Transparency Tax? California’s $66 Shock

California Democrats are pushing a bill that would slap steep hourly fees on public records and even drag requesters into court for “malicious intent,” putting a price tag on transparency and a target on watchdogs.

Story Snapshot

Assembly Bill 1821 would let California agencies charge $22 to $66 per hour to search and review some records.
The bill would allow agencies to ask a judge to label a requester “malicious” and then charge them hourly fees.
Critics say the plan guts California’s open records law and violates the spirit of the state constitution’s right to information.
Supporters, including local government groups, claim they only want relief from a small number of heavy, “abusive” requests.

What AB 1821 Would Do to Public Records Access

Assembly Bill 1821, by Democrat Blanca Pacheco, would overhaul how Californians ask for and receive public records by adding new fees, new delays, and new limits on how people can even file a request.^[2] Under current law, agencies can charge for making copies but not for staff time spent searching, reviewing, or redacting records.^[6] AB 1821 would flip that idea on its head by building hourly labor charges and longer timelines into the records process.^[2]

The bill would let agencies label some requests as “commercial use” and then charge hourly fees to cover the time staff spend searching for and reviewing those records before release.^[2]^[4] News reports and bill summaries say those fees could range from about $22 per hour in “administrative” costs to about $66 per hour in “professional” time, which could push the cost of a large request into the hundreds or thousands of dollars.^[1]^[4] That is on top of any copying charges already allowed by law.^[2]

Malicious-Intent Lawsuits and New Legal Risks for Requesters

AB 1821 would also open a new legal weapon for agencies by letting them go to court and ask a judge to declare that a requester acted with “malicious intent.”^[2]^[4] If the court agrees, the agency could then charge hourly search and review fees even if the request is not commercial, and the duty to respond to the request would be put on hold while the case is pending.^[2] That means a citizen asking hard questions could suddenly find themselves in a courtroom, with their request frozen until a judge rules.

Supporters claim this lawsuit power is aimed at rare cases where requests are used to harass staff or bog down operations, not at ordinary people or reporters.^[1] But California has long enforced its public records law by letting requesters sue agencies that hide records, not the other way around.^[12] Transparency advocates warn that flipping the script so agencies can sue requesters will scare off whistleblowers, community groups, and small conservative outlets that cannot afford legal fights with big-city governments.^[4]

Higher Costs, Longer Delays, and Who Gets Exempted

Current guides on the California Public Records Act stress that the process is meant to be “in many respects cost-free” for the requester, with agencies barred from charging for searching, reviewing, or redacting records.^[12] AB 1821 would carve a large hole in that principle by letting agencies bill for staff time when they decide a request is for “commercial, trade, or profit interests,” language modeled on the federal Freedom of Information Act.^[4] While the bill exempts journalists, educational and noncommercial scientific institutions, and government agencies themselves from these commercial-use fees, most regular citizens and many small businesses would not be exempt.^[2]^[4]

On top of new costs, the bill would stretch out the response clock. Today, agencies generally must say what is disclosable within ten calendar days and can extend by fourteen calendar days in limited cases.^[7] Pacheco’s bill would shift those deadlines to ten and fourteen business days and would only guarantee those timelines if the request is filed in person or by email during normal business hours.^[4]^[7] People who use mail, fax, or online portals would lose clear protection, leaving them at the mercy of the agency’s schedule.^[4]

Why Conservatives See a Direct Threat to Accountability

California voters wrote a right of access to government information into their state constitution, and courts have warned that search and redaction fees can undermine that right by pricing people out.^[5]^[6] That is why, for decades, agencies have generally had to eat the cost of staff time when they respond to records requests, and requesters who win in court can recover their attorney fees from the government.^[8]^[12] Critics say AB 1821 would gut that balance by turning access into a pay-to-play system that favors big media outlets and well-funded interest groups over everyday citizens.^[4]^[5]

Is anyone else watching what’s happening in Sacramento right now? The hypocrisy is honestly unreal.
Right now, Gavin Newsom is using taxpayer-funded staff to file aggressive federal FOIA requests demanding the DOJ hand over records about the investigations into him and his wife.… pic.twitter.com/GhlyMLQbFr

— Mike Netter (@nettermike) June 20, 2026

For conservatives, the danger is clear: a blue-state legislature that already pushed soft-on-crime laws, sanctuary policies, and heavy green mandates now wants the power to charge you up to $66 an hour to see what it is doing and to haul you into court if it decides your questions are “malicious.”^[1]^[4] At a time when federal courts and state courts have been key checks on overreach, making it harder and riskier to dig into local and state records means less sunlight on everything from election administration to school curriculum and city spending.