diverse Communities (May 24, 2022) Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/collecting-data-about-lgbtqi-and-other-sexual-and-gender-diverse-communities/. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Cullen Peele, “Weekly Roundup of Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation Advancing In States Across the Country,” Human Rights Campaign, (May 16, 2023), https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/weekly-roundup-of-anti-lgbtq-legislation-advancing-in-states-across-the-country-5. ↑

4. Jude Joffe-Block and S. Fowler, “USDA, DOGE demand states hand over personal data about food stamp recipients,” NPR, (May 9, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/05/09/nx-s1-5389952/usda-snap-doge-data-immigration. ↑

5. “Department of Justice Subpoenas Doctors and Clinics Involved in Performing Transgender Medical Procedures on Children,” Office of Public Affairs U.S. Department of Justice, (July 9, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-subpoenas-doctors-and-clinics-involved-performing-transgender-medical. ↑

6. Selena Simmons-Duffin, “Trump’s DOJ can’t get names and medical files of trans youth in California, for now,” NPR, (June 12, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/06/12/nx-s1-5855728/transgender-youth-healthcare-trump-subpoena. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1114

Author: Cabaldon (D), et al.

Amended: 5/14/26

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE: 11-0, 3/24/26

AYES: Rubio, Valladares, Archuleta, Blakespear, Cervantes, Hurtado, Padilla, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Wahab, Weber Pierson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarado-Gil, Ashby, Dahle, Ochoa Bogh

SENATE PRIV., DIGITAL TECH. & CONS. PROT. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/6/26

AYES: Cabaldon, Gonzalez, McNerney, Padilla, Reyes, Umberg, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jones, Ochoa Bogh

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/14/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

SUBJECT: Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status: disclosure

SOURCE: Equality California

DIGEST:

This bill prohibits information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) collected by state entities, as specified, from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state, subject to certain exceptions, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Disparities Reduction Act, the State Department of Public Health (DPH), among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to SOGISC, as specified.
2. Prescribes, pursuant to the Information Practices Act of 1977, a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as specified.
3. Provides that a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill:

1. Prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to existing law from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state, as specified.
2. Limits the information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977, as specified.
3. Provides that any person who commits a violation of this bill shall be subject to existing penalties established by the Information Practices Act of 1977, as specified.
4. Provides that information collected by the UC, CSU, or CCCs pursuant to existing law is subject to the disclosure restrictions established by this bill and existing penalties, as specified.
5. Defines “information pertaining to SOGISC,” as specified.
6. Provides that information pertaining to SOGISC is confidential and shall be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, as specified.
7. Provides that the provisions of this bill are severable. If any provision of this bill or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for highly sensitive data related to [SOGISC]. The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.”

Further, “inclusive data collection helps California state agencies better serve diverse communities. But as hostility from the federal government toward communities of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people has grown, so has the need to ensure sensitive information cannot be misused. Federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. While many recent examples involve requests for immigration or health data, they underscore why clear guardrails on data sharing are essential. Similar to other sensitive information the state collects, SOGISC data should be protected with strong limitations on when and how it can be shared outside of California state government, especially given the demonstrated hostility of the Trump administration toward LGBTQ+ communities.”

The LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act. Established by AB 959 (Chiu, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015), the LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act (Act) was intended to reduce health and well-being disparities for LGBTI communities be ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity data is collected on a statewide basis by key government agencies that deal with health and human services.

According to the Senate Floor analysis of that bill at the time, “[s]tate government agencies routinely collect demographic data on race, ethnicity, gender, and disability on a wide variety of state forms and surveys. The purpose of this data is to help better understand disparities in underserved communities. Current law only requires any state agency, board, or commission that directly, or by contract, collects demographic data to separate the collection of this data by major Asian groups. The law is silent on demographic data collection based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Since 2015, the Act has been amended to, among other things, expand the list of state entities required to collect voluntary self-identification information on SOGISC to include various education and employment-related agencies; expand the list of state entities to include the Department of State Hospitals (DHS), the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), he Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the Department of Community Services and Development (DCSD); and to require, rather than permit, DPH to collect demographic data, including SOGISC data from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, as specified.

As noted in previous Senate analyses on the topic, LGBTI communities face disproportionately high rates of poverty, suicide, homelessness, isolation, substance abuse, and violence, and low rates of health insurance. These issues are more prevalent for youth and seniors, communities of color, and transgender and undocumented communities. Supporters state that collecting voluntary data on sexual orientation and gender identity is a necessary first step to understand the extent to which LGBTI communities are experiencing disparities and whether government programs are effectively reaching LGBTI individuals in need of care and assistance.

Rapidly Changing Data Landscape. According to the State Health Access Data Assistance Center, sex (i.e., male, female) has been collected on various types of surveys for many years, dating back to the first iteration of the census in 1790. However, collection of detailed sexual orientation and gender identity data is a relatively new endeavor for many federal and state agencies. The Center further notes that, “[s]ince the beginning of 2025, the landscape of [SOGISC] data collection has shifted again, marking a departure from previous federal policy. Following the recission of the Biden Administration’s EO 14075, which had previously expanded [SOGISC] data collection efforts, a new Executive Order No 14168 (2025), titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, redefines how federal agencies approach sex and gender identity data.”

The Center states that nearly 14 million adults in the United States identify as part of the LGBT community – more than the entire population of Pennsylvania. While research is limited, studies continually find that LGBT people are more likely to experience health, economic, and social disparities than non-LGBT peers.

Additionally, the author of this bill argues that federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. The author’s office states that, for example, “the U.S. Department of Agriculture has sought unprecedented access to detailed data, including information about immigration status, from state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) systems and their contractors, while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has shared immigration information about Medicaid enrollees with the Department of Homeland Security.”

Further compounding the emerging data sharing problem, recent news reports have identified instances of government data handled by the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being compromised and potentially disseminated. A March 11, 2026 article in the Washington Post titled “Whistleblower claims ex-DOGE member says he took Social Security data to new job,” the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) internal watchdog is investigating a complaint alleging “a former U.S. DOGE Service employee claimed he had access to two highly sensitive agency databases and planned to share the information with his private employer – a claim that, if true, would constitute an unprecedented breach of security protocols at an agency that services more than 70 million Americans.”

In response to this, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, recently expanded an investigation of DOGE-related data leaks at the SSA after reporting indicated “a former employee of Elon Musk’s [DOGE] remains in possession of Americans’ personally identifiable Social Security information on a personal device and may also have the ability to remotely manipulate millions oof Americans’ Social Security data.”

Access to data as artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly improving is becoming increasingly valuable. Coined by the British mathematician Clive Humby in 2006, the phrase “data is the new oil” is intended to signify that raw data, like crude oil, is immensely valuable but useless until refined, processed, and analyzed. Today, the federal government has broad access to and utilization of some of the most advanced technology ever created. Examples include Palantir Technologies, a Silicon Valley data-analytics company that builds software used by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. Reporting shows that the federal government has explored using Palantir’s Foundry platform to combine data from multiple agencies such as Health and Human Services, Social Security, and the Internal Revenue Service. Centralized “data fusion” makes it easier to track individuals across different government systems, while AI can quickly automate the process of identifying patterns and behaviors.

History of Government Targeting the LGBTQI Community. The “Lavender Scare” of the 1940s-1960s was a time of intentional and malicious targeting of the LGBTQI community by the federal government under the premise that queer individuals posed a security threat to the country because they could be blackmailed by foreign governments. In 1953, Executive Order 104450 formally barred “sexual perversion” (the term used at the time to describe the LGBTQI community) from federal employment. Federal agencies were tasked with actively investigating employees’ private lives to identify gay people and as a result thousands of federal workers were fired, forced to resign, or publicly outed. Investigations often involved interrogations, surveillance, and pressure to reveal others who might also be gay.

During the mid-20^th century, federal law enforcement agencies also surveilled LGBTQ organizations including monitory groups such as the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay rights organizations, and collecting intelligence files on individuals suspected of homosexuality or “sexual deviance.” The purpose of this monitoring was often political in nature or to intimidate an individual or the LGBTQ community, rather than criminal investigations.

Complicating things further, a 2018 report from the Stanford Graduate School of Business titled “Deep Neural Networks Are More Accurate than Humans at Detecting Sexual Orientation from Facial Images,” claimed that AI could distinguish between gay and heterosexual men with about 81% accuracy from a single photo and about 74% for women. The system used facial features extracted by a deep neural network from over 35,000 images. The study triggered major controversy from critics warning such technology could be dangerous if used for surveillance or discrimination. Many scientists disputed the conclusions and methodology while multiple LGBTQ groups argued it relied on stereotypes rather than biological signals.

Information Practices Act of 1977 Penalties. Among other things, when the Legislature established the Information Practices Act of 1977, it declared that the “right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right to privacy in information pertaining to them.” Further, the Legislature made the following findings, “(a) The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies. (b) The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information. (c) In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits.”

The Information Practices Act of 1977 provides for penalties for the intentional violation of any provision of this specific law or of any rules or regulations adopted thereunder, by an officer or employee of any agency shall constitute a cause for discipline, including termination of employment. Additionally, the Information Practices Act of 1977 states that any person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned more than one year, or both.

Finally, the Information Practices Act of 1997 provides that except for disclosures which are otherwise required or permitted by law, the intentional disclosure of medical, psychiatric, or psychological information in violation of the disclosure provisions of that law is punishable as a misdemeanor if the wrongful disclosure results in economic loss or personal injury to the individual to whom the information pertains. This bill specifies that a violation of this bill is subject to the penalties described under Article 10 (commencing with Section 1798.55) of Chapter 1 of Title 1.8 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Information Practices Act of 1977 described above.

Protecting Personally Identifiable SOGISC Data. This bill restricts personally identifiable information pertaining to SOGISC data collected pursuant to the LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act from being disclosed in a manner allowing personal identification to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state. Additionally, this bill requires information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form, be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

In support of the bill, the author’s office notes that in 2025, “CMS instructed hospitals participating in federally funded programs to provide data on transgender health care, and subsequently, the Department of Justice issued subpoenas for personally identifiable information of transgender patients to at least 20 hospitals, many of them public. In practice, these requests can expose sensitive information about individuals and their families and create risks that data collected to administer benefits or provide services could be used for unrelated purposes, such as immigration enforcement or surveillance.”

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 957 (Wiener, Chapter 868, Statutes of 2024) required, rather than permit, DPH to collect demographic data, including SOGISC, and intersexuality data, from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, unless prohibited by federal or state law, as specified. Added SOGISC to the information reported for the purpose of statewide or local immunization information systems, as specified and requires DPH to prepare an annual report concerning SOGISC data, as specified.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown significant total costs, potentially ranging into the millions to tens of millions of dollars, for affected state agencies to comply with data limitation requirements (General Fund and various special funds). Actual costs to each impacted state agency will depend on their specific data-sharing agreements with entities outside of California state government and the extent to which they may absorb any additional associated IT expenses and workload to redact personally identifiable information.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/14/26)

Equality California (Source)

Access Reproductive Justice
Advocates for Trans Equality
Alliance for Transyouth Liberation
California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus
California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network
California Medical Association
Casita Feliz Latine LGBTQ+ Center
CFT – a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals
Courage California
El/La Para Translatinas
Gender Affirming Professionals
Health Access California
Health Officers Association of California
Oakland Privacy
PFLAG Sacramento
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Rainbow Families Action Bay Area
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Somos Familia Valle
The San Diego LGBT Community Center

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/14/26)

California Family Council

Californians United for Sex-Based Evidence in Policy and Law

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, Equality California writes, in part, “[c]omprehensive data collection is essential to improving services, advancing health equity, and directing resources where they are most needed. As LGBTQ+ populations continue to grow, failing to collect SOGISC data risks rendering these communities invisible and undermining efforts to develop policies that promote equity and improve health outcomes.

“In 2015, California enacted the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act (Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015). This law requires several state agencies—including the Departments of Health Care Services, Public Health, Social Services, and the Department of Aging—to collect voluntary self identification data on sexual orientation and gender identity when gathering demographic information. In 2023, AB 1163 (Chapter 832, Statutes of 2023) expanded these requirements to additional agencies, further strengthening the state’s ability to understand and address disparities affecting LGBTQ+ communities.”

Further, “SB 1114 establishes clear guardrails to ensure SOGISC data cannot be disclosed outside of California state government except in limited circumstances—when explicitly required for participation in a federal or interstate program, or in response to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California. The bill also defines SOGISC to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics, and clarifies that information that could reasonably be used to infer transgender or intersex status is also protected. Finally, SB 1114 extends these protections to SOGISC data collected by public postsecondary education institutions and makes violations subject to existing penalties under the Information Practices Act.

“At a time when LGBTQ+ Californians are increasingly being targeted, SB 1114 ensures that data collected to support our communities cannot later be repurposed to harm them. The bill strikes an important balance—allowing the state to continue collecting important data to address disparities while putting in place strong safeguards to protect individual privacy and safety.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In opposition to the bill, Californians United for Sex-Based Evidence in Policy and Law write that, “[t]here is no need for further protection of personal data for individuals who voluntarily take part in these state mandated surveys. Every bill going back to AB 959 in 2015 says the individual identifying data collected under this data collection mandate must be protected. No mention is made of any breach of the data collected in the last decade.”

Prepared by: Brian Duke / G.O. / (916) 651-1530

5/18/26 15:19:40

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 1114 (Cabaldon) - Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status: disclosure

Bill Summary:

SB 1114 places limitations on specified state entities’ disclosure of information pertaining to orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) collected under the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act (Act).

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on May 14, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown significant total costs, potentially ranging into the millions to tens of millions of dollars, for affected state agencies to comply with data limitation requirements (General Fund and various special funds). Actual costs to each impacted state agency will depend on their specific data-sharing agreements with entities outside of California state government and the extent to which they may absorb any additional associated IT expenses and workload to redact personally identifiable information.

Author Amendments:

• Remove “gender expression” from the definition of information pertaining to SOGISC.
• Specify that information pertaining to SOGISC is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, unless that information is deidentified.
• Expand limitations on the disclosure of information pertaining to SOGISC to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
  • Clarify that these limitations do not apply to the sex marker or gender category currently displayed on a driver’s license or ID card issued by DMV.
• Make other technical and conforming changes.
• Add a coauthor.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 1114 (Cabaldon) - Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status: disclosure

Bill Summary:

SB 1114 places limitations on specified state entities’ disclosure of information pertaining to orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) collected under the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Disparities Reduction Act (Act).

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown significant total costs, potentially ranging into the millions to tens of millions of dollars, for affected state agencies to comply with data limitation requirements (General Fund and various special funds). Actual costs to each impacted state agency will depend on their specific data-sharing agreements with entities outside of California state government and the extent to which they may absorb any additional associated IT expenses and workload to redact personally identifiable information.

Background:

The Act requires the following state agencies to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to SOGISC in the course of collecting other demographic data, directly or by contract:

• Department of Health Care Services
• Department of Public Health
• Department of Social Services
• Department of Aging
• Department of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Commission on Teacher Credentialing
• Civil Rights Department (CRD)
• Labor and Workforce Development Agency
• Department of Industrial Relations
• Employment Training Panel
• Employment Development Department (EDD)
• Department of State Hospitals
• Department of Rehabilitation
• Department of Developmental Services
• Department of Community Services and Development

Proposed Law:

• Defines “information pertaining to SOGISC” as information pertaining to any of the following:
  • A person’s sexual orientation identity.
  • A person’s gender identity or gender expression.
  • A person’s identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person’s sex assigned at birth.
  • Information that could reasonably be used to infer a person’s transgender or intersex status, including:
    • A person’s self-identification as transgender, nonbinary, or a gender other than man/male or woman/female.
    • Information about a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth that is stored or disclosed in a manner that may result in a person being classified as transgender or intersex.
    • Administrative records of gender marker change or documentation submitted in conjunction with a request for gender marker change.
    • Medical information related to transgender or intersex status not otherwise protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).
• Prohibits specified state agencies from disclosing any information pertaining to SOGISC that agency collects from being disclosed in personally identifiable form to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government except if either of the following apply:
  • Pursuant to a contract or data sharing agreement where the reporting of SOGISC elements is an explicit and mandatory condition for participation in a federal or interstate program or survey.
  • Pursuant to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California.
• Requires information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required, as specified.
• Provides that a violation is subject to the penalties described in the IPA.
• Provides that the provisions of the bill are severable.

Staff Comments:

Costs for impacted departments will vary because of differences in their size, operational scope, and the scale and application of their data collection and sharing; however, costs for each entity are anticipated to be significant. For comparison:

• EDD reports ongoing annual costs of approximately $7.2 million General Fund to support additional workload.
• CRD reports costs of approximately $470,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027-28 and $464,000 in FY 2028-29 and ongoing for two attorney positions to review data and documentation pertaining to SOGISC information and interpret privacy laws and contractual and data sharing agreements.

While resource requirements will vary by agency, if the majority of impacted departments share similar needs to those of EDD and CRD, then the bill’s aggregate fiscal impact may reach the tens of millions of dollars.

-- END --

SENATE PRIVACY, DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE

Senator Christopher Cabaldon, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 1114 (Author:Cabaldon)

Version: February 17, 2026

Hearing Date: April 6, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Data collection: sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status: disclosure.

DIGEST

This bill defines “information pertaining to SOGISC,” or sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status, for purposes of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act (“the Act”) and places limitations on the disclosure of such information to entities outside of the state government.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The goal of collecting demographic data is to gather accurate information in order to understand and apply that data to the enhancement and improvement of public services. Given the historic exclusion and erasure of LGBT communities, data collection that provided such insights for these communities was sparse. In response, the Act was passed. It requires various government entities, in the course of collecting other data, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity. The collection and dissemination of such information was subject to clear safeguards and use limitations.

Given the increasingly hostile landscape to LGBTQ rights in this country, California has enacted a swath of laws to protect its residents’ privacy, including a series of laws creating legal shields to certain data sharing and taken a more thoughtful approach to data collection. This bill restricts personally identifiable information pertaining to SOGISC data collected pursuant to the Act from being disclosed to any entity outside of California state government. Additionally, it requires information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception. It further applies these protections to data collected by certain educational institutions. This bill is sponsored by Equality California and the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network. It is supported by a number of groups, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. It is opposed by Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law and the California Family Council. The bill passed out of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on a vote of 11 to 0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act, which requires specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to also collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersexuality. The law provides various methods by which this requirement can be carried out. (Gov. Code § 8310.8.)
2. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 1.)
3. Establishes the Information Practices Act of 1977 (IPA), which declares that the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right of privacy in information pertaining to them. It further states the following legislative findings:
   1. the right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies;
   2. the increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information; and
   3. in order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits. (Civ. Code § 1798 et seq.)
4. Defines “personal information” for purposes of the IPA as any information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. It includes statements made by, or attributed to, the individual. (Civ. Code § 1798.3(a).)
5. Prohibits an agency from disclosing any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains unless the information is disclosed as specified. (Civ. Code § 1798.24.)
6. Provides that an agency that fails to comply with any provisions of the IPA may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction, and, as specified, the agency may be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of actual damages sustained by the individual, including damages for mental suffering, and the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court. (Civ. Code §§ 1798.46-1798.48.)
7. Provides that the intentional violation of any provision of the IPA, or any rules or regulations adopted thereunder, by an officer or employee of an agency shall constitute a cause for discipline, including termination of employment; and further specifies that the intentional disclosure of medical, psychiatric, or psychological information in violation of the disclosure provisions of the IPA is punishable as a misdemeanor if the wrongful disclosure results in economic loss or personal injury to the individual to whom the information pertains. (Civ. Code §§ 1798.55, 1798.57.)
8. Provides that the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of each community college district are requested to, in collecting data relative to gender, race, ethnicity, or other demographics, from faculty, staff, or students, allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect that demographic data, as appropriate. (Educ. Code § 66027.)

This bill:

1. Prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to the Act from being disclosed in personally identifiable form to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the California state government, except if either of the following apply:
   1. Pursuant to a contract or data sharing agreement where the reporting of SOGISC elements is an explicit and mandatory condition for participation in a federal or interstate program or survey.
   2. Pursuant to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California.
2. Requires information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the IPA.
3. Provides that a violation is subject to the penalties described in the IPA.
4. Applies these same restrictions and penalties to information collected by specified educational institutions.
5. Defines “information pertaining to SOGISC” as information pertaining to any of the following:
   1. A person’s sexual orientation identity.
   2. A person’s gender identity or gender expression.
   3. A person’s identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person’s sex assigned at birth.
   4. Information pertaining to SOGISC also includes information that could reasonably be used to infer a person’s transgender or intersex status, as provided.
6. Includes a severability clause.

COMMENTS

1. A brief history of LGBT discrimination and exclusion

There is already clear evidence that the history of societal and institutional exclusion and discrimination against LGBTQ communities has resulted in disparities in health and other outcomes for those communities. Over the past decade, the specific struggles of the transgender and gender nonconforming communities have become part of the American zeitgeist, particularly as various media have explored the institutional challenges facing these communities. A National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that 90 percent of transgender people experienced mistreatment or discrimination at work or took actions to avoid such discrimination.^[1] Nearly 47 percent of those surveyed lost their jobs, were denied a promotion, or were denied a job as a direct result of discrimination because they were transgender. The transgender, gender-nonconforming, and intersex community is experiencing alarming rates of marginalization and disenfranchisement.

A key tool in addressing these issues is more thoughtful and systematic data collection. As the Center for American Progress puts it:

Data collection is an indispensable tool to understand and address challenges facing LGBTQI+ and other sexual and gender-diverse communities. Although strides have been made in recent years, a persistent lack of routine data collection on sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGISC) is still a substantial roadblock for policymakers, researchers, service providers, and advocates seeking to improve the health and well-being of LGBTQI+ people. More comprehensive and accurate point-in-time and longitudinal demographic data on SOGISC are crucial to:

• Advance research agendas
• Evaluate population trends
• Identify community-based needs
• Provide high-quality services
• Track and address discrimination
• Equitably distribute funding and other resources
• Shape evidence-based policy solutions to promote equity and reduce disparities faced by LGBTQI+ populations

As the size and diversity of LGBTQI+ populations in the United States continue to expand, particularly among youth and young adults, the importance of collecting data on these communities only continues to grow. Failing to collect these data can create harms by hindering the ability of researchers, policymakers, service providers, and advocates to understand the experiences of LGBTQI+ communities, identify disparities, generate policies that promote equity, and evaluate the effectiveness of those policies.^[2]

1. Responding to the lack of adequate data collection

To begin to address these issues, AB 959 (Chiu, Ch. 565, Stats. 2015) enacted the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Disparities Reduction Act. The Act requires specified state departments to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity in the course of collecting other demographic data directly or by contract. The Act provides some possible methods for carrying out this data collection. Initially, only four state departments were included. After multiple expansions, 15 departments are now subject to the Act.

The departments are required to report the data collected and the method used to collect that data to the Legislature. They are further required to make the data available to the public in accordance with state and federal law. To ensure the privacy of the individuals involved, the Act specifically prohibits personal identifying information from being disclosed. The departments are further prohibited from reporting any demographic data that would permit identification of individuals or would result in statistical unreliability. The Act provides that demographic reports on data collected may aggregate categories to prevent identification of individuals. This can be done at a state, county, city, census tract, or zip code level to facilitate comparisons and identify disparities.

To provide an additional layer of privacy protection, the state departments are only authorized to use information voluntarily provided about sexual orientation and gender identity for specified purposes, namely demographic analysis, coordination of care, quality improvement of its services, conducting approved research, fulfilling reporting requirements, and guiding policy or funding decisions.

1. Shielding SOGISC information from improper disclosure

Given the sensitive nature of SOGISC information and the increasing hostility from the federal government and other states toward certain communities in California, further limitations on sharing this information with entities outside of the state government are arguably necessary. This bill does this by restricting personally identifiable information pertaining to SOGISC data collected pursuant to the Act from being disclosed to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state. Additionally, this bill requires information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the IPA. These provisions are also applied to such data collected by educational institutions pursuant to Section 66027 of the Education Code.

According to the author:

SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for data related to sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, transgender status, intersex status, and variations in sex characteristics (SOGISC). The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.

Inclusive data collection helps California state agencies better serve diverse communities. But as hostility from the federal government toward communities of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people has grown, so has the need to ensure sensitive information cannot be misused. Federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. While many recent examples involve requests for immigration or health data, they underscore why clear guardrails on data sharing are essential. Similar to other information the state collects, SOGISC data should be protected with strong limitations on when and how it can be shared outside of California state government, especially given the demonstrated hostility of the Trump administration toward LGBTQ+ communities.

1. Stakeholder positions

Writing in support, Equality California, a co-sponsor of this bill, explains the need for these protections:

LGBTQ+ Californians share personal information with state programs because they need essential services—such as food assistance or health coverage—and trust that their data will be used only to administer those programs. However, federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has sought unprecedented access to detailed data, including immigration status, from state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) systems and their contractors. Similarly, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has shared Medicaid enrollee information with the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement. Last year, CMS instructed hospitals participating in federally funded programs to provide detailed data on transgender health care, and the Department of Justice subsequently issued subpoenas for personally identifiable information of transgender patients to at least 20 hospitals. These actions create significant risks that sensitive data collected to administer services could be repurposed for unrelated uses, such as immigration enforcement or surveillance.

SB 1114 establishes clear guardrails to ensure SOGISC data cannot be disclosed outside of California state government except in limited circumstances—when explicitly required for participation in a federal or interstate program, or in response to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California.

Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law writes in opposition:

There is no need for further protection of personal data for individuals who voluntarily take part in these state mandated surveys. Every bill going back to AB 959 in 2015 says the individual identifying data collected under this data collection mandate must be protected. No mention is made of any breach of the data collected in the last decade.

Supporters claim this new bill is needed due to fear that Federal Government investigations into waste, fraud and abuse will result in publicly revealing private and personal information about individuals. Yet there is no explanation of how nor why, exactly, the Federal Government’s investigations would do that. Supporters raise the specter of the “Lavender Scare” and government investigations of Gay and Lesbian activist organizations- situations that occurred 50-80 years ago and had nothing to do with investigations of fraud. Also mentioned are concerns about AI facial recognition- which is not in any way addressed by this bill. Why the dishonest scaremongering?

The California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus has identified this as a caucus priority bill and writes: “At a time when sensitive personal information is increasingly vulnerable to misuse, SB 1114 ensures California can continue collecting critical demographic data to improve public services while protecting the privacy and safety of LGBTQ+ individuals and other vulnerable populations.”

SUPPORT

California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network (co-sponsor)

Equality California (co-sponsor)
Advocates for Trans Equality

Alliance for TransYouth Liberation

California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus

Courage California

El/la Para Translatinas

Gender Affirming Professionals

Health Access California

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

Rainbow Families Action Bay Area

San Francisco Aids Foundation

Somos Familia Valle

OPPOSITION

California Family Council

Cause: Californians United for Sex-based Evidence in Policy and Law

RELATED LEGISLATION

SB 957 (Wiener, Ch. 868, Stats. 2024) required, rather than permitted, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to collect demographic data, including SOGISC, data, from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, unless prohibited by federal or state law, as specified. It added SOGISC to the information reported for the purpose of statewide or local immunization information systems, as specified and requires CDPH to prepare an annual report concerning SOGISC data, as specified.

AB 1163 (Luz Rivas, Ch. 832, Stats. 2023) expanded the data collection obligations of the Act to three additional agencies.

AB 1797 (Weber, Ch. 582, Stats. 2022) required, rather than permitted, health care providers and specified agencies that have access to immunization information to disclose certain information from a patient medical record or a client record to CDPH and local health departments. It added “patient’s or client’s race and ethnicity” to the list of information collected for purposes of immunization information and reminder systems.

SB 932 (Wiener, Ch. 183, Stats. 2020) required any electronic tool used by LHOs for the purpose of reporting cases of communicable disease to CDPH to include the capacity to collect and report SOGI data of individuals who are diagnosed with a reportable disease, and requires health care providers who are in attendance on a case of a reportable disease to report the patient’s sexual orientation and gender identity, if known.

AB 2677 (Chiu, Ch. 744, Stats. 2017) also expanded the list of state entities to which the Act applies.

AB 532 (McCarty, Ch. 433, Stats. 2015) required any state agency, board, or commission that collects demographic data to provide forms that offer respondents the option of identifying as multiracial and selecting one or more ethnic or racial designations.

AB 959 (Chiu, Ch. 565, Stats. 2015) See Comment 2.

AB 1088 (Eng, Ch. 689, Stats. 2011) required certain state agencies to collect and tabulate data for additional major Asian groups, as listed, in order to better reflect the diversity of Asian American, Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities in California.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Governmental Organization Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 0)

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

1. Jaime M. Grant et al., Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (2011) National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf. All internet citations are current as of March 28, 2026. ↑

2. Collecting Data About LGBTQI+ and Other Sexual and Gender-Diverse Communities (May 24, 2022) Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/collecting-data-about-lgbtqi-and-other-sexual-and-gender-diverse-communities/. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

Senator Susan Rubio

Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 3/24/2026

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill prohibits information pertaining to sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics/intersex status (SOGISC) collected by state entities, as specified, from being disclosed in personally identifiable form to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state, subject to certain exceptions, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires, pursuant to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Disparities Reduction Act, the State Department of Public Health (DPH), among other specified state entities, in the course of collecting demographic data directly or by contract as to the ancestry or ethnic origin of Californians, to collect voluntary self-identification information pertaining to SOGISC, as specified.
2. Prescribes, pursuant to the Information Practices Act of 1977, a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as specified.
3. Provides that a person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses is guilty of a misdemeanor.
4. Establishes the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges (CCC) as the three segments of public postsecondary education in the state, as specified.
5. Requests the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the governing board of each community college district to allow the faculty, staff, and students to identify their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression on any forms used to collect specified demographic data and to report that data, as specified.

This bill:

1. Prohibits information pertaining to SOGISC collected pursuant to existing law from being disclosed in personally identifiable form to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state, except if either of the following apply:
   1. Pursuant to a contract or data sharing agreement where the reporting SOGISC elements is an explicit and mandatory condition for participation in a federal or interstate program or survey.
   2. Pursuant to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California.
2. Limits the information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977, as specified.
3. Provides that any person who commits a violation of this bill shall be subject to existing penalties established by the Information Practices Act of 1977, as specified.
4. Provides that information collected by the UC, CSU, or CCCs pursuant to existing law is subject to the disclosure restrictions established by this bill and existing penalties, as specified.
5. Defines “information pertaining to SOGISC” to mean information pertaining to any of the following:
   1. A person’s sexual orientation identity.
   2. A person’s gender identity or gender expression.
   3. A person’s identification as intersex, or identification as possessing sex characteristics that vary from those typically associated with a person’s sex assigned at birth.
   4. Information pertaining to SOGISC also includes information that could reasonably be used to infer a person’s transgender or intersex status, as specified.
6. Provides that the provisions of this bill are severable. If any provision of this bill or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
7. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill for a specified reason.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “SB 1114 protects LGBTQ+ Californians from discrimination and harm by strengthening privacy protections for highly sensitive data related to [SOGISC]. The bill restricts California state agencies from sharing SOGISC data outside state government and limits disclosure to narrow circumstances.”

Further, “inclusive data collection helps California state agencies better serve diverse communities. But as hostility from the federal government toward communities of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ people has grown, so has the need to ensure sensitive information cannot be misused. Federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. While many recent examples involve requests for immigration or health data, they underscore why clear guardrails on data sharing are essential. Similar to other sensitive information the state collects, SOGISC data should be protected with strong limitations on when and how it can be shared outside of California state government, especially given the demonstrated hostility of the Trump administration toward LGBTQ+ communities.”

The LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act. Established by AB 959 (Chiu, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015), the LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act (Act) was intended to reduce health and well-being disparities for LGBTI communities be ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity data is collected on a statewide basis by key government agencies that deal with health and human services.

According to the Senate Floor analysis of that bill at the time, “[s]tate government agencies routinely collect demographic data on race, ethnicity, gender, and disability on a wide variety of state forms and surveys. The purpose of this data is to help better understand disparities in underserved communities. Current law only requires any state agency, board, or commission that directly, or by contract, collects demographic data to separate the collection of this data by major Asian groups. The law is silent on demographic data collection based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Since 2015, the Act has been amended to, among other things, expand the list of state entities required to collect voluntary self-identification information on SOGISC to include various education and employment-related agencies; expand the list of state entities to include the Department of State Hospitals (DHS), the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), he Department of Developmental Services (DDS), and the Department of Community Services and Development (DCSD); and to require, rather than permit, DPH to collect demographic data, including SOGISC data from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, as specified.

As noted in previous Senate analyses on the topic, LGBTI communities face disproportionately high rates of poverty, suicide, homelessness, isolation, substance abuse, and violence, and low rates of health insurance. These issues are more prevalent for youth and seniors, communities of color, and transgender and undocumented communities. Supporters state that collecting voluntary data on sexual orientation and gender identity is a necessary first step to understand the extent to which LGBTI communities are experiencing disparities and whether government programs are effectively reaching LGBTI individuals in need of care and assistance.

Rapidly Changing Data Landscape. According to the State Health Access Data Assistance Center, sex (i.e., male, female) has been collected on various types of surveys for many years, dating back to the first iteration of the census in 1790. However, collection of detailed sexual orientation and gender identity data is a relatively new endeavor for many federal and state agencies. The Center further notes that, “[s]ince the beginning of 2025, the landscape of [SOGISC] data collection has shifted again, marking a departure from previous federal policy. Following the recission of the Biden Administration’s EO 14075, which had previously expanded [SOGISC] data collection efforts, a new Executive Order No 14168 (2025), titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, redefines how federal agencies approach sex and gender identity data.”

The Center states that nearly 14 million adults in the United States identify as part of the LGBT community – more than the entire population of Pennsylvania. While research is limited, studies continually find that LGBT people are more likely to experience health, economic, and social disparities than non-LGBT peers.

Additionally, the author of this bill argues that federal agencies have increasingly sought expanded access to state-held data, often framed as efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. The author’s office states that, for example, “the U.S. Department of Agriculture has sought unprecedented access to detailed data, including information about immigration status, from state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) systems and their contractors, while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has shared immigration information about Medicaid enrollees with the Department of Homeland Security.”

Further compounding the emerging data sharing problem, recent news reports have identified instances of government data handled by the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being compromised and potentially disseminated. A March 11, 2026 article in the Washington Post titled “Whistleblower claims ex-DOGE member says he took Social Security data to new job,” the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) internal watchdog is investigating a complaint alleging “a former U.S. DOGE Service employee claimed he had access to two highly sensitive agency databases and planned to share the information with his private employer – a claim that, if true, would constitute an unprecedented breach of security protocols at an agency that services more than 70 million Americans.”

In response to this, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, recently expanded an investigation of DOGE-related data leaks at the SSA after reporting indicated “a former employee of Elon Musk’s [DOGE] remains in possession of Americans’ personally identifiable Social Security information on a personal device and may also have the ability to remotely manipulate millions oof Americans’ Social Security data.”

Access to data as artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly improving is becoming increasingly valuable. Coined by the British mathematician Clive Humby in 2006, the phrase “data is the new oil” is intended to signify that raw data, like crude oil, is immensely valuable but useless until refined, processed, and analyzed. Today, the federal government has broad access to and utilization of some of the most advanced technology ever created. Examples include Palantir Technologies, a Silicon Valley data-analytics company that builds software used by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. Reporting shows that the federal government has explored using Palantir’s Foundry platform to combine data from multiple agencies such as Health and Human Services, Social Security, and the Internal Revenue Service. Centralized “data fusion” makes it easier to track individuals across different government systems, while AI can quickly automate the process of identifying patterns and behaviors.

History of Government Targeting the LGBTQI Community. The “Lavender Scare” of the 1940s-1960s was a time of intentional and malicious targeting of the LGBTQI community by the federal government under the premise that queer individuals posed a security threat to the country because they could be blackmailed by foreign governments. In 1953, Executive Order 104450 formally barred “sexual perversion” (the term used at the time to describe the LGBTQI community) from federal employment. Federal agencies were tasked with actively investigating employees’ private lives to identify gay people and as a result thousands of federal workers were fired, forced to resign, or publicly outed. Investigations often involved interrogations, surveillance, and pressure to reveal others who might also be gay.

During the mid-20^th century, federal law enforcement agencies also surveilled LGBTQ organizations including monitory groups such as the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay rights organizations, and collecting intelligence files on individuals suspected of homosexuality or “sexual deviance.” The purpose of this monitoring was often political in nature or to intimidate an individual or the LGBTQ community, rather than criminal investigations.

Complicating things further, a 2018 report from the Stanford Graduate School of Business titled “Deep Neural Networks Are More Accurate than Humans at Detecting Sexual Orientation from Facial Images,” claimed that AI could distinguish between gay and heterosexual men with about 81% accuracy from a single photo and about 74% for women. The system used facial features extracted by a deep neural network from over 35,000 images. The study triggered major controversy from critics warning such technology could be dangerous if used for surveillance or discrimination. Many scientists disputed the conclusions and methodology while multiple LGBTQ groups argued it relied on stereotypes rather than biological signals.

Information Practices Act of 1977 Penalties. Among other things, when the Legislature established the Information Practices Act of 1977, it declared that the “right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right to privacy in information pertaining to them.” Further, the Legislature made the following findings, “(a) The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies. (b) The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information. (c) In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits.”

The Information Practices Act of 1977 provides for penalties for the intentional violation of any provision of this specific law or of any rules or regulations adopted thereunder, by an officer or employee of any agency shall constitute a cause for discipline, including termination of employment. Additionally, the Information Practices Act of 1977 states that any person who willfully requests or obtains any record containing personal information from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned more than one year, or both.

Finally, the Information Practices Act of 1997 provides that except for disclosures which are otherwise required or permitted by law, the intentional disclosure of medical, psychiatric, or psychological information in violation of the disclosure provisions of that law is punishable as a misdemeanor if the wrongful disclosure results in economic loss or personal injury to the individual to whom the information pertains.

This bill specifies that a violation of this bill is subject to the penalties described under Article 10 (commencing with Section 1798.55) of Chapter 1 of Title 1.8 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Information Practices Act of 1977 described above.

Protecting Personally Identifiable SOGISC Data. This bill restricts personally identifiable information pertaining to SOGISC data collected pursuant to the LGBTI Disparities Reduction Act from being disclosed to any entity outside of California state government, or a vendor contracted to provide services to the state. Additionally, this bill requires information pertaining to SOGISC reported in an identifiable form be limited to the minimal extent required to meet the applicable exception, and in compliance with the Information Practices Act of 1977.

In support of the bill, the author’s office notes that in 2025, “CMS instructed hospitals participating in federally funded programs to provide data on transgender health care, and subsequently, the Department of Justice issued subpoenas for personally identifiable information of transgender patients to at least 20 hospitals, many of them public. In practice, these requests can expose sensitive information about individuals and their families and create risks that data collected to administer benefits or provide services could be used for unrelated purposes, such as immigration enforcement or surveillance.”

Prior/Related Legislation

SB 957 (Wiener, Chapter 868, Statutes of 2024) required, rather than permit, DPH to collect demographic data, including SOGISC, and intersexuality data, from third parties on any forms or electronic data systems, unless prohibited by federal or state law, as specified. Added SOGISC to the information reported for the purpose of statewide or local immunization information systems, as specified and requires DPH to prepare an annual report concerning SOGISC data, as specified.

AB 1163 (L. Rivas, Chapter 832, Statutes of 2023) expanded the list of state entities required to collect voluntary self-identification information on SOGISC to include the DSH, the DOR, DDS, and the DCSD.

AB 677 (Chiu, Chapter 744, Statutes of 2017) expanded the list of state entities required to collect voluntary self-identification information on SOGISC to include various education and employment-related agencies.

AB 959 (Chiu, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2015) required the Department of Health Care Services, DPH, DSS, and the Department of Aging to collect voluntary self-identification information on sexual orientation and gender identify, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT:

Equality California (Source)

California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network

OPPOSITION:

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, Equality California writes, in part, “SB 1114 establishes clear guardrails and ensures SOGISC data cannot be disclosed outside of California state government except in limited circumstances – when explicitly required for participation in a federal or interstate program, or in response to a subpoena or warrant that is valid and enforceable in California. The bill also defines SOGISC to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in sex characteristics, and clarifies that information that could reasonably be used to infer transgender or intersex status is also protected. Finally, SB 1114 extends these protections to SOGISC data collected by public postsecondary education institutions and makes violations subject to existing penalties under the Information Practices Act.”

DUAL REFERRAL: Senate Governmental Organization Committee and Senate Privacy, Data Technology, & Consumer Protection Committee